I don't understand why David started the "Can God" thread.

[David Sklansky]

I already answered the question in my Bush Cheyney reply.

[The Dude]

You really believe that your Bush/ Cheney comment is an adequate response to the points felson brought up? Wow.

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that, like a table coach, David acts as if he's trying to teach the fish something -- and may even believe that's what he's doing -- but his real "pupils" are the other people at the table, and the intended lesson is, "Look how much smarter I am than these irrational people."

[/ QUOTE ]

Not nice and not true. I do that sometimes but not now and I can prove it. Firstly because I have not yet laid out my reasons why organized religions are almost certainly wrong. So how have I shown how smart I am?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're doing it right now. It's clear from your other posts on this subject that your knowledge of organized religion is shallow and anecdotal at best, but still somehow you think you're qualified to discredit it. If that's true, I've got a book on advanced hold 'em strategy to sell you.

Note that I'm not saying that you need to be an expert to challenge specific religious claims. Since the day Cain got engaged, people have been pointing out plot holes in Bible stories, and you don't need a college degree to know that magical beliefs are contradicted by science. But because these kinds of objections are so obvious, you can safely assume that religious people have already heard them a million times, and if they haven't turned atheist yet, hearing them a million and one times isn't likely to do the trick either.


[ QUOTE ]
Secondly when I do show off it concerns things where very few others know the truth until I explain it. In this case the majority of the people on this forum agree with me already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why I compared you to a table coach. Your audience consists of (a) people who already agree with you and (b) people who don't agree with you and aren't likely to be persuaded by your arguments. As a teaching project, it's an exercise in futility. But you keep doing it anyway, so I can't help thinking that futility is part of the point.

-- M. Ruff

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
While I hope and suspect that David's motives for teaching are not what you imply,

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about David's teaching efforts in general, I'm talking about his flogging of cliched anti-religious arguments.


[ QUOTE ]
Did he write his books on poker to show off as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably, but that's OK, because when it comes to poker he knows what he's talking about and has a lot of original and unique ideas to offer.

-- M. Ruff

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
basically david is playing way too much omaha 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in that case, I owe him an apology.

-- M. Ruff

[RydenStoompala]

[ QUOTE ]
David would not start a thread just to reach such an unimpressive conclusion. What else could he have had in mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's starting his own cult! Word has it that David and one or two "big shots" from the Vegas strip have acquired a large parcel of land outside of Vegas and are stocking a cave with food and books on theology. If you want in you need a low golf handicap, a ton of cash for the "in cave poker room," and a basic understanding of the Sacred Books of the East.

[Wahoo91]

Hi David-
It was proven a while back that most of the posters here are INTx, who, because of their absolute marriage to logic, do not believe in religion.

You must be careful drawing conclusions from a group of people that think just like you do.

Try your questions at the local PTA and see what responses you get. Albeit most of those people are not very smart, but maybe being too smart (and logical) hurts us here.

[David Sklansky]

Try your questions at the local PTA and see what responses you get. Albeit most of those people are not very smart, but maybe being too smart (and logical) hurts us here.

I wonder what felson and Kopefire would say about that.

[Kopefire]

As an extreme INTP (maxing out on every axis), I have no problem with religion from a logial perspective. Indeed, I particularly enjoy a well-reasoned theological argument.

As to David wondering what I'd say .. I'd say this -- I do agree that it is valuable to draw criticism from people who hold differning world views, as a large number of like-minded folks can be just as myopic as a single person.

That said, it remains true that some topics require a certain level of education specific to that field to argue well. Theology as an arena of academic discourse is just as specialized and requires just as much formal training as mathematics.

My problem with David asking the questions he asks is not in the questions per se, but in what seems to be a failure on David's part to recognize that he is dabbling in a field that does have a structure and standard for content similar to his own field.

I think David would find me to be quite laughable should I put together a "mathematical proof" of something like the Reinman Hypothesis. He would think me a fool not because I would likely be wrong, (as I surely would be) but because I would demonstrate my ignorance of the field in what are to a trained mathematician obvious and overt ways.

This not to say that there is no place for the amature theologian, amature philosopher or the amature mathematician. Such endeavors are worthwhile and should be encouraged. But don't expect the trained theologians, philosophers and mathematicians to treat sloppy thinking and sloppy writting within their field as excusable just because it's done by an amature.

Lack of intellectual rigor is a lack of intellectual rigor, reglardless of the subject matter.

[felson]

I have known some smart believers and some not-so-smart atheists, including INTx's even (even INTx believers, I mean). (FWIW, I am ISTJ.) And as I have previously indicated, there are even some genius (Nobel laureate) Christians. So I don't think that intelligence is the issue.