The Theory of Poker

[Splendour]

Milo I think what you described also apply to a spiritual journey...

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
My argument is that poker parallels a spiritual journey much more closely than an atheistic one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since when are spirituality and atheism mutually exclusive?

[Splendour]

They seem to be polar opposites Tpir...maybe you could explore the dictionary definitions of atheism and spiritual to compare them...

[foal]

Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you have no "system". All it means is that you don't have a system that is based on a deity. As tpir pointed out, being an atheist also doesn't mean you have no spiritual beliefs. You could be an atheist Buddhist for example.

[foal]

Also, Brian Townsend, Taylor Caby, Phil Helmuth, Johnny Chan, etc must suck at poker, because they don't seem at all humble to me. Just because some cardplayer writer says you have to be humble doesn't make it true. Why would anyone play poker without thinking they were better than their opponents?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
They seem to be polar opposites Tpir...maybe you could explore the dictionary definitions of atheism and spiritual to compare them...

[/ QUOTE ]

theism is not dependant on spirituality.
One could easily believe there is a god yet have no belief that they are in anyway spiritualized by It. God of the Gaps, such as NR's, could well exist in such a world and a lot of simpler views of god took the non-spiritual approach.
Atheism can accept spirituality, there are lots of examples around, since atheism is just a position on the existence of god(s) not on other features of the universe.

luckyme

[Splendour]

Buddhism doesn't specifically rule out deities foal...
Look at this: http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhis...fs/atheism.htm

One of the central differences between Buddhism and Christianity may be the point of impact on how early you can receive God...Plus when people hold up say Buddhism or Islam to Christianity...they never address the simple fact of how easy it is to access education/teachers/facilities on these subjects...Usually the easiest to access is the one nearest to you...Living in the U.S. I can find a church on every corner but not a Buddhist Temple or an Islamic Mosque...It seems I can only find them on the internet when somebody raises them as an alternate...If it is an alternate is it a practical alternative and can I share it easily with someone? The internet seems to remove the human aspect totally out of the whole theistic debate...

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nevermind how The Theory of Poker relates to your life. Let's see how it relates to your spiritual life. My argument is that poker parallels a spiritual journey much more closely than an atheistic one.


[/ QUOTE ]

The "logic" of your argument reminds me of that used by the character Bedevere in this scene from one of my favorite movies.

[/ QUOTE ]
from the the album of the soundtrack of the trailer of one of your favorite movies:

Good evening.

The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. "All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure [censored]. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "Oh yes," one would think.

However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.

For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very irritated because it is not logical.

"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home. "Why not?" I will ask. "Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. "But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got." " You don't love me any more," she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms." "I will give you one after you have got me my supper," I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.

"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. "[censored] supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt.

I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell:

Sex is more fun than logic -- one cannot prove this, but it "is" in the same sense that Mount Everest "is", or that Alma Cogan "isn't".

Goodnight.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
They seem to be polar opposites Tpir...maybe you could explore the dictionary definitions of atheism and spiritual to compare them...

[/ QUOTE ]
That they seem to be polar opposites to you is of no consequence to anyone else. Not sure what the dictionary definitions have to do with anything either. Maybe you could explore that you have no idea what you are talking about at all. Sorry if that is curt, but I take offense at the way you wave your hands at entire groups of people you know absolutely nothing about.

And stop responding to people by giving them homework assignments. Have you read or watched any of the things linked that run opposite of your views? Are you open to having a logical discussion as to why you might be wrong on this topic? If the answer to any of these is no, then GO AWAY.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Buddhism doesn't specifically rule out deities foal...

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it rules out deities. I said:

[ QUOTE ]
You could be an atheist Buddhist

[/ QUOTE ]
not "all Buddhists are atheists."