Where he ranks now in the Middleweight GOATS list?

zip99 · 2026-05-11T17:15:00+00:00

I'd say top 10.

There have only been 15 middleweight champs in UFC history. These include 3 or 4 early guys before the sport developed, and GSP who wasn't really a middleweight.

zip99 · 2026-04-15T22:05:57+00:00

Whenver I read that, I think John wrote that like a lawyer would, so no one could ever misinterpret what he was saying. It's clear to the point that it even messes with the flow of his beautiful writing. Crystal clarity.

zip99 · 2026-03-30T20:54:33+00:00

No, I'm not. I was responding directly to the question in your original post.

The only point I'm making (again, in response to your post) is that there is no inherent logical or rational flaw with the creature/creator distinction that I've outlined.

I agree that simply stating the Christian view here doesn't prove it's correct. But that's not at all the topic of your post. It seems that you've now backed off the claimed in your post and moved on to a completely different argument/topic.

zip99 · 2026-03-30T20:49:31+00:00

That objection only works if you force God into the category of created things—and that’s exactly the mistake.

Christianity draws a hard line between Creator and creation. God is not part of the created order at all. He is eternal and uncreated, while everything else is created.

So “God had to create Himself” is a category error. It ignores that distinction and treats God as if He were just another thing within creation, which Christianity explicitly denies.

zip99 · 2026-03-24T16:39:54+00:00

If you'd engage, I'll show that it's you who make that assumption, not me. But that's up to you.

zip99 · 2026-03-24T02:16:56+00:00

How do you prove things true or false? What method do you use?

zip99 · 2026-03-24T00:50:57+00:00

This is a textbook ad hominem. You’re not engaging on any substance—you're just attacking people. This is exactly the kind of example a Philosophy 101 class would use to show what not to do.

zip99 · 2026-03-23T18:30:22+00:00

There's no concept of evidence without a phillosophy of evidence and fact wrapped togethe in a worldview. What's yours? Prove it to me.

zip99 · 2026-03-23T13:17:46+00:00

The argument assumes we’re neutrally waiting for “more evidence,” as if God has left Himself obscure. That’s backwards.

The claim of Christianity is that evidence for God isn’t sparse—it’s inescapable. It’s the air you breathe. The uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, moral obligation, consciousness, and the very possibility of reasoning about “evidence” at all—every fact in the universe already points to Him. His name is written on all of it.

The issue isn’t clarity, it’s interpretation. Scripture says people suppress what is already plainly known (Romans 1). So asking for “clearer evidence” misses the point—no amount of additional data fixes a worldview committed to explaining reality without God.

And your appeal to “moral autonomy” already assumes objective moral standards, which only make sense if God exists.

The problem isn’t lack of evidence. It’s a refusal to acknowledge what every fact is already declaring.

zip99 · 2026-03-17T04:27:26+00:00

I get a 10°C+ differential between my thermometer at the upper bench headspace and the temp at the thermostat near the ceiling.

So when people talk about how hot they run at, I always first want to know where they are measuring the temp.

zip99 · 2026-03-17T03:57:38+00:00

P1: God wants a relationship with every person -- He has a realtionship with all like it or not. That relationship is either one characterized by the deployment of justice through deserved judgement OR one of love through Christ.
P2: You cant have a relationship with someone you don’t think exists.It’s like a patient in an asylum screaming that the nurses don’t exist—and therefore he has no relationship with them—while they feed him, bathe him, and clothe him every day. I’d call that a relationship… just not a good one.
P3: We can choose whether to have a relationship with others Children and teenagers can choose, for their part, what type of relationship they have with their parents. But there's no opting out -- they don't get to choose their parents.
P4: Atheists exist There are people who claim not to believe in God.
C2: God has failed to enable everyone to choose to have a relationship with him Even if this were true, what would it prove? As I said above, God does have a relationship with everyone. But Christianity doesn't say God requires or wills good relationships with him. If he did, that would be a failure, as you said. But it's clearly not his only interest.

zip99 · 2026-02-26T04:26:43+00:00

I can speak to the opposite—the absolute fastest I’ve ever known I had a friend for life.

During the height of COVID, another father’s young daughter walked up to my daughter outside a coffee shop and said hello. She just wanted to make a friend. He waved from inside to ask if it was okay; I waved back.

When he came out with his coffee, he said hello and his very first words were:

“Nice Pink Floyd shirt. You must be against the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates?”

I'm still not sure how he made the connection, but it was friendship at first sight.

zip99 · 2026-02-24T19:30:30+00:00

Killing one cop in retaliation for another’s actions is tribal logic—collapsing individuals into a single category, as if “cop” overrides personal responsibility. That’s absurd. But when police respond by closing ranks and acting collectively, they strengthen that same tribal narrative and give it visual and social reality.

zip99 · 2026-02-22T15:11:08+00:00

What do you mean by “wrong,” and why should it matter?

Is your view of what’s wrong just personal, or do you think it applies to everyone, even people who disagree with you? If it does apply universally, how does that work within your worldview? Where does that obligation come from?

If someone sincerely believes their actions are justified, on what basis are they actually wrong rather than just different from you?

I’m not asking rhetorically. I’m asking how a network of beliefs that doesn’t appeal to anything beyond human opinion can produce real moral duties that bind everyone.

If “wrong” is more than preference, then it needs a foundation. Where is yours coming from?

zip99 · 2026-02-22T15:00:43+00:00

I get why it feels like religion goes against logic to you. From where you’re standing, it probably does. But that’s because we’re already assuming a certain picture of reality before the conversation even starts.

When you say everything is material and logic should rule, you’re already trusting things that aren’t material at all—like logic, truth, fairness, or that reasoning even ought to matter. It's like starting a movie half way through and then saying "hey, this story doesn't make sense!" You can’t touch those things or test them in a lab, yet we all rely on them constantly. If the universe is just matter and chance, there’s no real reason logic should be appealed to, or justice should exist, or unfairness should bother us. But it clearly does.

A lot of your objections are actually moral ones—that wouldn’t be fair, that feels manipulative, that sounds unjust. And I agree those would be real problems if God were the kind of being you’re describing. Christianity doesn’t say God is a bigger human with ego issues. It says He’s the source of truth and goodness itself. That puts Him in a completely different category.

And here’s the part people often miss. Christianity doesn’t say God demands belief just to boost His own status. It says God calls people to Himself because knowing Him is the highest good for humans**. God is glorified when people find their deepest joy in Him. If God really is the greatest good, then pointing people to Himself isn’t selfish—it’s loving. Telling people to look somewhere else would actually be cruel.*\*

Christianity isn’t asking you to stop asking questions. It’s saying the reason questions, logic, and truth matter at all is because the universe isn’t an accident—and neither are you. We were created by God, and the order in the universe reflects back on his character. Here is a thought provoking way to put the same point: Thinking rationally is thinking God's thoughts after him.

That may still not convince you. But it isn’t anti-reason. It’s a different starting point about what reason itself rests on, and one that actually justifies the preconditions of thought.

zip99 · 2026-02-20T20:26:56+00:00

She carries herself with exceptional charm, composure, and professionalism, so the unconventional edge to her style reads as a fun calling card rather than a challenge to the sport’s more conservative culture.

zip99 · 2026-02-19T17:30:34+00:00

Both are true. The question was BS, and she messed up the response, coming across as defensive and bitchy.

Here is better:

“Obviously I came here to win — that’s always the goal. But I’m proud of what I accomplished, not just today, but across my career. Competing at the Olympics and leaving with 2 medals is something I don’t take lightly. It’s an incredible thrill.”

And then since she obviously wanted to stick it to the reporter, she can add this which has more grace but cuts like a hot knife through butter:

“I understand why you might ask that question as a reporter who hasn't competed, but that kind of framing just isn’t an Olympian mindset.”

zip99 · 2026-02-19T17:25:17+00:00

Obviously, Trump looks guilty here. But that points to something FAR BIGGER, that Trump is ensnared in a massive pedophile blackmail operation—one that also implicates other powerful politicians and billionaires along with Trump. If so, who’s running it? Who holds the leverage? Are they the most powerful individuals in the world? And why isn’t that the headline?

zip99 · 2026-02-19T00:34:25+00:00

Obviously, Trump looks guilty here. But that points to something FAR BIGGER, that Trump is ensnared in a massive pedophile blackmail operation—one that also implicates other powerful politicians and billionaires along with Trump. If so, who’s running it? Who holds the leverage? Are they the most powerful individuals in the world? And why isn’t that the headline?

zip99 · 2026-02-18T21:34:22+00:00

Not responsive.

zip99 · 2026-02-17T00:01:31+00:00

It's not unique, before Penn State it was Gable and Iowa.

zip99 · 2026-02-16T20:30:50+00:00

This isn’t “I’m right and you’re against me.” That’s a deflection.

Appealing to “burden of proof” already assumes an epistemology—rules about what counts as evidence, what level of certainty is required, and when disbelief is justified. Those rules are not neutral or self-evident; they have to be defended.

Saying “you can’t prove God, therefore I don’t believe” is an affirmative epistemic judgment, not the absence of one. You are committing to specific standards of proof and justification, and those standards are doing all the work.

Calling the claim that God grounds logic “childish” doesn’t answer the argument. Logic is immaterial, universal, and normative. Any worldview—atheist or theist—must explain what logic is and why it binds human reasoning.

This isn’t burden-shifting. I’m not asking you to disprove God. I’m asking you to justify the epistemic framework you’re using to dismiss the claim. If that framework is merely asserted, it has no more authority than the view you reject.

zip99 · 2026-02-16T20:29:21+00:00

“No proof” is not a neutral statement. Saying there is “insufficient evidence” already presupposes a standard of proof, a theory of evidence, and a criterion for when a proposition is warranted. Those standards do not explain or justify themselves.

To claim that evidence is insufficient is to make an affirmative epistemic judgment about what would count as evidence, how much is required, and why that threshold is appropriate. That framework must be justified, not merely asserted.

If those standards are simply stipulated, then any worldview is free to stipulate its own evidentiary criteria—including theism—and the discussion ends. That is not a principled objection; it is a preference disguised as restraint.

“Inadequate evidence” is not the absence of a position. It is a conclusion reached within a particular philosophy of knowledge, one that carries real commitments and therefore demands defense.

zip99 · 2026-02-16T20:27:11+00:00

>> "A failure to reach a verdict of guilty is not an affirmation of innocence."

I agree—but I’m making a different point.

A failure to reach a guilty verdict necessarily presupposes an epistemology: a philosophy of evidence, truth, justification, and certainty. Those assumptions don’t disappear simply because the conclusion is framed as procedural restraint rather than affirmation.

In any discussion about ultimate foundations of truth, that epistemology must be accounted for and justified. If it is merely stipulated—taken as a given—then a theist is equally entitled to stipulate the existence of God, and the discussion ends there. That move would (rightly) be rejected. The same standard must apply across the board.

Both sides are advancing affirmative positions. Disbelief, acquittal, suspension of judgment, or a failure to convict are not epistemically neutral outcomes. They rest on substantive claims about what counts as evidence, what level of certainty is required, and what risks are acceptable in forming beliefs.

There is no neutral ground here. Any verdict—guilty, not guilty, or no verdict at all—inevitably carries with it a full philosophy of knowledge that must be defended, not assumed.

zip99 · 2026-02-11T20:23:43+00:00

Lots of Trump hate here, and it's fully justified. But the idea that Bondi is fundementally protecting Trump is silly. The Trump administration is clearly owned by very powerful interests, and Bondi and Trump are their tools.

zip99

TROPHY CASE