Srdjan speaks again, 10 more slams for his son

[Karma Tennis]

As an atheist I find God statement crazy..

Whether his statement is crazy or not depends on whether you are an "Implicit atheist" or an "Explicit atheist".

Either way, you are probably an Agnostic rather than an Atheist.

However, one thing you can focus your beliefs on ... Novak is going to end up being the modern GOAT !!!

 

[vladap]

Srdjan is a messenger from God. His name, translated from the ancient Sanskrit, means- he who knows God's ways

 

[Backspin1183]

Yes, but when Srdjan wasn't right? He is always right, lol...

Yup, and this is what he said about his son, "I don't know why Novak still playing tennis. He is already 34. Raise children, go ski, do something different."

 

[beard]

Whether his statement is crazy or not depends on whether you are an "Implicit atheist" or an "Explicit atheist".

Either way, you are probably an Agnostic rather than an Atheist.

However, one thing you can focus your beliefs on ... Novak is going to end up being the modern GOAT !!!

I know what agnostic means, and no I'm not agnostic... I am just plain atheist... don't believe in any high power that exist... simple as that...
Off course, believing in God can run man in behaving differently, being better which is nice, but worst too (that's why I despite organized religions, they brought, and still bring, so much suffering and dividing to the world).
So, Novak believing in God can certainly help him, but every time he does something religious I do this

 

[beard]

Yup, and this is what he said about his son, "I don't know why Novak still playing tennis. He is already 34. Raise children, go ski, do something different."

He did not...
He said those words to Federer, who in that age was beaten by Novak here and there... Novak at 34 is running champion of 3/4 slams, won last 2 slams, no1 player in the world...

 

[MS_07]

http://en.yibada.com/articles/10950...god-he-can-win-10-more-grand-slams-srdjan.htm

some notable quotes:
Surely he will be one ofthe bestsportsmen ever. All of this it's because he was sent from God.As a family, we tried to make God's wish come true. He can win other 10 Grand Slams," Srdjan stressed

as if god has no other work to do

other god sent guys started chritianity islam , got crusified , fought war , set an example , showed ppl right ways to live.
and this will win 30 GS

 

[Karma Tennis]

I know what agnostic means, and no I'm not agnostic... I am just plain atheist... don't believe in any high power that exist... simple as that...

It is impossible for you to be an atheist. Atheist means someone who does not know about gods or deities. (That is what atheism is ... no knowledge or understanding of theism.)

You used the word "God" in your posts. You also mention "higher power". That means you understand the concept. But you do not believe in gods or deities so by definition that makes you agnostic (i.e. having knowledge or understanding of the concept of gods, deities and "higher powers" but not believing in them.)

The only people who could (!) be truly atheist are babies and people who have serious dementia related illnesses.

I despite organized religions, they brought, and still bring, so much suffering and dividing to the world).

Organised Religions have also brought and still bring a lot of good and are a uniting force. It is very easy to blame a large group for the actions of some individuals within that group. But never forget ... "Religions are the constructs of Man NOT God!"

In any case "Faith" trumps "Religion" every time. Faith is the key because it cuts out the middle man

Anyway, atheist or agnostic, one thing for sure ... Djokovic is going to get to 21 Major Titles. And his father and mother had a lot to do with him getting there regardless of their beliefs.

 

[beard]

It is impossible for you to be an atheist. Atheist means someone who does not know about gods or deities. (That is what atheism is ... no knowledge or understanding of theism.)

You used the word "God" in your posts. You also mention "higher power". That means you understand the concept. But you do not believe in gods or deities so by definition that makes you agnostic (i.e. having knowledge or understanding of the concept of gods, deities and "higher powers" but not believing in them.)

The only people who could (!) be truly atheist are babies and people who have serious dementia related illnesses.



Organised Religions have also brought and still bring a lot of good and are a uniting force. It is very easy to blame a large group for the actions of some individuals within that group. But never forget ... "Religions are the constructs of Man NOT God!"

In any case "Faith" trumps "Religion" every time. Faith is the key because it cuts out the middle man

Anyway, atheist or agnostic, one thing for sure ... Djokovic is going to get to 21 Major Titles. And his father and mother had a lot to do with him getting there regardless of their beliefs.

You cant know what I believe or not
We could alk on this subjet a lot, but this is not the place...

Anyway, I agree Novak will get his 21th slam, and a lot more...

 

[Sunny014]

Srdjan is a modern day prophet

 

[StannisTheMannis]

"He was sent from God"
"He can win 10 more Slams"

Based on these 2 statements alone I think Srdjan needs to have his brain checked.

Tough scenes.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

No wonder this forum is having a mental breakdown about Novak becoming the goat.

 

[Nadal_Django]

Imagine Novak wins 21 slams. Will he gain your respect ha?

Almost there...

Maybe Srdjan was a little bit conservative in his estimations, huh.

 

[Enceladus]

In the end, it will turns out that Srdjan underestimated Nole's potential.

 

[CCPass]

In the end, it will turns out that Srdjan underestimated Nole's potential.

25+ at least.

 

[Street]

Srdjan isn't very likeable but it seems he knows more about tennis than every tennis expert on this forum.

 

[mika1979]

So sayeth the shepherd

 

[RF-18]

Srdjan knew what he was talking about. Everyone humiliated him, but in the end he proved how much he knew his own son and how good he was, and always believed in him. Respect!

 

[RunDatGame]

Almost there...

Maybe Srdjan was a little bit conservative in his estimations, huh.

Lol indeed.

 

[Tennis_Freak99]

Na na na na na...It's the one and only d o g g

 

[Sunny014]

All hail the true alpha male of Tennis - Lord Srdjan Djokovic

 

[itrium84]

Are ya winning son?

This is one of the funniest comments I've read here, ever!

 

[OldBalls]

The messiah has been confirmed.

 

[itrium84]

It is impossible for you to be an atheist. Atheist means someone who does not know about gods or deities. (That is what atheism is ... no knowledge or understanding of theism.)

You used the word "God" in your posts. You also mention "higher power". That means you understand the concept. But you do not believe in gods or deities so by definition that makes you agnostic (i.e. having knowledge or understanding of the concept of gods, deities and "higher powers" but not believing in them.)

The only people who could (!) be truly atheist are babies and people who have serious dementia related illnesses.



Organised Religions have also brought and still bring a lot of good and are a uniting force. It is very easy to blame a large group for the actions of some individuals within that group. But never forget ... "Religions are the constructs of Man NOT God!"

In any case "Faith" trumps "Religion" every time. Faith is the key because it cuts out the middle man

Anyway, atheist or agnostic, one thing for sure ... Djokovic is going to get to 21 Major Titles. And his father and mother had a lot to do with him getting there regardless of their beliefs.

You've got it all mixed up.
Agnostic - Person that claims no knowledge of god's existence ("I don't know if god exists").
Atheist - Person that doesn't believe in god's existence ("I don't believe god exists")

Agnostic Atheist - "I don't know if god exists and I don't believe he does".
Gnostic Atheist - "I believe god doesn't exist"
Agnostic Theist - "I believe god exists, but I don't really know if he does"
Gnostic Theist - "I know god exists"

There, it's now clarified.

 

[Hayole]

"He was sent from God"
"He can win 10 more Slams"

Based on these 2 statements alone I think Srdjan needs to have his brain checked.

ops

 

[Deleted member 771911]

I think only us lucky TTW ers and other hardcore tennis fans know who papa Djokovic is through his divine thread generator powers. Most tennis fans would be like Srdjan? Who’s that? Why you talking to me about his dad for hells sake?

 

[I Am Finnish]

Sr is not trolling

 

[Arak]

In the end, it will turns out that Srdjan underestimated Nole's potential.

He didn’t want to be accused of bias for his son. His estimates are very conservative.

 

[mwym]

A short intermission.Lets get the facts straight.

Srdjan Djokovic is is the person who started chain of events that shaped reality we are in now. Srdjan Djokovic did his best to create a chance for Novak Djokovic to be where he is now. Novak Djokovic took the responsibility just like his father did and defined himself on his father faith.

They both had luck to have the other but each did their part to best of their abilities. Srdjan had the ultimate faith a father can have in his son and it made Novak give his absolute best to prove his father right for having faith in him. He still is. Because that is his identity.

Srdjan helped Novak shape himself into a son every father strives for.

Novak helped Srdjan shape himself into a father every son hopes to have.

Father and son. You have heard it before.

Hopefully, many fathers and sons will learn what Srdjan and Novak did one for the other. And do that in their lives.

Each of us may ask our own self some simple question:

Did I help my son be the best son he can be?
Did I help my father be the best father he can be?

We all have a human mind to use it our human way before it is gone.

Therefore, next time you see Novak Djokovic do the impossible by sheer self confidence - be aware it is Srdjan's self confidence Novak learnt from his father - for his father, for himself and for his children. We are just witnesses.

To be able to pass it to his own children and all of us willing to learn the same skill - the ultimate power of human mind. That is a legacy a man can hope for.

Now please continue the fun. It is entertaining indeed.

 

[Metta World Peace]

http://en.yibada.com/articles/10950...god-he-can-win-10-more-grand-slams-srdjan.htm

some notable quotes:
Surely he will be one ofthe bestsportsmen ever. All of this it's because he was sent from God.As a family, we tried to make God's wish come true. He can win other 10 Grand Slams," Srdjan stressed

Srdjan making all of these TTW fools look silly.

He is a prophet and only spits truth about false gods like Federer

 

[Karma Tennis]

Agnostic - Person that claims no knowledge of god's existence ("I don't know if god exists").
Atheist - Person that doesn't believe in god's existence ("I don't believe god exists")

Definitions you have provided are watered down revisionist meanings that are not consistent with the traditional Ancient Greek definitions of the two words and their broadest meanings.

(I remember a time when the word "Gay" meant "happy and joyous" and could be applied to all human beings regardless of sexual preferences. But over the decades the meaning of that word and its application in modern societies has changed radically.)

Theism means "having belief in a deity". In order to be a "Theist", one has to understand the concepts of "belief" AND "Deity".

Atheism means "absence of belief". It does not mean "absence of belief in a Deity". They are two completely different things. (IE. If one does not understand to concept of "Deity", there is no opportunity to accept or reject a belief. It's not possible to believe / disbelieve something unknown to you. And if you don't understand the concept of "belief", you cannot believe / disbelieve anything!)

Srdjan has stated that Novak was sent to us by God.

In order for that statement to be meaningful, one has to understand the concept of God (IE have knowledge of God) and also understand the concept of "Belief".
In order to agree with that statement, one has to understand the concept of God, understand the concept of "belief", and believe in God.

An Atheist can never make sense of Srdjan's statement because they do not know what God is and / or they may not understand the concept of "Belief".

An Agnostic can make sense of Srdjan's statement but does not agree with it - they understand the concept of God but they don't believe in God's existence so it is not possible that Novak was sent to us by a Deity.

A Theist can make sense of Srdjan's statement. They may agree or disagree with it based on whether they specifically believe / disbelieve God would choose to send Novak to us.

Anyway, this is a well worn debate. People revise things all the time and then adopt them as fundamental truths. Regardless, the original (traditional) definitions remain and can be retained by those who choose to do so.

Cheers!

 

[nolefam_2024]

 

[itrium84]

Definitions you have provided are watered down revisionist meanings that are not consistent with the traditional Ancient Greek definitions of the two words and their broadest meanings.

(I remember a time when the word "Gay" meant "happy and joyous" and could be applied to all human beings regardless of sexual preferences. But over the decades the meaning of that word and its application in modern societies has changed radically.)

Theism means "having belief in a deity". In order to be a "Theist", one has to understand the concepts of "belief" AND "Deity".

Atheism means "absence of belief". It does not mean "absence of belief in a Deity". They are two completely different things. (IE. If one does not understand to concept of "Deity", there is no opportunity to accept or reject a belief. It's not possible to believe / disbelieve something unknown to you. And if you don't understand the concept of "belief", you cannot believe / disbelieve anything!)

Srdjan has stated that Novak was sent to us by God.

In order for that statement to be meaningful, one has to understand the concept of God (IE have knowledge of God) and also understand the concept of "Belief".
In order to agree with that statement, one has to understand the concept of God, understand the concept of "belief", and believe in God.

An Atheist can never make sense of Srdjan's statement because they do not know what God is and / or they may not understand the concept of "Belief".

An Agnostic can make sense of Srdjan's statement but does not agree with it - they understand the concept of God but they don't believe in God's existence so it is not possible that Novak was sent to us by a Deity.

A Theist can make sense of Srdjan's statement. They may agree or disagree with it based on whether they specifically believe / disbelieve God would choose to send Novak to us.

Anyway, this is a well worn debate. People revise things all the time and then adopt them as fundamental truths. Regardless, the original (traditional) definitions remain and can be retained by those who choose to do so.

Cheers!

It's your personal definitions, they make sense to you. If you find it strange why people have trouble grasping your explanations - It's because of your personal definitions are pretty unusual.

Agnostic is the person claiming no knowledge on the matter.
Gnosis is old-greek for "knowledge".
"A" is old-greek prefix for negation.

Atheist can learn about concept (idea) of a god and still reject it. It's like being "Abigfootist" or "Aspidermanist" - it's simply not believing god, big foot or spiderman are real.

Almost all atheists are agnostic atheists.

This is all very simple, you just made it so much more complicated with your personal definitions.

 

[Kopaonik]

Hi everybody, just a few words...


1. Here in Serbia, we really often like to say - "sent from God" for someone, who is naturally "gifted" or "talented" for sport or whatever, also. So, that could easily be a srdjan's phrase.


2.Srdjan also says, that Novak wil win 10 slams more, back then when Nole has eleven slams..


So, liked or not, he is right almost 100% here, in both statements.


.

 

[Spencer Gore]

These old threads are gold dust. Especially when you see the same self-righteous posters who are still here laying down the tennis law, even though the egg is still visibly dripping down their faces.

The internet never forgets!

 

[Jonesy]

So, Srdjan is always right.

 

[Karma Tennis]

It's your personal definitions, they make sense to you. If you find it strange why people have trouble grasping your explanations - It's because of your personal definitions are pretty unusual.

The facts are the facts.

Agnostic is the person claiming no knowledge on the matter.
Gnosis is old-greek for "knowledge".
"A" is old-greek prefix for negation.

A person cannot claim "no knowledge" on a matter unless they are aware of the matter. The matter has to be known to them in order to make the claim. Otherwise there is no ability to make to claim.

Agnostics recognise the concept of Religiion and God but don't believe in either - that's the negation bit. (You are confusing knowledge and belief. They are not interchangeble.)

Definition of Agnostic ...a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

In order to be Agnostic, the person must understand the concept of God. Otherwise they cannot believe that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God.
Atheists do not understand to concept of God. An Atheist has no understanding of the concept of God. One cannot believe in something one does not know about. One cannot believe in something if they don't understand the meaning of belief either.

Almost all atheists are agnostic atheists.

That is a different debate. You are trying to redefine the meaning of the word "Atheist" by suggesting an atheist is something else. An atheist is an atheist.

This is all very simple, you just made it so much more complicated with your personal definitions.

Atheist - No knowledge or understanding of God at all. (Therefore belief is irrelevant to the atheist.)
Agnostic - Knowledge of the meaning of the word God. Knowledge of the concept of Belief in God. Belief that nothing is known or can be known about God's existence or nature.

Can't be any simpler than that!

Cheers

 

[reaper]

Srdjan might still be right. 10 more slams.

 

[ewiewp]

It depends on his motivation.
Let's say he has ~25 slams at age of 37 or 38 and Nadal and Federer retired with low 20s or just 20 slams.
It would be very hard for him to push his old body for a few more slams.

 

[Spencer Gore]

It is impossible for you to be an atheist. Atheist means someone who does not know about gods or deities. (That is what atheism is ... no knowledge or understanding of theism.)

You used the word "God" in your posts. You also mention "higher power". That means you understand the concept. But you do not believe in gods or deities so by definition that makes you agnostic (i.e. having knowledge or understanding of the concept of gods, deities and "higher powers" but not believing in them.)

That's not the meaning of "atheist" and "agnostic".

You are free to have your own opinions. You are not free to have your own definitions that you try and force onto others.

 

[jm1980]

Definitions you have provided are watered down revisionist meanings that are not consistent with the traditional Ancient Greek definitions of the two words and their broadest meanings.

How can any of these words have "traditional Ancient Greek" definitions if the words originated much later, in the 16th and 17th centuries? Atheism never meant lack of knowledge or understanding of deities, I have no idea where you got that from.

theism (n.)
1670s, "belief in a deity or deities," (as opposed to atheism); by 1711 as "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism); by 1714 as "belief in the existence of God as creator and ruler of the universe" (as opposed to deism), the usual modern sense; see theist + -ism.

atheism (n.)
"the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts).

Theism means "having belief in a deity". In order to be a "Theist", one has to understand the concepts of "belief" AND "Deity".

Atheism means "absence of belief". It does not mean "absence of belief in a Deity". They are two completely different things. (IE. If one does not understand to concept of "Deity", there is no opportunity to accept or reject a belief. It's not possible to believe / disbelieve something unknown to you. And if you don't understand the concept of "belief", you cannot believe / disbelieve anything!)

The dictionary defines them as:

theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods
atheism: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods; b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

This is by no means a new definition of the word, it's been around for centuries. You can find the same definition in Johnson's Dictionary published in 1755

One necessarily has to understand the concept of a god or gods in order to disbelieve them.

 

[Madinolf]

-4

-1

 

[Madinolf]

This is a very premature bump, no?

-1

 

[ChaelAZ]

Reminds me yet again why DJO is so disliked.

 

[itrium84]

The facts are the facts.
-- This is just a tautology, no meaning whatsoever.



A person cannot claim "no knowledge" on a matter unless they are aware of the matter. The matter has to be known to them in order to make the claim. Otherwise there is no ability to make to claim.
-- Nobody made an argument you refute here. You're talking to yourself here.


Agnostics recognise the concept of Religiion and God but don't believe in either - that's the negation bit. (You are confusing knowledge and belief. They are not interchangeble.)
-- Wrong. Agnostic position has no belief claims by itself. It's just a (negative) knowledge claim, nothing more. In the context of religion and theology, agnosticism is position on existence of god, not on awareness or recognition of concept of god. You've got ot all mixed up.

Definition of Agnostic ...a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
-- Wrong. Agnosticism is not a belief, can't you understand that? "I don't know if god exists" - That's it, that's all, that's whole claim. Stop adding personal meaning to such a simple knowledge position.

In order to be Agnostic, the person must understand the concept of God. Otherwise they cannot believe that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God.

Atheists do not understand to concept of God. An Atheist has no understanding of the concept of God.
-- Wrong again. Atheism is not position on understanding, but on belief. "I don't believe god exists." - That's it, that's all, nothing more. Stop adding personal meaning to such a simple belief position.

One cannot believe in something one does not know about. One cannot believe in something if they don't understand the meaning of belief either.
-- Nobody made an argument you refute here. You're talking to yourself.


That is a different debate. You are trying to redefine the meaning of the word "Atheist" by suggesting an atheist is something else. An atheist is an atheist.
-- Tautology, no meaning whatsoever. Atheist is a person that doesn't believe god exists. Why is this so hard to understand for you?



Atheist - No knowledge or understanding of God at all. (Therefore belief is irrelevant to the atheist.)
-- Here, you're wrong on multiple levels. Atheism is not a knowledge position. Atheism is not an understanding position. Atheism is a (negative) belief position.

Agnostic - Knowledge of the meaning of the word God. Knowledge of the concept of Belief in God. Belief that nothing is known or can be known about God's existence or nature.
-- Wrong again. Agnosticism is not position on meaning of words. Agnosticism is not position on belief. Agnosticism is not a belief.

Can't be any simpler than that!

Cheers

You're wrong on almost everything with those personal subjective definitions only you recognize as valid. It's been a long time I saw someone who can be so much wrong on so many levels. Thank you for the fun, cheers.

 

[The Fedfather]

That's beautiful but why the floating church? Lol

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I want to hear more predictions from him and act accordingly.

 

[GabeT]

Srdjan 1- TTW 0

 

[MichaelNadal]

Something scary is really going on here....

 

[MichaelNadal]

The definition of rent free lol. Id literally move

 

[1990's Graphite]

GOAT player - Djokovic
GOAT coach - Vajda
GOAT tennis dad - Srdjan