(April 22, 2018 at 7:04 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:56 pm)henryp Wrote: If you can be oblivious for years, what does that say about your ability to look at things objectively? That's a blind spot probably worth some self-reflection. 

Actually I did pretty well considering I was doped up with lithium and anti-psychotics that I didn't need. And to be honest that's probably more of an empathy issue than anything. I can't see other people's point of view so when they get frustrated with Khem I don't notice it. But then when I deal with him I do notice it. Probably more of a lack of empathy than anything.

Quote:How important do you think critical thinking skills are to Poker?

Hmm... not very I think. It's more about memorizing hand strength, and adapting.

I guess it becomes more important once you get to a higher level.  Because all the more obvious decisions become more nuanced... and borderline situations become more and more important to get right, because you're not playing against idiots anymore.

But I think intuition is also a big part of the higher level.  And I don't think I have enough of that--intution-- or enough people-reading skills to reach a higher level.

To beat the majority of people who play poker, who are idiots, all you really need to do is play a very ABC game. Play strong hands, and you get called far too often. And people make crazy bluffs and you just wait until you have a good hand and take all their money. It's not rocket science. The difference is, a lot of people can do that but when they start getting bad beats they start going on tilt. I don't have that problem. I'm very good at playing like a machine lol.

Have you ever met someone who you disagree with that you think is smarter than you?  For example, they hold some conclusion that you can't figure out how to get to, but you think they might be right?

When playing poker online, where 'people reading skills' is really just pattern recognition and problem solving, what do you think holds you back?  The game theory?  But game theory is really just reducing something to it's core using logic.  Although, that often involves some math.  Is it the math that you get hung up on?  Why do you think that is?  Math is so closely tied to logic, that it's an odd pairing to have a lot of one of but not the other.

(April 22, 2018 at 7:34 pm)henryp Wrote: Have you ever met someone who you disagree with that you think is smarter than you?  For example, they hold some conclusion that you can't figure out how to get to, but you think they might be right?

Not yet. It's why I never need or use intuition. I don't get that thing that other people seem to get where X seems right but I don't know why. It's probably why I'm so dispassionate. Seeming and feeling seem connected.

Quote:When playing poker online, where 'people reading skills' is really just pattern recognition and problem solving, what do you think holds you back?  The game theory?  But game theory is really just reducing something to it's core using logic.  Although, that often involves some math.  Is it the math that you get hung up on?  Why do you think that is?  Math is so closely tied to logic, that it's an odd pairing to have a lot of one of but not the other.

I suck balls at math. Holding numbers in my head is hard. Because the numbers don't stand for anything. It's why I suck at remembering phone numbers. I find words much more memorable. It helps that I bloody love words. When I was much younger, I once spent 8 months reading the dictionary every day. What I especially found interesting was all the different but similar senses of the same word, and how often people get them confused. And, I found it very amusing looking at defintiion for really basic words like "that" lol.

I struggle with symbolic logic. That's, again, because I forget what the symbols stand for. Feels too much like algebra.

I'd be great at mathematics if I had a better short term memory, basically. I don't feel like I need one for logic because words are incredibly vivid and memorable to me.

Although it would take perhaps a little more than memory. I'd also have to find it interesting. Words fascinate me. Numbers all feel like of the same to me.

As a small child maths I adored maths. It was only after I got more fascinated in definitions and logic that maths took a back seat. Which was still from a very young age. I didn't get past the basics of maths before I moved on from it, finding it compartively dull. Although, if I were better at memorizing numbers or symbols that aren't words... perhaps I'd still find maths a lot more interesting. That's it you see, it works both ways. I get good at stuff I'm interested in and I'm interested in stuff I'm good at. I also remember stuff better when I'm more interested in it.

It's the process of logic and maths that I find interesting. And it's all logical. But words are more memorable than abstract symbols or numbers. Also, you can talk to someone in words, and think in words. You can't do that with numbers. Numbers feel very limiting to me.

Seeing the true nature of goodness and loving it for what it is.

(April 22, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:28 pm)chimp3 Wrote: No! That is not what you said. You said "correct or incorrect"!

That's what I meant.

If I say "Rape is immoral, and those who think rape is moral are incorrect," I'm saying that morality is objective.

I don't think it is logical for an atheist to believe morality is objective. This does not mean I don't think atheists can be moral.

How does adding a God to your moral system make it objective and how are you able to determine what that God is telling you is correct?

(April 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Seeing the true nature of goodness and loving it for what it is.

Why is that a moral action or statement?

(April 22, 2018 at 7:45 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Seeing the true nature of goodness and loving it for what it is.

Why is tha a moral action or statement?

Actions have outward form, and inward intentions, it's the intentions really that are the states we are in. 

The true nature of goodness and loving it, is the heart of what makes an action good, and if you deny that much, you've denied too much.

(April 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Seeing the true nature of goodness and loving it for what it is.

If this can be done at all, it can be done equally by atheists.

Belief in God doesn't give you magic powers.

---

(April 22, 2018 at 7:44 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: That's what I meant.

If I say "Rape is immoral, and those who think rape is moral are incorrect," I'm saying that morality is objective.

I don't think it is logical for an atheist to believe morality is objective. This does not mean I don't think atheists can be moral.

How does adding a God to your moral system make it objective and how are you able to determine what that God is telling you is correct?

The way I see it is... if God can make anything moral including murdering and raping children.... then he's not really moral.

And if God can't do that, because that's immoral regardless of if God says it is, then that admits that morality transcends God.

And clearly, if God tells you to do something the question is still open as to whether what he asked is the right thing to do or not.

And even if God is omniscient and knows everything that is right and wrong, and only ever tells people to do the right thing, and never tells people to do the wrong thing: Those things would be just as right and wrong if he didn't exist... once against demonstrating that morality is outside of God.

(April 22, 2018 at 7:48 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Seeing the true nature of goodness and loving it for what it is.

If this can be done at all, it can be done equally by atheists.

Belief in God doesn't give you magic powers.

Belief in God is the primary magical power we have my friend, and it's foundation.  Loose that, and you begin to lose your wits and sight, and you lose your power to perceive and hear wisdom.

To keep growing and ascending with higher nature of goodness, belief in God and loving he above all else, is necessary.

(April 22, 2018 at 7:23 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

---

(April 22, 2018 at 7:17 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I've got one for you, Chimp.  Approach the wager from the other direction...entirely, from it's punchline.  Think of some immoral act that only a theist can do.  

Killing (or dying-or both..simultaneously) in service to their theistic beliefs?   

What if this was, instead, the only moral act that a theist can do that an atheist can't?

I don't see any reason to die or kill for atheism. I don't see how this precludes any other psycho atheist from doing so.

The wager, though, is what an atheist can't do that a theist can.  Dying (por killing, or killing and dying) for a particular belief in god is something that no atheist could do.  They don't possess that belief.  We commonly consider that to be an instance of immorality, martrydom as evil, because it's so commonly leveraged to what we might consider evil ends. 

It's a difficult question to answer, I've spent some time thinking about it, from time to time.  Like a puzzle, you just want to crack it and offer some credible answer.  So, consider the counterfactual.  If, in some circumstance, that sort of martyrdom was a morally correct (dare I say righteous) act...then wouldn't this by definition be a moral act that an atheist would be incapable of doing?

(April 22, 2018 at 7:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(April 22, 2018 at 7:23 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

---

I don't see any reason to die or kill for atheism. I don't see how this precludes any other psycho atheist from doing so.

The wager, though, is what an atheist can't do that a theist can.  Dying (por killing, or killing and dying) for a particular belief in god is something that no atheist could do.  They don't possess that belief.  We commonly consider that to be an instance of immorality, martrydom as evil, because it's so commonly leveraged to what we might consider evil ends. 

It's a difficult question to answer, I've spent some time thinking about it, from time to time.  Like a puzzle, you just want to crack it and offer some credible answer.  So, consider the counterfactual.  If, in some circumstance, that sort of martyrdom was a morally correct (dare I say righteous) act...then wouldn't this by definition be a moral act that an atheist would be incapable of doing?

As I have stated before, the action is seperate from the motivation.

The OP addresses moral actions or statements. Not motivations.