General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

It's a religion.

Depends what references you use and what definition of religion. I had the same thought as Melville myself earlier in the thread but didn't post as for one I wasn't that bothered but also when I looked it up to confirm for myself I found that there are so many conflicting views out there.

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell03.htm - this for example, however most references refer to it as a religion. I expect Buddhists probably don't care too much what everyone else thinks! I have a good friend who is Buddhist - maybe I'll ask him when I see him.

You don't get to self identify as a religion. If you could do that anyone who was a christian could simply say that Christianity isn't a religion, and it wouldn't be. That's not a very meaningful definition of religion.

I guess I can't disagree - makes sense.

In that case it just depends on what definition of a religion you use - and that's another whole debate. But I'm honestly not that bothered one way or the other so I'll shut up

Haha, I didn't expect anyone to lose any sleep over that. And I can agree that the definition of religion is debatable, and by extension if Buddhism is a religion, but so are most definitions

Labels are not that important. What matters is that we always try to take the most +LifeEV line. As in poker static ranges are a huge fail.

@ Sneakers

It is kind of weird to hear someone more-or-less claim I need to choose sides on this issue. For me, I guess it takes some real honesty to say "Hey, I do not know what to believe. I do not think it is 'provable'. But continue. Explain your ideas."

It's prudent to be questioning of things, that's how we come to truthful knowledge in the end. Your line of thought seems to reflect a sort of epistemological skepticism, which is fine. It's been debated for hundred of years whether we can 'know anything for sure' but clearly there are some things; mathematics says we can. Formal proof is something considered to be incontrovertible. Yet there are other types of proof, as has tried to be shown in the thread. Proof by logical consistency or proof by weight of evidence is accepted in the scientific and philosophical community. Scientists gather as much evidence as they can regarding a 'theory.' This multifaceted weight of evidence can never be 100% true, since there seem to be exceptions to everything. But science works in such a way as it is always adaptive, meaning it is self-redefining method of growing consistency and accuracy. If a piece of evidence comes up that makes a theory obsolete, scientists are charged with redefining the parameters of the theory so that the new evidence fits.

A perfect example is Newtonian vs. Einsteinian gravity. Newtonian dynamics fail at the subatomic and supermassive level and we knew this for years. Einstein redefined the theory of gravity and now it includes supermassive objects. It doesn't mean that Newton was 'wrong;' we still use it in our space program for satellites and it does work most of the time... his theory was just incomplete. Someone will inevitably come along and redefine it yet again, making it even more accurate. So you are right when you say that science doesn't 'prove' anything. It doesn't. But just like a criminal trial when there is so much evidence before you that there is no reasonable doubt involved, scientific theory still points to the causes of phenomena fairly accurately.

Why does someone find it necessary to be "full-on god-haters"?
Why do I need to participate in that thinking, if I choose not to participate. Hate is rational?

I don't hate anyone. I used to be a Christian so if I hated Christians or religious people then I would be hating a part of myself; a very significant chunk of my personal history. What I do hate, and have no tolerance for, is credulity. Credulity in my case lead to fundamentalism, emotional problems, and loss of personal responsibility...things I think any rational person would like to have removed from their life.

Again, the people I respect the most (just for me personally), are the ones that explain their main-stream thoughts -- and at the same time -- can give acknowledgment that it cannot be 100% proven. They are open-minded and honest with themselves (in my view). The people I admire the least are the militant "science says it is true" believers. I ask myself, why do they feel such a strong need to convince everyone that "there is no god". I am certain that they to not have 'proof', just ideas and theories.

That's all fine and well, you can operate according to your own principles...no one is saying you can't. But realize that the car you drive, the plane you take, the tools you use, the clean food you eat, the calculator you use, the computer you are typing on, the satellite TV you watch...are all a result of science not knowing anything is true.

Science isn't the end-all, be-all of everything. It isn't a philosophy of life as some have claimed in the thread...it's just a method for discovering empirical facts...and it is imperfect. But it's a better and more rational method than mere postulation because of the fact it is disprovable, as some have mentioned.

Not only that, but by definition science cannot answer the god question because theism is not a scientific claim. What we are trying to do is shed light on is the notion that it seems unreasonable to assert things that cannot be proved or disproved because it's just an empty assertion. It's just an opinion. Furthermore, it can be argued quite well that theistic claims aren't even in the realm of epistemology. They can't be known. But just because 'theistic claims can't be known' it does not follow that 'nothing can be known.'

Personally, I don't know for certain that there is no god. I simply reject the arguments that have tried to make a case because they either don't make logical sense or don't carry evidence to support them. If someone could formally prove through mathematics the existence of god or show me some consistent evidence than I would have no choice but to agree. Until then, I will prudently remain skeptical of all unsupported claims.

Saying you are atheist isn't saying that you know everything about the universe, it's saying that you have no compelling reason to believe in God, therefore you don't.

@maglame

exactly. agnosticism sounds like schizo talk to me.

"i don't believe i'm living in the matrix, but maybe."
"i don't believe there are invisible aliens probing me at night, but maybe."
"i don't believe in the Santa Claus, but maybe."

i think agnostics are just confused. temporary confusion is fine. but i agree with Dawkins assessment that to be a permanent agnostic is simply intellectual cowardice.

It is kind of weird to hear someone more-or-less claim I need to choose sides on this issue. For me, I guess it takes some real honesty to say "Hey, I do not know what to believe. I do not think it is 'provable'. But continue. Explain your ideas."

@Sneakers:
i don't see the god question as two opposite beliefs. atheism is the natural state. theism is the proposition. in court (U.S.), the accused is assumed to be innocent while the accusers give evidence against him. a juror doesn't start the trial believing the accused is innocent, he just is. so i don't "believe" in atheism, i just don't believe in the theists arguments.

Why does someone find it necessary to be "full-on god-haters"?
Why do I need to participate in that thinking, if I choose not to participate. Hate is rational?

i didn't mean to say all atheists hate god. i meant that's the opinion about atheists held by religious persons and probably many agnostics. so not wanting to be stigmatized as "god haters," agnostics try to play to both sides in a way, either consciously or not.

and i think tHeBoYmUsTdIe's reply to your post was spot-on also.

@Sneakers:
i don't see the god question as two opposite beliefs. atheism is the natural state. theism is the proposition. in court (U.S.), the accused is assumed to be innocent while the accusers give evidence against him. a juror doesn't start the trial believing the accused is innocent, he just is. so i don't "believe" in atheism, i just don't believe in the theists arguments.

Extremely well said nawhead.

so i don't "believe" in atheism, i just don't believe in the theists arguments.

I consider myself agnostic and I think I can agree with this statement.

I do not think it is 'provable'.

@Sneakers

also, the above statement undermines the concept of god itself. if this creator, this higher power/intelligence being, is unable to prove that it exists in a manner indistinguishable from conspiracy theories and man-made fictions, then it is not god.

still, whether we have to worry about it is another matter. if there's some alien being trying to convince us to worship it yet is of insufficent power or intelligence to do it successfully, as if some human was trying to get ants to worship him through fumbling instances of lighting small twigs on fire, then it is a menace. and we should be more concerned with freeing ourselves from this tyrant than how to convince our neighbors to give it money every Sunday. and if we go down this line of thinking, we might even take a practical stance to worship it if we don't think we have the technology to find it or stop it. but now this is just fiction without any merit and is again indistinguishable from the ramblings of a madman (or Pascal's Wager again).

"how to convince our neighbors to give it money every Sunday." Ha ha ha ha, here is one of the underlying issues that people hate/assume about religion. I was just waiting to read something like this.

also, the above statement undermines the concept of god itself. if this creator, this higher power/intelligence being, is unable to prove that it exists in a manner indistinguishable from conspiracy theories and man-made fictions, then it is not god.

I think this was kind fail. If it's all powerful then certainly it could hide if it wanted to, no?

If you mean that a God that doesn't involve himself in any way in our lives isn't worth thinking too much about, then that makes more sense. I.e. if there is a God, but he doesn't care what we do, and doesn't involve himself in any of it, then as far as life on earth goes there might as well not be a God.

how many of you think that when thats it. thats it...? no more rebuys. you are done. Is it a comforting thought?

i think thats why we reckon its real, we want the rebuy period to last eternity

I kinda look forward to dying, not enough to want to kill myself, but living is kinda exhausting. I reckon I'll feel much like I do after a day of hard work. Like it's nice to finally go to sleep. (If I'm lucky enough to have a good death). And I believe that there is nothing after this.