poker and religion

[J. Stew]

In poker, tight-aggressive play is generally considered the correct style or way of life at the table. Really though, you adjust to every player differently and play the hands that are profitable in each situation. So if someone new to poker wanted to learn how to play (student), and someone didn't have the time or knowledge to explain all the intricacies of the game (teacher), the teacher might just say, tight-aggressive is the way to go.

Abhering to a 'Religion' is like the teacher saying play tight-aggressive and the student doing so. How do you know if tight-aggressive is the best style? You play a lot of hands and see if you're making money. How do you know if a certain religion is working for you? Your quality of life is increased. How do you know if your quality of life is increased, only you can answer that, it fits, you feel like yourself, that type of thing.

But if the Science vs. Religion debate continues, it should be more about trying to define quality, not some old school 'God'. Doesn't mean there is a God or there isn't a God, just that defining God is like defining quality, you can only surround it with conceptual thinking, which begs the question, what is there besides conceptual thinking? Underlying conceptual thinking is the quality with which one is able to conceptually think, which points to something that is the thinking itself, but also that which surrounds, envelops and is the ground upon which conceptual thought manifests. . . the quality of whatever.

So like tight-aggressive is to poker, religion is to some undefineable quality. To beat down religion is like trying to beat down the tight-aggressive style. Of course there are times to be passive, loose, tricky, straight-forward etc. . . to attach to any one way of play is to become stale and repetitive and a loser. But in a blanketed way, tight-aggressive is the broad title given to trying to define what is the best or most quality-filled way to play poker. Discovering the intricacies is entirely up to the individual.

[madnak]

Most religions are mutually exclusive. Playing styles are not.

[J. Stew]

Exclusive? But who tells who what to believe, only conditioning. Even in conditioning a person has the choice to become informed. If they can't break the barriers of their own conditioning in an age when all conceptual knowledge is essentially available, they are either lazy or not genuine or so burdened by suffering they are deluded. All three possibilities but the choice of what to believe in is undoubtedly left to the individual.

[madnak]

A religion includes a set of dogma that is irreconcilable with those of other religions. You seem to be talking about spirituality in general. The danger of referring to spiritual belief as "religion" is that it lumps the hierarchical and systematic organizations that are created to condition and alienate into the mix. Those religions, "organized religions" if you prefer, directly go against what you're saying.

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
A religion includes a set of dogma that is irreconcilable with those of other religions. You seem to be talking about spirituality in general. The danger of referring to spiritual belief as "religion" is that it lumps the hierarchical and systematic organizations that are created to condition and alienate into the mix. Those religions, "organized religions" if you prefer, directly go against what you're saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

But only out of delusion. What they are seeking is that which religion points to, not religion itself. They find comfort in religion because they think if they follow rules they will succeed. When they see that rules are necessary only to a degree, that they already know, in some deeper way, what they are after, they become informed as to what religion essentially is. Bashing religion does nothing except alienate those who abide by systems and it seems like those who are against religion bash it but offer no more encompassing perspective, one that includes religion, but sees beyond religion. Non-religioners bash it, and use science to explain what is, but do not address the issue of quality of life that is added to people who let themselves be open to the characteristics commonly associated but not restricted to religion e.g., compassion.

But you are right that I am speaking more from a Spiritual perspective rather than a soley religion perpective, my point is that religion itself points to something bigger than religion itself, and this is what religious people miss when they attach to their system of beliefs rather than that which underscores the system, which is non-attachment itself, nothingness, Spirituality. If there is attachment to religion, it creates a weakness, if there is attachment to non-religion, there is a weakness, if there is non-attachment, there is strength of character do you agree?

[madnak]

I don't think religion enhances quality of life in the least. Spiritual people will use religion as a focus for their inherent spirituality, and they will attribute the increase in quality of life to their religion, but I think they would find spiritual fulfillment regardless. I think organized religion actually stifles spirituality and encourages fear, which in my opinion does a lot of harm and virtually no good.

They're con artists. They claim to offer God, when in reality God can only be found internally. They distort and abuse the natural spirituality and compassion of human beings in order to suit their ends.

I don't believe in any kind of quantitative evaluative measure. I think non-attachment generally results in greater happiness, but I also think attachment has its value. I think our attachments are important, and I admire the strength of character provided by passion and will as much as that provided by peace and acceptance. I don't think spirituality is one-sided.