this is much funnier than zeejustin

[aliensyndm]

I am here. Ok I haven't even got past the first paragraph and already there is a glaringly huge fuck up.

he’ll wager $50,000 that no Bible-believer (someone who can pass a polygraph test as a believer that Jesus was resurrected, and that non-Christians won’t go to heaven) can beat his score at the math SAT or GRE.

Polygraphs - Utter load of shite. Not reliable, not accurate, they don't work.
Noone has ever been convicted using a polygraph evidence as we know it to be completely unreliable.

Read here for some more information...

http://www.skeptics.ca/articles/eric-polygraph.html

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.p...e_detector.php

Ironic that the idea of polygraphs detecting lies, is a lie.
People want some kind of magic lie detector box, no such thing exists.

Anyway let me read on.

[aliensyndm]

he ends his post by suggesting that religious people won’t take him up on his challenge (cluck cluck! chicken!) not because they’ll lose but because they’ll fail the polygraph.

If he actually knew anything about polygraphs he would realise it's around 50/50 whether they passed or failed it. You know like 77 v AQ.
Slanskly is showing himself to be a little ignorant here.

[aliensyndm]

He also seems to forget many of our great scientists were Christians. I suppose people like Lord Kelvin, Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Fancis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck and you can also possibily add in Albert Einstein. He never believed in a personal God but recognised the impossibility of a non-created universe.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


I mean that clearly is a list of nobodies. It's not like they did anything important is it ? Slansky is obviously way smarter than that bunch of dumb asses


Slansky also seems to write from the position of Christians are dumb cos what they believe is wrong. He of course knows this how ? He knows there is no God how ? He knows how the universe was created how ?
He doesn't.

One thing I notice about the two plus two poker forums is religion comes up a hell of alot. More often than not by non-religious people needing to try and show how smart they are and how dumb all religious believers are.

[GETT1NLOTS]

Agree or disagree - an intelligent post worth reading.

[mrmuzeman]

He also seems to forget many of our great scientists were Christians. I suppose people like Lord Kelvin, Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Fancis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Max Planck and you can also possibily add in Albert Einstein. He never believed in a personal God but recognised the impossibility of a non-created universe.

Its hard to percentagise such things but did these people have a 95% certainty thing going on is the question. The point (rightly or wrongly) that Sklansky is trying to make is that he thinks people that almost certainly believe these things (the 2 Jesus related things in his original post) are in fact not very clever. I dont think he is saying all christians are dumb as Aliens posts seem to suggest, although Sklansky does come over somewhat arrogant in some of his postings.

The part I highlighted in bold sort of illustrates the % argument. Someone who accepts such a notion doesnt necessarily at all think almost without doubt Jesus was reseurected etc, which is the criteria being asked of.

[aliensyndm]

You can't be 100% sure of anything. I mean even things we take for granted like the structure of the atom, are we 95% sure of this ? Perhaps ? Doesn't mean it's 100% guaranteed to be the case though. Also the percentage of "sureness" a person has on a certain thing has no bearing on whether it is actually true, or not. I could quite easily take two people from completely different religious faiths who completely honestly profess to be 100% sure that their religious beliefs are true as they know this to be the case through experience etc etc.
Now they can't both be right. Perhaps one is right, the other wrong. Perhaps both are wrong. The fact they are 100% sure means nothing at all.


Er muze you say Slansky isn't trying to say that all Christians are dumb but..

that Sklansky is trying to make is that he thinks people that almost certainly believe these things (the 2 Jesus related things in his original post) are in fact not very clever.

Those are two things that Christians believe ! The first one is basically the crux of Christianity. The second one is also referred to by such passages as "Noone comes to the father except through me" and so on but if you are a Christian it's God who does the judging so it's not one I try to bother about too much.

Slansky is basically trying to say Christians are dumb !

I really don't get what he is trying to prove with his maths challenge. He could do it and beat every Christian and Non-Christian in the entire world.
It still has no bearing on whether or not God exists.
He is also exceptionally arrogant and dumb to believe that he would be able to beat any Christian in some maths test I think. There are billions of them out there and I think it's fair to say quite a few of them are most likely maths professors and they'd eat him for breakfast.
Also the test is of course in one of his particular specialist subjects.
Perhaps I should issue a challenge like no poker player could ever beat me at a game of chess. Could I then try and prove poker players are of course dumb by doing this ? Then I could present to Slansky and perhaps he can't play chess and is not very good and would protest. Do you see what I am trying to say ? Not for one moment would I actually believe I would be able to beat all these people anyway ! Does Slansky believe he is going to be better at everything than any of these dumb Christians ? Why doesn't he also issue the challenge in other subjects like physics, chemistry, english literature, history, geography etc ?
Cos he would be fucking stuffed easily that is why. Would this then mean that Christians are way smarter than him ? Exactly what does trying to show he is better at one particular subject, his own chosen subject that he knows he is good at, prove ? Maths no doubt he is very knowledgable on but being an expert on poker does not make you a world authority on maths or anything else. If it was a few billion Christians v Slansky I would have to go with the numbers and back the few billion Christians any day of the week.




Slansky comes across very arrogantly and the poker popularity explosion has perhaps gone to his head. Hey perhaps he was a twat before it too I'm not sure. I'm sure I remember hearing about when Mike Caro came online, he was very helpful, polite and tried to answer as many questions as possible and wasn't an arrogant twat like Slansky at all.

[mrmuzeman]

I think youre overlooking one key factor. Sklanksy IS God

Im not sure youre getting what I mean about the 95%+ sure thing though.

You can't be 100% sure of anything. I mean even things we take for granted like the structure of the atom, are we 95% sure of this ? Perhaps ? Doesn't mean it's 100% guaranteed to be the case though. Also the percentage of "sureness" a person has on a certain thing has no bearing on whether it is actually true, or not. .

(The part in bold) so if someone DOES think they are 100% sure of the Jesus stuff, does this make them not very intelligent is what Sklansky is trying to say (not very well though). There are people out there that will 100% say and believe they are sure it is true. I think it is these types Sklansky is mainly having a pop at, not the ones who think it but accept its not definitely the case (like yourself possibly Alien?).

I could quite easily take two people from completely different religious faiths who completely honestly profess to be 100% sure that their religious beliefs are true as they know this to be the case through experience etc etc.
Now they can't both be right. Perhaps one is right, the other wrong. Perhaps both are wrong. The fact they are 100% sure means nothing at all.

Does it mean nothing though? The very fact that neither accept there could POSSIBLY be any other way is a bit limited thinking is it not? Its a bit arrogant saying they are 100%, just totally closed off to any other way. Would you not agree?

I think Sklanskys argument would be MUCH better if he made it 100% instead of 95% though. Cos 95% sure admits some chance of your belief not being the case which is reasonable thinking imo.

[aliensyndm]

Slansky comes across as an arrogant twat to me. I also recall not too long ago a large thread on two plus two about no limit hold 'em. I'm sure Slansky was actually having trouble differentiating between limit and no limit concepts and was shown up a bit.

If Slansky is as clever as he seems to think why can he not get his point across then ? I shouldn't need you to decipher it for me should I ?

Why not just and explain that point though ? What's with the maths challenge which proves abosolutely nothing regardless of results either way ?


Is Slanskly 100% sure there is no God I wonder or is it 95% ? Does he also concede there is a possibility he could be wrong I wonder.

[mrmuzeman]

He certainly shouldnt need be to explain his point for him, ill probably misinterpret it

Just to set the record straight. Ken Jennings is not correct as to my motives. It wasn't to show how smart I am. Or to point out that religious people are dumb. It was a publicity stunt to expose one SPECIFIC religious belief that makes me sick. And it has nothing to do with the fact that holders of this belief often dispute evolution. The belief in question is that you absolutely go to hell no matter how examplary your life was conducted if you can't say that you are sure that Jesus was ressurrected. And that if you can, you go to heaven regardless of what kind of scoundrel you are. And Ken Jennings does not believe that.

Besides being a despicable belief that I believe often goes along with being a bad person, I also believe that it almost guarantees the holder can't think logically. At least not if he thinks God is just and if he admits that the great majority of smart people who think about these things disagree with him. I say that because it would be unjust for God to absolutely require "belief" to avoid hell, if objective evidence doesn't strongly point to that belief. OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Not faith.

Bit more elaboration from Sklansky there which at least makes a bit more sense.

Heres that thread you were referring to mate

http://www.thedailypunt.com/forum/sh...light=sklansky

[aliensyndm]

The bible clearly states that God has left so much evidence of his design that people are without excuse. That's a whole other argument.

Slansky also seems to forget that his idea of right and wrong and his idea of justice is purely a personal thing and individual to him.

Besides being a despicable belief that I believe often goes along with being a bad person

A bad person in who's eyes ? His ? Some other persons' ? The majority of people ? God's ?

Just because he thinks someone maybe a bad person doesn't mean they are.
His bad might be someone else's good. Who is right, the other person or Slansky ? Why are Slansky's ideas of morals any better than anyone elses' ? They aren't.

Someone may lead an "examplary life" as he calls it in culture A.
Someone else may also do the same in culture B.
Now it maybe than in culture A it is traditional to rape, kill and pillage and in culture B it isn't. But both people have lived out their lives according to the traditions of their people and their customs so that means it's ok by Slansky right ? Slansky's idea of an examplary life probably doesn't include rape,murder etc but it's only his personal idea of what constitutes a decent life. Someone else might have a completely different view on it. Now Slansky might argue murder and rape are not things which would be part of an examplary life ? Why ? Just cos he says so ? He has hiw own ideas about morals and so on but so do 6 billion other people.

We then have Slansky telling us God is unjust if that's what he does. I guess God should have consulted Slansky before he like made the universe and shit right ? If there actually is an ultimate right and wrong it comes from God and he is the one to judge, not Slansky. Slansky may think someone has led an examplary life but God might disagree and it's his opinion that counts, not Slansky's.

[mrmuzeman]

I guess God should have consulted Slansky before he like made the universe and shit right ? If there actually is an ultimate right and wrong it comes from God and he is the one to judge, not Slansky. Slansky may think someone has led an examplary life but God might disagree and it's his opinion that counts, not Slansky's.

Theres a couple of sentences I thought it never hear

Be sweet if Sklansky signed up and we could all argue together

[aliensyndm]

I see what you mean about how Slansky is God. Stereotypical image of God being an old man with a grey beard

[Doc]

Sklansky is an arrogant dick, and he is also correct (in whatever sense you want to define it) in less than 95% of his arguments, I'd wager

[christianu]

Dont wink

You always pick and choose which points to pick out in my posts alien, focusing more on minor points so ill do the same with you here, no need to get into debate about religion, never agree.

One thing i will say lol, no religion can explain how god came about from seemingly nowhere or whatever, if nowhere doesnt exist, and thats a massive hole for me in a belief; it doesnt even tell me how my lord came to be. Nobody can just be there can they? That doesnt make sense does it, which brings me onto my next point.

I know this punctuation is all over tha place btw (im talking to alien and doc so i better say) but i dont care typing as i go along.

I just beleive whatever is going on in the universe is completely beyond our understanding, were not able to know.

Anywayyyy sorry

Perhaps I should issue a challenge like no poker player could ever beat me at a game of chess

completely differnet, a maths test compared to a poker game which has a real element of luck, not least the scores he is talking about require a remarkable amount of intelligence, how you define intelligence another issue.

If I challenge someone to beat me at an IQ test, they cant then say oh you might as well challenge me to a game of monopoly, different priniciples.

Why doesn't he also issue the challenge in other subjects like physics, chemistry, english literature, history, geography etc ?

Well Maths is usually accpeted as the subject that requires the most intelligence, compared to english etc..

Geography, Physics and stuff are more specific studies id say, maths more general and so it makes a lot more sense, id say thats why he's doing that.

Its a stupid thing for sklanksy to say as he's open to so much criticsm

I would have also said youd have to be stupid to believe the old testament stories, but Alien does and I dont think he is.

Its all about certain types of intelligence I guess, cos i still think its really stupid IMO.

[christianu]

Quote:
Perhaps I should issue a challenge like no poker player could ever beat me at a game of chess



completely differnet, a maths test compared to a poker game which has a real element of luck, not least the scores he is talking about require a remarkable amount of intelligence, how you define intelligence another issue.

If I challenge someone to beat me at an IQ test, they cant then say oh you might as well challenge me to a game of monopoly, different priniciples.

misread aliens post so ignore that bit, he was saying it the other way round which makes more sense!