why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and other?s

[siegfriedandroy]

question one: why does sklansky spend so much time here? if he is so certain that god doesnt exist, why does he care to spend so many of his waking hours in this part of his wonderful forum? why doesnt he spend more time on the nolimit section instead, so that donks like me can profit more easily? if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

question 2: what is sklansky's favorite hemingway book? i read 'old man and the sea' in 9th grade, and some other title i cant remember, but that's the extent of my heminway experience. i do remember seeing some dooshbag kid outside a bar one night reading 'old man', trying to be cool and to pass for an 'intellectual'. i am pretty sure, though, that he was no Sklansky!

3) how much money has sklansky made at poker in his lifetime?

question 4) what are some of the flaws that you agnostic's see with pascal's wager. wasnt he one of the great scientists of the past millenium?

5) daniel n. and david s. agree to play a game of strip poker, to be observed by carmen e. who does carmen e. want to win?

question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

7) does sklansky ever play online? if so, where, and what is his screen name?

[ QUOTE ]
question one: why does sklansky spend so much time here? if he is so certain that god doesnt exist, why does he care to spend so many of his waking hours in this part of his wonderful forum? why doesnt he spend more time on the nolimit section instead, so that donks like me can profit more easily? if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's done his share of poker teaching, and there are so many posters who can supply new readers with information. This whole reasoning out that God doesn't exist problem is very complex, so it may interest him, since he's a bright guy. and maybe not knowing 100% that God doesn't exist is too risky considering the consequences.


[ QUOTE ]
5) daniel n. and david s. agree to play a game of strip poker, to be observed by carmen e. who does carmen e. want to win?

[/ QUOTE ]
DN & DS convince CE to also play. It's televised. Everyone wins, unless CE wins. Then we lose.


[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're saying if someone was atheist, then they shouldn't care whether or not their child is taught incorrect information?

[siegfriedandroy]

i guess im saying there's no rational reason to care, at least none that i can think of. i guess there's no reason not to care either, though. either way is w/o meaning, just like everything else in such a god forsaken philosophy. however, most atheists (in my experience at least) do seem to care very much that the 'truth' (evolution, for instance) be known. but in my view, there is no real reason for 'truth' to be taught, pursued, believed, etc. in an atheistic perspective. certainly no reason to argue on a web forum about it. it seems most atheists have no solid or legitimate reason to argue evolution (or anything else related to philosophy, etc) except to serve themselves, through receiving pleasure, etc out of such debate and dialogue. no inherent reason to seek or teach the 'truth' though. but inevitably they do seem to search for truth, etc (ala sklansky), despite having no real incentive or reason to do so. to me it just all boils down to hollow and empty philosophy. utter meaninglessness...

question 8: if an atheist, why not commit suicide? why value life at all? of course you could respond simply and say, 'why commit suicide?' that's fine. either way. but most atheists do not commit suicide? why not? it seems they all place substantial value on human life. if they did not, there seems to be no reason not to commit suicide, especially if done painlessly. this is especially true if the person is one who suffers greatly (and i believe we all suffer to some extent). why not avoid it? even if you consider yourself 'happy' and espouse some ridiculous moral view like the happiness principle (leibniz i believe), why live and be happy as opposed to dying and feeling nothing? is it better to be 'happy' than to feel nothing? i am a christian and would never encourage someone to kill themself. yet if i was an atheist, then id have no reason to value human life, and killing myself would not be irrational. yet most atheists do not kill themselves. why not? i believe that even atheists are aware of an ultimate reality. i believe deep inside that even sklansky knows it is wrong to kill unjustly, no matter how deeply he buries such truth. enough for now.

I'm not Sklansky, but the odds of him replying seem small, so I'll put in my two cents.

1) why does sklansky spend so much time here?
He doesn't spend that much time on here. As to why, it's an interesting subject, and fun to play around with. I think he's looking to create moments of truth, where posters will discover something about themselves they didn't know before. He seems to be a genuine teacher who likes it when people think about things that matter.

2) How much money has sklansky made at poker in his lifetime?
My guess is about 300K.

5) daniel n. and david s. agree to play a game of strip poker, to be observed by carmen e. who does carmen e. want to win?
Unless she likes feminine males, I'd say Daniel all the way.

6) why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school.
Because it's wrong by every reasonable and common sense standard. Read a book on evolution and the fossil record (and I'm not talking Lucy). It's simply stunning and ovewhelming both in number and diversity. Read about the phylogenic tree. Look at the structure of cells. No one who has done these things doubts the fact that organisms have evolved from single cells to what they are today.
God is a seperate issue.

7) does sklansky ever play online? if so, where, and what is his screen name?
"Doy... wait, don't you have to win a contest or something if you want to ask questions?

[BluffTHIS!]

#1: Because he can, because he believes there is value to society in getting intellingent believers to not believe in religion, and because he is only willing to give so many poker insights for free in other forums when he would rather you pay for them in his next book.

#2: To Have And Have Not, because that is the ultimate philosophical question for him.

#3: 1 mil+. Although that might sound impressive, expensive girlfriends and getting Matt out of continual trouble as a teenager drained much of that with the result he still has to grind it out on the seat of this leather ass.

#4: His main objection to Pascal's wager is probably that it posits an infinite reward that could only be finitely appreciated by humans since they are finite creatures themselves.

#5: carmen e. is too smart to take take those 2 as her only choices and would insist on the addition of one or more chippendales to the game.

#6: Because ID is psuedo-scientific bunk put out by creationists who can't reconcile their selectively-literal interpretations of scripture with scientific fact.

#7: He plays micro-limits on PS under the screen name "MalmuthIsaPutz".

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think you seem to be caught in the notion that atheists must believe life is meaningless (in the we should all commit suicide now sense). Most atheists do find some meaning in their life, and for alot of us it could be raising children and contributing professionally in a way to improve the species. Fighting for public schools to teach actual science in science classes seems to fit into both of these goals.

[bluesbassman]

I obviously can't answer for DS, but my "atheistic" perspective is probably typical...

[ QUOTE ]
if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing about atheism which implies "everything is meaningless and without purpose." That's a classic logical fallacy known as a false dilemma: the (supposed) only alternative to theism is philosophical nihilism. See this index of logical fallacies.

And besides, do most believers really find meaning in life only to serve the inexplicable wishes of some "god" (whatever that is)? I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
question 4) what are some of the flaws that you agnostic's see with pascal's wager. wasnt he one of the great scientists of the past millenium?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are just a few of the flaws:

1. Wagering on one religion may damn you to hell according to a number of others. Where do you place your bet?

2. An omniscient "god" may know you are simply hedging your bets, and punish you anyway.

3. "God" may reward in afterlife only those who rigorously use their god-given reason by rejecting religion; i.e. the "best" wager is to be an atheist.

4. Any "god" who tortures unbelievers probably can't be trusted to honor his end of the wager.

5. Since the concept of "god" is incoherent, no meaningful wager can be posed.

That Pascal was great scientist is irrelevant; that logical fallacy is known as the argument from authority.

[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since ID isn't science, many theists also vehemently oppose it being taught in a science class. The reasons for atheists and theists are probably the same, namely that some people care about the quality of education.

[ QUOTE ]
many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I care about the issue, and I don't have any children, nor ever plan to.

[ QUOTE ]
if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins. [wrt to teaching ID as science]


[/ QUOTE ]

Then using your own logic, any theist should not give a sh*t what was taught in every other class since none of it matters to eternal salvation. So if math teacher decides to teach that 2+2 = 7, you're cool with that, right?

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
Read a book on evolution and the fossil record (and I'm not talking Lucy). It's simply stunning and ovewhelming both in number and diversity. Read about the phylogenic tree. Look at the structure of cells. No one who has done these things doubts the fact that organisms have evolved from single cells to what they are today.
God is a seperate issue.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very very untrue. What about the pre-cambrian explosion in the fossil record? How about the concept of irreducible complexity? Darwin had absolutely no idea about the complexity of the cell when he came up "The Origin of Species".

It's interesting how the more technologically advanced we get the more complex things are. ie. the universe, bio-chemistry, physics etc. This in itself points to an inteligent designer.

[ QUOTE ]
Very very untrue. What about the pre-cambrian explosion in the fossil record? How about the concept of irreducible complexity?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I would wager my life that you've never read about the phylogenic tree. Or explored the fossil record very much.

The two ideas you quoted, pre cambrian explosion and irreducible complexity are common fallacies repeated in the non educated religious community. They have been thoroughly debunked, in fact anyone who's ever studied evolution wouldn't even mention them. At least you didn't mention the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that's refreshing.

Anyway it's late here so I'll start a thread about this tomorrow (or you can) rather than hijack.

As for this:

[ QUOTE ]
It's interesting how the more technologically advanced we get the more complex things are. ie. the universe, bio-chemistry, physics etc. This in itself points to an inteligent designer.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, it points to an unintelligent or naive observer. Kind of like once believing the sun was a light moved across the sky by God. Now we know it's a massive ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion that the earth orbits around. If anything, this points away from a credible 'God did it' hypothesis. See why?