Online Poker Explains Religion

We see on this forum and all others many conspiracy threads about Random Number Generators (RNGs). Their supporters argue that the patterns they see are clearly not random, and therefore must be being controlled by a higher controlling power who fixes the cards for whatever reason.

Intelligent poker players realise this is incredible likely to be total nonsense, and continue to beat the game, while scientifically recording their observations and finding no results that require this higher power. I would guess that all readers of this post consider themselves to fall into that category, and rightly so.

This shows the need of some humans to find patterns in random occurences and believe that everything is somehow controlled by somebody. I think it should be clear to open minded intelligent people that this is the most likely explanation of the origin of religion.

The strange thing is that there will be religious people who are completely rational regarding the RNG conspiracy.

Does anyone have a convincing distinction between the two, because I currently think they are perfectly analagous and am yet to find anyone who can say anything to contradict it.

Seems kosher to me.
Shooby

Factors which make religion more prevalent:

- Larger data set, no pokertracker.
- Communal reinforcement
- Widespread childhood indoctrination
- Selective validation (again, no pokertracker)
- Sklansky hasn't written 'Theory of Universe' yet.
- Provides easy answers
- Helps deal with life (ever noticed that the people who claim poker is rigged are usually losers at poker?)

Are you essentially agreeing? You expain why it is more prevalent, and I agree, but that wasn't the question. And prevalence isn't an excuse for rational, educated, intelligent people to continue to pass it blindly on to their children.

And can we petition for drafting of Sklansky's Theory of the Universe [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]?

[ QUOTE ]

- Helps deal with life (ever noticed that the people who claim poker is rigged are usually losers at poker?)

[/ QUOTE ]

But he's saying the "online is rigged" mindset is similar to the "God's rigging life" mindset. So, its the religious who are the losers in life by that analogy.

If you consider a loser to be one who sees less reality than is possible, then yes, the religios are losers,in a way.
Shooby

Prevalance, combined with childhood indoctrination, is indeed the difference. Communal reinforcement is an incredibly powerful force.

The subject matter is also far more detailed and complex. You have to know, study and understand a fair bit to confidently explain how the world came about without some creator. Not so for rigged poker theories - that's mostly common sense, which is backed up by hard data.

Look I basically agree with you, but you asked for differences in the analogies, so I came up with some. The question of a God is on a vastly different scale to whether poker is rigged or not, I don't think you can take it down entirely to 'seeing patterns where there are none'. GOd for many people is much more than an explanation of life's random events, and I think religion comes from more than 'seeing patterns in the randomness'.

Also, people aren't starting with a blank slate like they are in poker, and trying to explain the results of their life. They're starting with a bias that's indoctrinated in childhood and reinforced by their society, so it naturally makes sense.

[ QUOTE ]
If you consider a loser to be one who sees less reality than is possible, then yes, the religios are losers,in a way.
Shooby

[/ QUOTE ]

I just hate the "helps deal with life" argument, as if resorting to myths is dealing with life.

[RJT]

One can carry this analogy to getting married:

The odds are extremely high that one actually marries the right person given the billions of people to choose from. Yet, so many of us do get married.

Does that mean that no one should ever get married?

On second thought, maybe we are on to something here.

[ QUOTE ]
One can carry this analogy to getting married:

The odds are extremely high that one actually marries the right person given the billions of people to choose from. Yet, so many of us do get married.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make the assumption that there is one (or a few) "right" persons to marry. That is not necessarily the case. It's a mutually beneficial partnership (in theory), that's all. Don't sart getting all Danielle Steele on us.