Since when did God start controlling the outcome of boxing matches

Help!!!!

First Up wrote: »

Because it was ungracious, unsporting and in denial.

Really?? So when Usain Bolt does the sign of the cross before a race hes also ungracious & unsporting?

First Up

Help!!!! wrote:

Really?? So when Usain Bolt does the sign of the cross before a race hes also ungracious & unsporting?

Only if he blames losing on doing it badly.

Stealthfins

Help!!!! wrote:

Really?? So when Usain Bolt does the sign of the cross before a race hes also ungracious & unsporting?

Ask ace of base they saw the sign and it opened up their mind lol

Help!!!!

First Up wrote: »

Only if he blames losing on doing it badly.

Well maybe God used up his power on Usain & didn't have enough left for Katie. Maybe he said sorry to Katie at the end of the fight so that's the reason she said what she did

First Up

Help!!!! wrote:

Well maybe God used up his power on Usain & didn't have enough left for Katie. Maybe he said sorry to Katie at the end of the fight so that's the reason she said what she did

But surely he could intervene and change the result - the way he does with famines, floods, cancer in children....

Oh wait.......

Stealthfins

First Up wrote:

But surely he could intervene and change the result - the way he does with famines, floods, cancer in children....

First Up wrote:

Oh wait.......

Come on you don't believe he can do that, do you ?

Seriously like.....

I've heard that a million times over,sure didn't he make a big flood and Noah built an ark...

But it was too dry for the shark's....

Help!!!!

First Up wrote: »

But surely he could intervene and change the result - the way he does with famines, floods, cancer in children....

Oh wait.......

How could he intervene? It was live on tv

First Up

Help!!!! wrote:

How could he intervene? It was live on tv

I'm obviously mis-interpreting "Almighty".

twowheelsonly

First Up wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is that she seems to be "blaming" her god for her loss. What she believes is her business but refusing to take responsibility for why she lost (which she genuinely did) is hardly the best way to do something about being better next time.

I think you may have missed my point.... He was belittling her beliefs, no more, no less. Regardless of what she said it's her opinion and she believes in it. The OP disagrees with her beliefs so he has a snide dig at her and her religion. That's all.

but thats one whopper delusion Katie Taylor is under!

georgewickstaff

I wish he'd intervene and UNCIVIL TEXT DELETED.

8-10

First Up wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is that she seems to be "blaming" her god for her loss. What she believes is her business but refusing to take responsibility for why she lost (which she genuinely did) is hardly the best way to do something about being better next time.

Should Micheal Conlon also be taking responsibility for why he lost and not blame it on the judges?

Any man and his dog can see this week that multiple boxing matches have been bought and allowed by the corruption of the refs & judges. Some of them are calling it out blatently, Katie is taking a more diplomatic approach.

The AIBA are to blame, people who look too much into what she said are missing the overall picture of boxing at the 2016 Olympics and the sham of a competition that we've all had to witness.

First Up

8-10 wrote:

The AIBA are to blame, people who look too much into what she said are missing the overall picture of boxing at the 2016 Olympics and the sham of a competition that we've all had to witness.

Well if god gave a shoot he would be doing something about it.

8-10

First Up wrote: »

Well if god gave a shoot he would be doing something about it.

You missed my point completely. It doesn't matter what she said, I'm saying she likely knows it's AIBA's fault but she didn't want to say it in an interview because of repercussions and future fights. Conlon was blatent about it as he has no intention of fighting in AIBA fights in the future.

First Up

8-10 wrote:

You missed my point completely. It doesn't matter what she said, I'm saying she likely knows it's AIBA's fault but she didn't want to say it in an interview because of repercussions and future fights. Conlon was blatent about it as he has no intention of fighting in AIBA fights in the future.

No I didn't miss your point. Take a look at what forum you are in.

8-10

First Up wrote: »

No I didn't miss your point. Take a look at what forum you are in.

You did. Completely. I was suggesting why she may not have meant what she said. Completely relevant to this discussion.

If you think these Olympic fights have been decided on the boxers alone, and you are suggesting as you did that she needs to take personal responsibility for the loss, and you ignore any notion of wrongdoing on the part of the AIBA this week.....then I don't know who is the delusional one.

First Up

8-10 wrote:

If you think these Olympic fights have been decided on the boxers alone, and you are suggesting as you did that she needs to take personal responsibility for the loss, and you ignore any notion of wrongdoing on the part of the AIBA this week.....then I don't know who is the delusional one.

I could care even less than god seems to about the AIBA. The OP made a valid comment on what Taylor said. Nothing else.

8-10

First Up wrote: »

I could care even less than god seems to about the AIBA. The OP made a valid comment on what Taylor said. Nothing else.

And so am I, I'm trying to offer a valid explanation for her attributing the loss to God.

And I'm quoting you because you said she needs to take the responsibility for the loss and I am questioning why you think it was her fault alone, and ask you is it not the case that this could have been something other than her performance or God - i.e. corruption, based on what we have seen since in the men's heavyweight final or bantamweight quarter final?

And if that could be the case, then wouldn't that be a reasonable explanation for her not wanting to call out who is actually responsible, given that she still has a career in the sport to sustain?

martingriff

First Up wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. The issue is that she seems to be "blaming" her god for her loss. What she believes is her business but refusing to take responsibility for why she lost (which she genuinely did) is hardly the best way to do something about being better next time.

Or maybe is was just after a match where she lost and is lost in thought had a microphone had to say something how do we know she does not take responsibility that she lost. We only have 1 interview JUST after a very hard fight.
i am sure that Katie will be determined and will try her hardest to win again.

Also as someone says is everyone who blames refs etc not taking responsibility and should they be derided.

8-10

martingriff wrote: »

Or maybe is was just after a match where she lost and is lost in thought had a microphone had to say something how do we know she does not take responsibility that she lost. We only have 1 interview JUST after a very hard fight.
i am sure that Katie will be determined and will try her hardest to win again.

Also as someone says is everyone who blames refs etc not taking responsibility and should they be derided.

Exactly, listen we all know from her coaches and other fighter's comments that she must believe deep down that she was screwed over by the ref and judges. And even more so given what's happened since.

So that gives her 3 options:

1. Outright blame the judges and risk reprimand by the association
2. Blame herself - hard to do when you actually believe you were the better fighter and were hard done by
3. Blame some completely external force, such as God

It is perfectly reasonable not to blame 1 or 2 in an interview. It is also perfectly reasonable to blame God while actually believing that it was the judges, given the repercussions of calling them out.

And for me given all we know that's what I truly believe is going on here. If there's no microphone and she's speaking in private to her family or coach, I would put money on her blaming the officials to them and not God alone. Common sense here people

First Up

8-10 wrote:

And I'm quoting you because you said she needs to take the responsibility for the loss and I am questioning why you think it was her fault alone, and ask you is it not the case that this could have been something other than her performance or God - i.e. corruption, based on what we have seen since in the men's heavyweight final or bantamweight quarter final?

I didn't say it was her fault alone. She said it was god alone. She could have said she wasn't at her best (she wasn't), she could have given her opponent some credit and she could have taken some issue with the judging, without doing a Michael Conlon over it.

She did none of that.

First Up

8-10 wrote:

And for me given all we know that's what I truly believe is going on here. If there's no microphone and she's speaking in private to her family or coach, I would put money on her blaming the officials to them and not God alone. Common sense here people

Possibly but the OP merely commented on what she said. If she wants to amend, clarify, expand or retract any of it, there will be no shortage of microphones.

In the meantime, the record stands

8-10

First Up wrote: »

Possibly but the OP merely commented on what she said. If she wants to amend, clarify, expand or retract any of it, there will be no shortage of microphones.

In the meantime, the record stands

I'm just saying that with a statement like that I'd expect more pinches of salt and less theological discussion

Giacomo McGubbin

It's seems the real sin Katie committed as far as some Stalinists are concerned is she dared to mention the word God.
I wonder how many Olympic Gold medals her critics here have won ?
Katie Taylor owes nobody anything

Fleawuss

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

It's seems the real sin Katie committed as far as some Stalinists are concerned is she dared to mention the word God.
I wonder how many Olympic Gold medals her critics here have won ?
Katie Taylor owes nobody anything

I suspect they have the same amount of gold medals as those here who think that when she mentions god it is somehow an enormous victory for common sense, reason and themselves.

sbsquarepants

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'd venture it's very rare that you'll find yourself in a position where you have to disabuse someone of the notion that their god exists so you don't really have to go about proving anything to anyone. .

Just as well I suppose, what with it being impossible and all!

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

you can look under the bed with them and show them there is nothing there. .

Proves nothing, every one knows you can't see the invisible bogey men, the house could still be full of them, and I don't want to worry you - but they are the worst kind!

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So you think that anyone with any religious belief can never be truly benign? Behave.

That's not what I said, I said the belief can't truly be benign. Just by virtue of the fact that you allow that kind of thought to take root in your brain, it affects how you behave, how you think, how you feel.
We've all heard of catholic guilt for example - it may not be the worlds most pressing mental health problem, but it's hardly benign now is it?

looksee

I think it is wholly unreasonable to take a comment made under extreme emotional stress and try and make any sort of argument about it. And even leaving aside the stress, she is a boxer, not a theologian.

It reminds me of Sinead O'Conner's interviews - she can sing, she has a lovely voice, that does not make her a worthwhile interviewee. Same with Katie Taylor, she is a boxer, why does anyone think anything useful will come out of sticking a microphone in her face seconds after a losing match? Does nit-picking her comments change her ability as a boxer?

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I said the belief can't truly be benign. Just by virtue of the fact that you allow that kind of thought to take root in your brain, it affects how you behave, how you think, how you feel.

You say that belief can't truly be benign..

So are you saying that all belief is malignant in nature ?

sbsquarepants

Not necessarily no. We all believe something - you more or less have to by default.
Belief that is based on evidence AND open to change should that evidence be found to be wrong (ie based on scientific principles) is fine in my opinion. You should be able to change what you "believe" when evidence or new information says your old belief probably isn't right. That's healthy, that's what drives progress.
You simply can't do that with religious beliefs however, you must start with the answer and then you must then batter the evidence into submission until it agrees with the answer - that's malignant, always.
Now it's very much a matter of degree, sometimes it's catholic guilt, cock-blocking with that hot girl you met out that night. Sometimes it's the vengeance of allah forcing you to blow up a street full of schoolkids, or choke your sister for the honour of your family. It's not black and white by any means but it is always negative to some degree - in my opinion.

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Belief that is based on evidence AND open to change should that evidence be found to be wrong (ie based on scientific principles) is fine in my opinion. You should be able to change what you "believe" when evidence or new information says your old belief probably isn't right. That's healthy, that's what drives progress.

Agreed.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You simply can't do that with religious beliefs however, you must start with the answer and then you must then batter the evidence into submission until it agrees with the answer - that's malignant, always.

This very much depends on your definition of religion..

Do you mean religion as a prescriptive set of rules for worship of a deity or do you mean any kind of worship of a deity ?

Bristolscale7

looksee wrote: »

Does nit-picking her comments change her ability as a boxer?

But does prayer?

sbsquarepants

Swanner wrote: »

This very much depends on your definition of religion..

Do you mean religion as a prescriptive set of rules for worship of a deity or do you mean any kind of worship of a deity ?

If there's no prescriptive set of rules what would classify it as a religion? They all have a list of thou shalts and thou shalt nots - it's just some people quite remarkably think they are somehow entitled to all manner of exemptions.

It's a weird one, I actually find it easier to understand the fundamentalists - "this is gods word, don't you dare question it and make sure you follow it to the letter" - they at least really "believe" what they're saying. They may well be bat shít crazy, but at least I can follow their thought processes.

It's the laissez faire types I have real trouble understanding - "I believe the divine creator of the universe left this to do list for me, but I'm actually only going to bother doing a fraction of the things he demands because, well, just because. Also I'm going to freely indulge in all manner of things he has forbidden. I mean sure he says he'll punish me for it, but I don't think he will" - now that way of thinking I just cannot comprehend.

I'd go so far as to say if you're not really, really devout, you don't really believe - you just haven't allowed your conscious mind to accept that fact. Basically you're almost certainly just in denial.

robindch

georgewickstaff wrote: »

I wish he'd intervene and UNCIVIL TEXT DELETED.

georgewickstaff has been carded for posting contra the forum charter.

robindch

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

It's seems the real sin Katie committed as far as some Stalinists are concerned is she dared to mention the word God.

"Stalinists"?

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If there's no prescriptive set of rules what would classify it as a religion? They all have a list of thou shalts and thou shalt nots

Fair enough. It is of course more then possible to believe in a deity without being religious but it seems we agree that "religion" involves a group of people that subscribe to a set of rules and / or beliefs.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's the laissez faire types I have real trouble understanding - "I believe the divine creator of the universe left this to do list for me, but I'm actually only going to bother doing a fraction of the things he demands because, well, just because. Also I'm going to freely indulge in all manner of things he has forbidden. I mean sure he says he'll punish me for it, but I don't think he will" - now that way of thinking I just cannot comprehend.

If you mean a believer who subscribes to a religion but ignore the rules of that religion then i would agree and don't really get them either but that said, i'm not them, i don't have to reconcile those beliefs in my head and i don't have to live their lives so i don't need to understand them. Live and let live..

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'd go so far as to say if you're not really, really devout, you don't really believe - you just haven't allowed your conscious mind to accept that fact. Basically you're almost certainly just in denial.

Thats blatantly incorrect and wildly assumptive. It's exactly the same as a theist stating that there's no such thing as a real atheist which is also clearly nonsense.

FA Hayek

The more things change the more things stay the same, but some times with less traffic.

meeeeh

I didn't bother reading the whole thread (I have to pretend I'm working every so often) and I don't particularly like Taylor because of her religious views but this smells of kicking someone when they are down.

She advertises her beliefs in just about any interview she does including the one after London win. It's strikes me as little cowardly to wait until someone isn't as successful anymore and then criticize their beliefs. Apologies if someone else already made similar point.

sbsquarepants

Swanner wrote: »

Thats blatantly incorrect and wildly assumptive. It's exactly the same as a theist stating that there's no such thing as a real atheist which is also clearly nonsense.

Ah I don't mean that in an aggressive kind of way, I'm certainly no militant atheist or anything like that - I got my own kids christened for the sake of an easy life with schools and one set of religious grandparents.

But if you take it to it's logical conclusion, if you claim to be a member of a certain religion, but you're not devout - what you are really saying is that you know better than your god, you don't need to follow this rule or that rule even though your god clearly says you do.

If you think that, you clearly do not accept the omnipotence of god, you just can't have it both ways. If you believed it, you'd follow it. If you don't follow it, you can't honestly claim to believe it.

As for the type of "I'm not religious but i'm spiritual" stuff you hear a lot of these days, what does that even mean? To my mind it means "I believe in something, but I don't know what" If you don't know what it is, how can you possibly believe in it - that's just meaningless shít.

The Bishop Basher

sbsquarepants wrote: »

But if you take it to it's logical conclusion, if you claim to be a member of a certain religion, but you're not devout - what you are really saying is that you know better than your god, you don't need to follow this rule or that rule even though your god clearly says you do.

If you think that, you clearly do not accept the omnipotence of god, you just can't have it both ways. If you believed it, you'd follow it. If you don't follow it, you can't honestly claim to believe it.

That would be quite a fundamentalist approach...

As you know, most people of faith would approach it from a more middle of the road perspective. They don't get overly hung up on the nitty gritty of their religion at all. They just try and live good lives and get through as unscathed as possible. Same as all of us really.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

As for the type of "I'm not religious but i'm spiritual" stuff you hear a lot of these days, what does that even mean? To my mind it means "I believe in something, but I don't know what" If you don't know what it is, how can you possibly believe in it - that's just meaningless shít.

That's one way of looking at it.. probably not how those of spiritual persuasion view it but sure each to their own..

sbsquarepants

Swanner wrote: »

That would be quite a fundamentalist approach...

As you know, most people of faith would approach it from a more middle of the road perspective. They don't get overly hung up on the nitty gritty of their religion at all. They just try and live good lives and get through as unscathed as possible. Same as all of us really. ..

I understand, but I actually think that's because most "people of faith" as you call them, haven't really given it much thought. You tend to just accept a lot of the stuff your told as a kid, it just kind of seeps in and helps form the person you become as an adult. It can be extremely hard to get it out again!
The majority of people are not all that keen on or good at introspection. Put simply most people just don't question their "beliefs" probably because you tend to end up with uncomfortable answers, that force you to question yourself further. Some people just don't like to figure stuff out, they like to be told the answers. Plus a lot of people actually use "I believe" and "I would like" as if they're interchangeable.

It's hard to say this stuff without sounding condescending and making people all defensive, which is not my intention, but if you think of it logically, it is the truth. Therein lies the problem, uncomfortable truths tend to be ignored by an awfull lot of people. We tend to see what we want to see.

If the answer to the question "why do you believe....."? is I don't know, I just do, every one knows that's the case or any variation on that theme - then you don't really believe it - you just clearly haven't ever really thought about it much and have defaulted to some theory or other you came into contact with, most likely as a child, and labelled it "what I believe"

Swanner wrote: »

That's one way of looking at it.. probably not how those of spiritual persuasion view it but sure each to their own..

In the immortal words of John Lennon - "whatever gets you through the night, that's alright"
Who the hell am I to argue with him:D

But......just don't go claiming it's some deeply held core belief which is somehow deserving of respect if you can't even point to what exactly that belief even is, let alone offer some form of proof as to it's veracity.

NIMAN

"I thank the Lord for giving me the strength to batter the head off my opponent".

Pherekydes

He controls 100m medals, too:

I just want to give God thanks. He works miracles no matter what the outcome.
I just want to say thanks to everyone who has been supporting me. It has been a tough road and I am happy I am injury free and I can compete again.
God doesn't give us more than we can bear. We shall run and not go weary. We shall walk and not go faint. For the Lord goes before us and his joy will be our strength. I will never lose faith no matter what the circumstance is, no matter what happens. God is always by my side.
I do not have any excuse or complaint. It just wasn't to happen. And I am waiting on God. So anyway thanks for all the support and I just want to wish all my teammates all the best in the finals. Thank you!

That was posted by Yohan Blake after he was beaten by notorious two-time doper, Justin Gatlin to the silver medal. I guess God loves sinners.

jcd5971

I get this is an atheism forum, but why do so many atheists feel the need to knock anyone who shows a bit of faith?

learn_more

jcd5971 wrote: »

I get this is an atheism forum, but why do so many atheists feel the need to knock anyone who shows a bit of faith?

No idea. Very odd thing for an atheist to do.

looksee

jcd5971 wrote: »

I get this is an atheism forum, but why do so many atheists feel the need to knock anyone who shows a bit of faith?

Bit of faith in what?

Qs

jcd5971 wrote: »

I get this is an atheism forum, but why do so many atheists feel the need to knock anyone who shows a bit of faith?

Why is it considered "bashing" to ask how an athlete reconciles the idea of god intervening on their wins and losses but not on more critical matters of life, death and suffering? Or how they balance the idea of god wanting them to win with their own incredible efforts in training, etc?

Are these not genuine questions we can ask?

Pherekydes

jcd5971 wrote: »

I get this is an atheism forum, but why do so many atheists feel the need to knock anyone who shows a bit of faith?

I'm not knocking Mr Blake; I just posted his own words and a few facts alongside. Everyone then draws their own conclusions.

The Bishop Basher

Qs wrote: »

Why is it considered "bashing" to ask how an athlete reconciles the idea of god intervening on their wins and losses but not on more critical matters of life, death and suffering?

Because frankly it's no one else's business but hers.. She may or may not reconcile it in her head. Either way, who cares ? It's her belief and hers alone..

I think the issue is also in the way it's done. I have plenty of atheist friends. Not one of them would ever knock, belittle, put down or mock those of faith in the way in which it's done with increasing regularity both here and on the Christianity forum. They may disagree with others beliefs and challenge their views in a respectful way but ultimately they will just respect that difference and move on.

Likewise even with the few born again Christians i've met. I've never found them to be even remotely as judgmental, preachy or downright abusive as some atheists on here can be.

I completely understand the contempt atheists have for religion. I can even understand why the feel superior and more intelligent. I don't agree with it but i can understand it. What i don't understand is the absolute contempt atheists have for those who follow religion. You have no idea what hardships and battles those people have fought or are fighting in their lives.

Intolerance is intolerance with or without a God. Just live and let live folks. Makes for a much more pleasant experience for all..

looksee

Swanner wrote: »

Because frankly it's no one else's business but hers.. She may or may not reconcile it in her head. Either way, who cares ? It's her belief and hers alone..

I think the issue is also in the way it's done. I have plenty of atheist friends. Not one of them would ever knock, belittle, put down or mock those of faith in the way in which it's done with increasing regularity both here and on the Christianity forum. They may disagree with others beliefs and challenge their views in a respectful way but ultimately they will just respect that difference and move on.

Likewise even with the few born again Christians i've met. I've never found them to be even remotely as judgmental, preachy or downright abusive as some atheists on here can be.

I completely understand the contempt atheists have for religion. I can even understand why the feel superior and more intelligent. I don't agree with it but i can understand it. What i don't understand is the absolute contempt atheists have for those who follow religion. You have no idea what hardships and battles those people have fought or are fighting in their lives.

Intolerance is intolerance with or without a God. Just live and let live folks. Makes for a much more pleasant experience for all..

I think this is overstating the situation a bit. I have religious friends and I do not criticise their beliefs, even in a discussion I will tiptoe around the topic. I have a friend who is from Texas and buys in to all the nonsense preached there, but I keep my opinions (mostly) to myself.

However this is a discussion forum and further it is the A&A forum. Why would we not discuss these matters robustly. If you don't want to be offended, stay in the Christian forum!

robindch

Swanner wrote: »

Intolerance is intolerance with or without a God. Just live and let live folks. Makes for a much more pleasant experience for all..

Couldn't agree more - and when religious people stop interfering negatively in the lives of so many people around the world for religious reasons, I'm sure people will stop complaining about religion.

The Bishop Basher

looksee wrote: »

I think this is overstating the situation a bit. I have religious friends and I do not criticise their beliefs, even in a discussion I will tiptoe around the topic. I have a friend who is from Texas and buys in to all the nonsense preached there, but I keep my opinions (mostly) to myself.

But I was making the point in relation to this forum. I never thought for a second that people from here go round telling people in the real world that they have mental issues, that they're child abusers or that they're of lower intelligence.

It's a shame though that you feel you have to go to the other extreme and tip toe around your friends. I would never shy way from discussing these matters should they arise but only when it's done respectfully.

looksee wrote: »

However this is a discussion forum and further it is the A&A forum. Why would we not discuss these matters robustly. If you don't want to be offended, stay in the Christian forum!

I'm not in the slightest bit offended and i've no problem whatsoever with robust debate. Not sure why you'd think otherwise. I do tread carefully here as it can be an antagonistic place for anyone who doesn't conform to the group think but as the subject is of interest to me i do continue to read and post from time to time.

You suggest I stay in the christian forum as if it's where I belong but tbh I spend very little time there. In fact i spend a lot less time there then a significant cohort of atheists who advance their agenda on every single thread to the point where you could be forgiven for thinking you we're in A&A. In the end it becomes just more of the same. Only difference being there's a bunch of frustrated christians thrown in for good measure. Is what it is but it gets repetitive.

robindch wrote: »

Couldn't agree more - and when religious people stop interfering negatively in the lives of so many people around the world for religious reasons, I'm sure people will stop complaining about religion.

I think you missed my point. I have no issue with anyone complaining about religion. I have no time for religion myself so i get the complaints. What i don't get however, is how that justifies the all too common attacks and abuse directed at individuals for their personal beliefs. The personal and derogatory nature of some of those attacks is completely unjustified in my view. The silence of ALL other posters indicates consent and support. I don't care how morally superior and righteous you think you are.. Calling someone else unintelligent because they hold different beliefs is wrong. Plain and simple. These individuals are not your enemy. Religious bodies and the states that support them are. Stop going after the soft targets and direct your rage at those who deserve it.

I also think that the influence religion has on the lives of individuals is wildly overplayed on this forum. With the exception of school enrolment policies, which are being dealt with, religion will only really effect your life if you let it. As a 42 year old dad of 2 teenage children, it has zero effect on my life or that of my family. Zero. Yet for some strange reason it appears to influence every passing moment of an atheists life. Maybe it's part confirmation bias, maybe it's manifestation but honestly, the less time and energy you give it, the less it will bother you.