Why doesn't Sklansky give it up?

[kurosh]

Why does he constantly insist on arguing with people about religion? He's not going to change any Christian's mind. The entire concept of faith relies on being devoid of logic. Thus, trying to use logic to disprove faith is silly. Why doesn't he just let it go and make some poker posts instead of something ridiculous about God every week?

I realized a long time ago it was pointless to debate religion and I wonder why he hasn't done the same.

[[censored]]

He enjoys it.
His purpose isn't to change the minds of those he argues with.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does he constantly insist on arguing with people about religion? He's not going to change any Christian's mind. The entire concept of faith relies on being devoid of logic. Thus, trying to use logic to disprove faith is silly. Why doesn't he just let it go and make some poker posts instead of something ridiculous about God every week?

I realized a long time ago it was pointless to debate religion and I wonder why he hasn't done the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he does so to learn more about the topic and, more specifically, about believers. Although, he may just enjoy debating that topic like someone would enjoy a sport. I often feel that way about debating topics i enjoy. In any case, i enjoy his posts.

[kurosh]

I wonder if he enjoys repeatedly bashing his head into a brick wall too...

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
He enjoys it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent read most of his religious posts but I'm pretty sure it begins and ends here. He is a theorist, he likes to think and challenge his mind. Is there a better topic to do so?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if he enjoys repeatedly bashing his head into a brick wall too...

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently you do, because you completely missed the point.

[spoohunter]

The true reason is probably psychological. He needs to feel better (and more intelligent than others) to be "happy" (or his perceived form of happiness). So, he seeks out those who disagree with him, and try to engage them on a battle field (logical debate) which they are unable to fight back (due to the nature of religious belief).

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
He is a theorist, he likes to think and challenge his mind. Is there a better topic to do so?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many.

[David Sklansky]

I pride myself on the ability to reformulate questions so those who had trouble with the original question, or were confused about something, enjoy an "aha" experience.

While the specific precepts of a specific religion cannot be totally logically disproven, it is clearcut for many different reasons, that those precepts are very unlikely to be true. It bothers me that I have not as yet been able to come up with the right words that will make this clear, even to those who are afflicted with whatever problem they have, that causes them not to realize what is obvious to most educated thinkers.

I might be selling myself short though. While most of my posts are met with real rebuttals, some elicit responses like "because the bible says so" or "enough" or "these are hard questions" or "I admit I can't prove such and such with argumentation alone" or "when will you realize that religion is not based on logic and doesn't have to meet your definition of rational" or "what's the harm in someone believing even if it is not true as long as it gives them comfort". Perhaps I should let these responses tell me that I already accomplished what I set out to do.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
The entire concept of faith relies on being devoid of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing that surprises me most about a majority of logical thinkers is that they fail to recognize a key property (or limitation) of logic -- that it is only useful for turning one type of truth, an axiom or a premise, into another. It has no role whatsoever in creating the premise or axiom in the first place.

The explanation is probably psychological. These people cling to logic because they are more adept at it than most and it gives them a certain sense of power. In an overpopulated world we are faced with the sad reality of being insignificant and our psyches create ways of fooling ourselves on this point. For some, religion is the answer, while for others it's that "I'm more rational than you and you can't prove me wrong". This second approach, while obviously arrogant, is also about as irrational as can be IMO yet so many otherwise rational people seem to adopt it.

To me this is just a testament to the incredible strength of our ingrained survival instincts.

[David Sklansky]

"The thing that surprises me most about a majority of logical thinkers is that they fail to recognize a key property (or limitation) of logic -- that it is only useful for turning one type of truth, an axiom or a premise, into another. It has no role whatsoever in creating the premise or axiom in the first place."

What are you talking about? Of course they realize it. By definition I might add. When someone is illogical it is not because of their original premise but rather where they go with it. But that is most people because they are either stupid or untrained.

[Cyrus]

Hi, Kurosh.

I happened to buy on e-bay some personal notes that may or may not have been written by Mason Malmuth and these notes reveal that the whole 2+2 enterprise was set up in order to lead up to this, the final phase, i.e. to lure myriads of intelligent, polite, and socially adept people (i.e. poker players) who would then engage with David Sklansky in discussions about religion.

The poker books and T-shirts are a front.

But I have no way of knowing if the above is true or just a figment of Mason's imagination.

Cheers,

Cyrus

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone is illogical it is not because of their original premise but rather where they go with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it then, that so many logically-minded people

1) Use reason to argue questions of faith when it effectively boils down to creating axioms, something that logic is not equipped to do, and

2) Go even farther in some cases and flat out assert that logical thinking automatically precludes religion.

???

Not that I am not accusing you of being in this camp, although I have failed to notice any significant negative correlation between IQ (as measured by IQ tests in our western culture as well as skill in math and sciences) and being in camps 1) or 2) above.

Are you saying you have noticed a negative correlation in your experience (at (approximate) IQ levels of 120 and above, say) ?

[MoreWineII]

So is it your position that nothing has ever taken place in this universe that can't be explained by logic or science? And that people who think otherwise are not "educated thinkers"? And I guess that would mean that anybody who ever makes a decision not based on logic is "stupid or untrained" as well.

Interesting position.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
So is it your position that nothing has ever taken place in this universe that can't be explained by logic or science? And that people who think otherwise are not "educated thinkers"? And I guess that would mean that anybody who ever makes a decision not based on logic is "stupid or untrained" as well.

Interesting position.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the only logically consistent position.

[David Sklansky]

"And I guess that would mean that anybody who ever makes a decision not based on logic is "stupid or untrained" as well."

That is correct. As long as you understand what I am saying. It is not illogical to prefer to see ugly girls rather than pretty girls naked. But it is illogical to feel that way and contend you would prefer go to the Crazy Horse here in Vegas rather than the Library.

[KingMarc]

Would anyone else like to see Sklansky on the 30 days show, where he would have to live as a believer for 30 days?

Hell, would anyone like to get a pool together, and challenge Sklansky to live as a religious individual for a month? What would the amount have to be David?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
That is correct. As long as you understand what I am saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are confusing "not based on logic" with "based on flawed logic".

Just wondering...do you agree with the following?

In the search for life's axioms, using logic and reasoning is a waste of time because you need a proper set of axioms before you can START using logic for any productive purpose.

The reason I ask is that in the various threads it seems you are looking for some more of life's axioms and it also looks like you believe logic and reasoning is the best way forward in EVERYTHING, including the axiom search.

If I am wrong, please correct me. Thanks.

[David Sklansky]

What do you mean by life's axioms? Give an example. Certainly God existing or not existing is not an axiom.

[Darryl_P]

By "life's axioms" I mean anything pertaining to life that you will always assume to be true without ever requiring or
seeking proof. Generally these would vary by individual. If you prefer, we could call these YOUR axioms. Sklanskyanity could be the name given to the set of such axioms.

A simple example is that your senses tell the truth ie. if you see an object, then it's really there.

A more complex example could be a system of values. Or if you are the type who likes to derive values from other things, then axioms would be those things which are no longer derived from anything.

Another example could be a utility function. We make everyday decisions by estimating probabilities and trying to maximize our expected utility. But is your utility function itself just a given? If so, then I'd call it one of life's axioms. If not, then what is it derived from? And what is that derived from? etc... When the answer is "nothing, that's a given", then that's an axiom.

There doesn't have to be any objective evidence for an axiom or there could even be evidence to the contrary. For example, I could assume that pink unicorns created the earth and that could be an axiom of mine if I were so inclined.

The example you gave about God existing or not existing COULD be an axiom according to my definition.

If it eventually gets "disproven" then the person who uses it as an axiom would likely run into many difficulties, but he could still use it as an axiom.

[Stuey]

David does not tilt.
David does not argue.

This is because he is never wrong so why should bad results bother him. Ok, ok one hand was in the wrong group in HEFAP that was a typo, or a test, or Mason's fault guys let it go. Yesh. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Seriously I think he is always right when he wants to be.

[ QUOTE ]

It is not illogical to prefer to see ugly girls rather than pretty girls naked. But it is illogical to feel that way and contend you would prefer go to the Crazy Horse here in Vegas rather than the Library.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are the ugly girls in the library naked? I know I would accept this example easier if they were. Logic tells me they are not however. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[David Sklansky]

The Library, not the library.

[Stuey]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif Well I'm just happy they are naked. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Darryl_P]

David,

Now that I have defined "life's axioms", will you please answer my question? Thanks.

[Snoogins47]

People that think debating ANYTHING is pointless make me cry inside.

[bonanz]

[ QUOTE ]
The Library, not the library.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is effin' hilarious!

[kurosh]

Typical debate with a Christian:
[ QUOTE ]
God can't exist because x y and z.
Fundie:I have faith God exists and the bible says it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a debate.

[Overdrive]

David makes fun of christians because they are a nice soft punching bag that people like to make fun of to prove how 'smart' and how 'above it all' that they are. But you will notice David will not attack or say anything bad about Muslims. I guess he is afraid of being blown up.

[David Sklansky]

Correct

[BluffTHIS!]

Remember that some of us Christians though have a history of burning at the stake after a healthy dose of the rack. You might want to keep that in mind as well.

[Overdrive]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. That is so funny, it made me laugh out loud. I'm serious. Sklansky rules!

[K C]

Just for the record none of this has anything to do with "logic" or more accurately, reasoning. It's all about empiricism and what would constitute knowledge.

This isn't about belief or non belief it's about two competing belief systems. One will accuse the other of being dogmatic simply because they don't fit into each other's belief system.

Religion in itself does exist of course. It comes down to whether it's particular beliefs can be shown to be true or not. When we inquire into this though, we're not entitled to simply state that, for instance, the claims do not fit the empiricist model therefore they are unproven or unprovable.

For instance, empiricists will claim that non-physical entities do not exist since they are not physically manifest. This is a ridiculous statement of course and proves absolutely nothing other than what is not A is not A.

As for "faith," this is a blanket term that can be a misnomer of sorts since this also includes types of non-empirical knowledge, knowledge whose validity cannot simply be discarded since it is non-empirical. This knowledge is most often characterized as feelings, and obviously the common view of what constitutes knowledge needs to be broadened here to allow for even the contemplation of its validity.

At the end of the day we've got two groups claiming knowledge here and there isn't anything peculiar to the empirist's view that would make it more correct, other than it's total arrogance toward the subject.

KC

[mike3076]

ill just stick to your beliefs in your poker books.

[Piz0wn0reD!!!!!!]

[ QUOTE ]
is not illogical to prefer to see ugly girls rather than pretty girls naked.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the best sklansky quote ever.