General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

The people doing the most damage to this thread so far, are all the people who only want to predict its demise.

No bro. They just have lived a while and know what will happen based on the past. This is an art that has been over looked by kids today.

99% of the time I follow general "bar etiquette" and don't discuss politics or religion.

I follow the advice that, "You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into". It saves you from spending a lot of time and energy having debates that go no where and just end up with one or both parties angry. If strong belief is involved on either or both sides, there's not much point in debating.

Note the above isn't mutually exclusive to religion

While there are healthy debates on these topics. I also agree that most likely this thread will end badly. Although if there's any forum community that might could have a civilized discussion about it, it'd probably be DC.

99% of the time I follow general "bar etiquette" and don't discuss politics or religion.

I follow the advice that, "You can't reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into". It saves you from spending a lot of time and energy having debates that go no where and just end up with one or both parties angry. If strong belief is involved on either or both sides, there's not much point in debating.

Note the above isn't mutually exclusive to religion

While there are healthy debates on these topics. I also agree that most likely this thread will end badly. Although if there's any forum community that might could have a civilized discussion about it, it'd probably be DC.

I agree with this. Not many people are able to debate in a productive way when it comes to something they believe strongly in. I have had many debates with friends of mine when it comes to my religion/beliefs. Not many of them agree/believe in what I do and they sure like to point it out. My only response to them is either what you believe is right, or what I believe is right. We will only know when one of us dies. If they're right, everything is going to go black and I'm getting buried in a box somewhere...no biggie. If I'm right, then at least I'm starting on the right side of the tracks. ha ha ha I think we should all just agree that we disagree and end this right now.

I agree with this. Not many people are able to debate in a productive way when it comes to something they believe strongly in. I have had many debates with friends of mine when it comes to my religion/beliefs. Not many of them agree/believe in what I do and they sure like to point it out. My only response to them is either what you believe is right, or what I believe is right. We will only know when one of us dies. If they're right, everything is going to go black and I'm getting buried in a box somewhere...no biggie. If I'm right, then at least I'm starting on the right side of the tracks. ha ha ha I think we should all just agree that we disagree and end this right now.

Sounds like Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager). Basically, you can either believe in God or not. If he doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter either way. If he does exist and you don't believe, you're in trouble. If he does exist and you do believe, you're golden. So logically (according to the Wager, anyway), there is no downside to believing.

Lots of criticisms, of course, and Pascal didn't actually intend it as any kind of proof for belief, but it is fun(ny).

I don't like pascals wager, at least not in the way it's usually presented.

If the only criteria to make it into heaven is that I believe in God, it paints a very bad picture of said God. I think most Christians in the western world will concede that the evidence doesn't point to there being a God. Now, that doesn't stop them believing, of course. But if God really did create this world he must have gone out of his way to make sure there was no evidence, or logical reason, to believe in him. A God that makes believing in him mandatory, but tries to trick you into not believing in him, forcing you to suppress the very ability to reason he supposedly granted you, doesn't sound like a very just God to me.

Now, a God who judges me by a more reasonable criteria, and acknowledges that, even as an atheist, I lived a good and just life, I might be interested in spending eternity with. Jesus supposedly said that you should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I'm pretty sure a just God doesn't promote forging evidence for the purpose of deceiving others, so I think it would only be reasonable to expect the same in return.

I guess I propose my own wager of sorts (not really, someone has had this idea before me, but I can't remember who): If there is a God I wish to spend eternity with, he will judge me by how I live my life, and how I treat others, and not if I believe in him or not. I do not have to partake in a "pascal wager", because if believing in God is a requirement to get into heaven, I don't want to be there.

I just didn't like the comment that because 1/3 of the US believes in the Bible that poker looks grim on the other thread. I just want to go on record that I'm a Christian, believe in the Bible, don't judge other people for their beliefs/opinions and still play poker. To automatically assume that because I'm Christian and believe in the Bible that I am against playing poker is extremely closed minded, judgemental and quite honestly, ignorant. People need to understand that there are many different Christian religions out there and so we all shouldn't be categorized together. There's a difference between me and the guy that stands on the street corner preaching to everyone walking by telling them they're going to hell. Yes, we believe in the same God and the same book, but our interpretations are completely different, so please, refrain from saying "You're Christian/believer, so you must be against poker."

True - I was a little out of line. But I was just trying to get one of you to write: Poker is not gambling. Because that is the key argument as far as I know.

I always find it very interesting to talk to religious people because I don't know a single person IRL that believes in any kind of God.

I have met a couple of christians when I did business in the US and it was a big challenge for me. I remember I was very afraid that I would do something that would offend them, but at the same time I really wanted to understand the origin of their belief. How did it happen? Why do they believe? What is it in them that makes them so very different from all other people I know?

I understand that the questions are very personal, so should I try to find a priest and ask him/her?

I have this idea that some people look for certainty while others prefer uncertainty. Is that maybe the main difference?

I think it's foolish to ignore that most people believe in the same God as their parents. This is the first place I would look for answers. This statistic includes more than just what your parents believe in, it includes where you are from (and what other people in that area believe), what social and economic background you have, what educational level your parents and the people around you have, and what educational level you are likely to have... Basically anything that could influence you in your surroundings.

The second place I would look is in the exceptions, where someone believes in a different God than their parents/surroundings/social and economical background would indicate.

If you are born alone in a cave, without access to any books and without ever meeting any other people, you aren't going to believe in the christian God.

In light of derailing of other threads due to this topic, lets have ONE topic dedicated to this subject. Discuss the pros and cons of having a belief system which is based upon a religious text or other religious idea.

Lets start with the one I like, Buddhism. I live near a large Buddhist Temple and its really beautiful. they are always throwing big parties at the temple and all the local people go to sing, dance, drink and talk, generally have a good time. I dont know much about what the songs are about because I cant understand everything in the language, but its mainly about having a good heart and trying to be a good person. There doesn't seem to be any judgemental dogmas in Buddhism, and they are tolerant of non-Buddhist.

If you are a monk in Buddhism, you wake up early to do chants then you walk the streets giving blessings to locals, who then in tern give the monks food, water and other general goods for their well being. Seems pretty cool to me. I have been going home late after a night out at 7-8ish in the morning and stopped to get blessings, although I must have been clearly inebriated the monks gave me a blessing and band for good luck.

Compared to other religions I like it because it seems to be more at one with the world. accepting other people for what they are, and encouraging individuals to have tolerance and be as good as they can with other people.

However, that being said, I am more in line with discordianism than anything else. (check out the church of the subgenius and robert anton wilsons books and work for more)

I agree Buddhism is a beautiful religion that preaches tolerance. It's also important to note that at their core 99% of religions are peaceful and tolerant. The problem is when fundamentalists pervert and twist religious teachings and use these ideas to fuel hate. For example, in recent history there has been violence and terrorism committed in the name of buddhism. In the last two centuries, Sinhala buddhists have committed and encouraged violence against christians and Tamils in sri Lanka. Less than 25 yrs ago a Japanese group aum Shinrikyo carried out lethal sarin gas attacks again in the name of Buddhism and Hinduism.

I think it's important to understand that most religions are peaceful, beautiful and tolerant. The problem arises with these insane extreme fundamentalists that keep popping up.

There is another point I wanted to address. A few posts in this thread about what is the poker/religion connection? Well this Is how i understand it:

There is certainly no direct connection between religion and poker IMO. I think it is more a matter of a certain fundamentalist bible thumping segment of the population that feels it needs to police 'morality' these type of fundamentalists would certainly Be against gambling(poker). To confirm the existence of these people one only needs to see how many millions of people listen to extreme right wing conservatives like Glenn beck. I think it's similar to the idea that cigarettes and alcohol are huge billion dollar industries and millions of people are locked up for simple pot possession. Why? Because pot is a 'drug' and therefore morally wrong "like poker". Another example is how it's been such a huge issue about teaching creationism("intelligent design") in schools. I am not American but even I know the country is founded on ideas of separation of church and state. Basically religious ideas like creationism should have no place in schools. I am not questioning the validity of creationism(for those of you that believe this) but I am simply saying that if these fundamentalists are getting religious ideas into schools they must have some legitimate power(money/lobbyists/whatever) to get things done. I want to be clear that I absolutely don't believe ALL Christians feel this way but I think there is definitely some merit to this idea of morality police. And that's why in my humble opinion why"fundamentalist" Christian groups cannot be good for the future of poker.

[quote]But if God really did create this world he must have gone out of his way to make sure there was no evidence, or logical reason, to believe in him.[quote]

If you only look for physical proof, then you're bound to be disappointed. However, I personally have seen many examples of my God showing Himself to me. I could tell about the stories, but will refrain from telling them here. It just requires looking past physical things that can be seen or touched.

I don't agree that religion is peaceful at its core. I believe this is where religion is at its darkest. I think most people who are religious are good people, people who do their best to be good to others etc.. But that's not the core of religion. The core of religion is undermining the capability of human beings. It's to take something on faith, and disregard the evidence presented to you. It provides justification for evil actions that are inherently irrational, which allows otherwise good people to do evil things thinking they are doing good. So I say it's the complete opposite. Most people who practice religion are peaceful, but religion is rotten at the core.

And again, that's your opinion and your allowed to have those opinions. And I'm allowed to not agree with them.

Sounds like Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager). Basically, you can either believe in God or not. If he doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter either way. If he does exist and you don't believe, you're in trouble. If he does exist and you do believe, you're golden. So logically (according to the Wager, anyway), there is no downside to believing.

Lots of criticisms, of course, and Pascal didn't actually intend it as any kind of proof for belief, but it is fun(ny).

This is not the reasoning behind my chosing to believe...it's just my politically correct way to avoid angry debate with those who can't see things from my point of view.

I don't agree that religion is peaceful at its core. I believe this is where religion is at its darkest. I think most people who are religious are good people, people who do their best to be good to others etc.. But that's not the core of religion. The core of religion is undermining the capability of human beings. It's to take something on faith, and disregard the evidence presented to you. It provides justification for evil actions that are inherently irrational, which allows otherwise good people to do evil things thinking they are doing good. So I say it's the complete opposite. Most people who practice religion are peaceful, but religion is rotten at the core.

I think we kind of agree at heart...what I'm saying is the teachings and religious texts of most religions do not contain violent or hateful ideas. My point is basically the same as yours that certain fundamentalists use perverted religious views as justification to committ horrible acts. I'm not debating whether religion as a whole is good or bad for humanity(I happen to believe that for the most part it's bad) but I am just making clear that the religious teachings of most religions don't teach hate, it takes weak minded people to be brainwashed and use otherwise harmless ideas to committ atrocities.

I think we kind of agree at heart...what I'm saying is the teachings and religious texts of most religions do not contain violent or hateful ideas. My point is basically the same as yours that certain fundamentalists use perverted religious views as justification to committ horrible acts. I'm not debating whether religion as a whole is good or bad for humanity(I happen to believe that for the most part it's bad) but I am just making clear that the religious teachings of most religions don't teach hate, it takes weak minded people to be brainwashed and use otherwise harmless ideas to committ atrocities.

Right, I don't believe it's religion that's evil...just the people that like to use it to hide behind. I think everyone here can agree that MOST religions don't tell someone to go out and act violently, but if some crazy guy goes out and shoots up a group of people because "God told me so" then everyone wants to blame it on religion.

And again, that's your opinion and your allowed to have those opinions. And I'm allowed to not agree with them.

And I never suggested I believe anything else.