Theists: Hitchens Wager

[Edwardo Piet]

See, just constant strawmen from Khem lol.

[chimp3]

See, just constant strawmen from Khem lol.

Maybe just something that needs clarification.

[The Grand Nudger]

I never limited anything to believers!

No, hitchens did, or framed it as such.  Hitchens wager was the setup to that punchline.  I think it's a brilliant rhetorical flourish, but the answer to the question does stare us in the face, at least potentially, in the expression of that conclusion.

[chimp3]

I never limited anything to believers!

No, hitchens did, or framed it as such.  Hitchens wager was the setup to that punchline.  I think it's a brilliant rhetorical flourish, but the answer to the question does stare us in the face, at least potentially, in the expression of that conclusion.

In my OP I believe I confine my query to very specific perimeters without assumption of an a conclusion!

[The Grand Nudger]

You are asking for one, though, aren't you?  Asking for someone to present some concluision that some x is something that only a believer could do..and, further, that this x be meaningfully moral x..and that this x be an act or statement?

I'm commenting on the fact that hitchens offered one, in a roundabout sort of way, in making the converse statement hitchens wager was the prelude to.  I find that interesting, particularly in the context of the thread.  It could certainly answer the question you're asking, in principle.

[RoadRunner79]

Name one moral action or statement that a believer can perform or state that an atheist can not.

I wouldn’t argue otherwise.

[Edwardo Piet]

See, just constant strawmen from Khem lol.

Maybe just something that needs clarification.

That's what I thought until he did it constantly to me during every debate we had for years lol.

Your mileage may differ or it may not lol.

[Mystic]

Keep up daily prayers his whole life as prescribed by the Messenger of time.

[Catholic_Lady]

I am extremely confused if you genunely think Trump is a good president, yes. A baked potato would be a better president.

No I don't think you and CL are excellent critical thinkers. I don't think it takes a genius to spot Khem's shit... I think that a lot of atheists just get over excited when he strawmans the theists as hard as he strawmans me. And many people probably haven't been on the wrong side of him yet. I went years of liking him obliviously until we actually had a disagreement and I quickly realized what it's like actually trying to have a discussion with him.

I guess, from the sidelines he doesn't look so bad. When you actually see how constantly he strawmans you, it's easy to spot.

Also, theism is so silly that a strawman of theism isn't much sillier than theism... so it's hard for him to make theists look any sillier even if they are constantly having to take his foot out of their mouth lol.

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.  

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

Yeah I agree with this. Not being able to be objective because you get excited at seeing someone being an ass to a person with opposing view points from yourself, is kind of the definition of inability to think critically.

Everyone who voted Khem best debater should just fess up lol. Reveal thyself!

---

Yes. At the time this was written (which was several thousands of years ago) marrying the person you raped was a step towards a moral awakening and moral responsibility. Because back then, women who were raped were considered impure and were pretty much either left for the wolves or killed.

The Old Testament needs to be taken in the context of what it meant for the people of the time. It represents a moral awakening. This does not mean rape is or ever was objectively good.

That is a twisted revisionist excuse for a historical moral travesty.  It belittles you to try and aplogise for the moral failures of the past.

---

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.  

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

Listen up! If you want to debate the debating skills of certain forum members, start your own fucking thread! I don't give a shit! Now, back to the OP!

Meh, not trying to apologize for anything. Just trying to explain why Jews and Christians don't read that passage and think rape is good. Take it or leave it I suppose.

[henryp]

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.

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.

What's great about symbolic logic and math, is that you can't trick it. There's no bias. There's no semantics.  Bullshit only enters the equation when people start using words.  That's why everyone here is always bickering over fallacies.  You talk about thinking in words, rather than symbols/numbers, but symbols/numbers is so much better.  Take an argument, reduce it to symbolic logic, test it for soundness, find an example that shows it's not valid, present it, and get told you're strawmanning 100% of the time. 

There are definitely people who think/communicate in symbolic logic/numbers rather than words, they just rarely have anyone to talk to.

---

Regarding Poker and Game Theory, math plays so heavily into those things.  You're putting a really low ceiling on how good you can be at either.  It's interesting your impression of what's happening at the next level is intuition.  Something that's more of a trait rather than a skill.  Just like you've reduced your poor math skills to a trait rather than intelligence.  You could be great at math, but you've got a bad memory.  You can't do anything about a bad memory or intuition, so it doesn't reflect on your intelligence that you can't move up in poker or be better at math.  

When we were arguing in another thread, you brought up how stupid I was a lot of times.  Is it fair to say that you place a lot of value in perceiving yourself as being much more intelligent than others? (not saying you are or aren't, just that it's very important to you.)