Does Sklansky forgive?

Lestat · #1 10-07-2005, 01:14 AM

Many Christains claim that a member of the Wakaputi tribe residing deep in an unkown forest will be forgiven if he has never heard the word of God.

I wonder if Sklansky can forgive the +130 IQ devout Muslim who blows himself up along with 10 other people? Not for his dasterdly deed, but for believing it was in the name of Allah?

What I'm really asking is if a genius who has been brainwashed since child birth can be forgiven for having such erroneous beliefs? Should genius transcend brainwashing?

If Isaac Newton was brainwashed since birth, just how long should it take for another genius like Sklansky to convince him to become an atheist?

#2 10-07-2005, 06:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Many Christains claim that a member of the Wakaputi tribe residing deep in an unkown forest will be forgiven if he has never heard the word of God.

I wonder if Sklansky can forgive the +130 IQ devout Muslim who blows himself up along with 10 other people? Not for his dasterdly deed, but for believing it was in the name of Allah?

What I'm really asking is if a genius who has been brainwashed since child birth can be forgiven for having such erroneous beliefs? Should genius transcend brainwashing?

If Isaac Newton was brainwashed since birth, just how long should it take for another genius like Sklansky to convince him to become an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they need to raise to bar for "genius level"
Bobby Fisher= brainwashed genius
David Sklansky is very intelligent. Probably smarter than 90% or more of the 2+2 posters.
But please, don't ever compare David Sklansky to Issac Newton ever again. Ever. This would literally bring me to tears if this were even close to comparable, as I would have to personally blame myself for not curing cancer yet.
To answer your first question
What difference is there to the Christian GOD, between someone with a 130 IQ, someone with a 78 IQ and someone with a 235 IQ?

sexdrugsmoney · #3 10-07-2005, 06:46 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
If Isaac Newton was brainwashed since birth, just how long should it take for another genius like Sklansky to convince him to become an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

But please, don't ever compare David Sklansky to Issac Newton ever again. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, 6 months of research by Sklansky could make them equals. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

#4 10-07-2005, 06:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Isaac Newton was brainwashed since birth, just how long should it take for another genius like Sklansky to convince him to become an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

But please, don't ever compare David Sklansky to Issac Newton ever again. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, 6 months of research by Sklansky could make them equals. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey I'm not trying to belittle Sklansky he helped teach me the game of poker. If he saw that comparison even he wouldn't dignify it.
If you read some of Sklanksy's work you say huh! never thought about it that way.
If you read Newtons work.......... I mean Really!!
I'm done with this thread, just working towards my Carpal Tunnel saw an easy mark!

sexdrugsmoney · #5 10-07-2005, 07:07 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

But please, don't ever compare David Sklansky to Issac Newton ever again. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, 6 months of research by Sklansky could make them equals. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey I'm not trying to belittle Sklansky he helped teach me the game of poker. If he saw that comparison even he wouldn't dignify it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

#6 10-07-2005, 07:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But please, don't ever compare David Sklansky to Issac Newton ever again. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, 6 months of research by Sklansky could make them equals. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey I'm not trying to belittle Sklansky he helped teach me the game of poker. If he saw that comparison even he wouldn't dignify it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I read the tread and yes really. There is no way you are going to convince me that David Sklansky will say that if he lived in the mid 1600s he would have beaten Issac Newton to publishing Principia Mathematica.
I mean he lives in 2005 and he writes books on checking when the likley bettor is to your left.
He was simply saying that he is able to see farther by sitting in the laps of the people who are standing on the shoulders of giants.
That is all I saw in that thread.
Mabye a little arrogant at worst to think he belongs at a debate 1 on 1 with Issac Newton in 2005 on the existence of God in a biblical sense. There are greater minds that could stand in for him on that debate who definitly wouldn't need 6 months of preperation.
I think David Sklanksy Catches alot of childish challenges on these threads and I wish the discussions were more civil and in a less ego based format. As there are actually some very interesting topics on here.
I think he has become a world class ignorer because of these threads. I think with the experience from these threads, he could "out ignore" Issac Newton in a room full of arrogant, complex driven 2+2ers.

#7 10-07-2005, 09:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But please, don't ever compare David Sklansky to Issac Newton ever again. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, 6 months of research by Sklansky could make them equals. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey I'm not trying to belittle Sklansky he helped teach me the game of poker. If he saw that comparison even he wouldn't dignify it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That thread is a joke built on your hypothetical. I love how you pull it out every now and again and use it as asome sort of evidence that "Sklansky thinks he's smarter than Newton" (adding your little smirking emoticon each time, too). All that link says is that Sklansky has 350 years of other people's research and thinking to reflect on that Newton didn't have in the 1600s.

Stop using that thread to attempt to discredit DS, it is getting pathetic and only discredits yourself.

sexdrugsmoney · #8 10-07-2005, 09:24 AM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

That thread is a joke built on your hypothetical. I love how you pull it out every now and again and use it as asome sort of evidence that "Sklansky thinks he's smarter than Newton" (adding your little smirking emoticon each time, too).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that is the first time I have personally linked that thread, if not it is definately the first time I have used Mr. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] and it together. (though I cannot recall ever linking to it before, honestly)

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

All that link says is that Sklansky has 350 years of other people's research and thinking to reflect on that Newton didn't have in the 1600s.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in that hypothetical Newton would have been up to speed with the progress of science and still maintained he was a Christian in this present day despite that.

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />

Stop using that thread to attempt to discredit DS, it is getting pathetic and only discredits yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

First time I've linked it I believe. (could be wrong, the memory does get worse as the years go by)

Besides David has highlighted the folly of other users many a time, (taxg007 et al) and not akin to my 'joke' above. David is a big boy, and while I'd wager he appreciates your discipleship, I'm sure he doesn't need a guard dog. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

#9 10-07-2005, 09:39 AM

That discipleship comment was harsh lol.
But sorry sexdrugsmoney I have to side with reason on this one.
Here was Sklanky's stance!! If Newton had been brought up to speed with the last 350 years of science and he STILL believed in god Sklansky said he would want a psych evaluation of Newton and if he still believed in GOD, Sklansky wanted a debate. Am I wrong? Read it again.
It is ok to be wrong.
Be open minded to the fact that just because your views differ from Sklansky's, neither one of you will be right 100% of the time.
People not understanding this is really starting to clutter up the threads.
Smart people arguing on and on and ON after they have clearly been proven wrong and then the name calling....................... Isn't this everything we hate in other people?

andyfox · #10 10-07-2005, 02:03 PM

I can't answer your precise questions, but as to the general one in your title, I can definitively say yes.