Leggo Poker Every Tool You Need To Win

K_Man

THE K-SELECTIONS

Follow me on Twitter @TheRealK_Man

May
27
2010
Richard Dawkins
Posted in Poker | View Comments (66)
 

If I were to be asked the question ‘if you could have dinner with three people in the world (living) who would they be’ my answer would be unequivocal: Larry David, Sir Alex Ferguson, and Richard Dawkins.

For some people I think this to be a fairly frivolous question, but for me I think it genuinely encapsulates a great deal of my personality.

I’ve foreshadowed the inclusion of Larry David by placing Curb Your Enthusiasm at the very top of my television tree. More than just being an enjoyable show for me, Larry David (both the character and the person) gives an excellent insight into the way I think about everyday occurrences within our world.

I’ve also explained my devotion to football, with the strongest constant surrounding that devotion being the management style of Sir Alex Ferguson.

But, aside from a referential piece I wrote called ‘The Poker God Delusion’, I have yet to discuss in this blog my other hero Richard Dawkins.


I have always been an Atheist. Not just an Atheist, but a passionate Atheist. I deplored the belief in supernaturalism in all its forms from a very young age, although growing up in a non-religious home I can’t claim it to be that impressive a feat. Rather, the fact that I view my own development of a ruthlessly logical mind as so banal an achievement is what drives much of my fascination with the subject of supernatural belief, and in particular religion.

Neither of my parents were/are religious in any way at all, and I am very thankful for the blank slate this provided me. However, my mother did show a fairly strong interest in the likes of astrology and crystals (in a mystical rather than chemical sense), and my immediate rejection in that case of what was seemingly so obviously illogical leads me with the unmistakable feeling that had I grown up in a religious household I would have been able to overcome it.

The terrifying truth is that, if my parents were complete fundamentalists devoted to nothing but a particular holy book, I very well might not have been able to. It is not a case of simply what people think, but rather how they think that has led to the continued proliferation of religion. Without a significant influence in allowing such affected individuals the opportunity to even contemplate a different way of thinking, they will almost always go on believing what they have always believed and, more importantly in an evolutionary sense, instilling those same faith based ideals in the minds of their children.

There is no need for me to write an essay on the abhorrent nature of faith (blind faith, requiring no evidence) as a concept, as I think that the vast majority of members of our little sub-society of online poker share my general sentiment. As primarily young males forming a career by playing a logic based game, I would certainly hope for nothing less. But we are still, staggeringly in my view, the vast minority on a world stage.

What Richard Dawkins represents in a larger sense is the idea of militant Atheism. As I say I am fairly confident the majority of you when pressed would express a similar overall thought process, but I am equally confident of a large number of you being very laid back towards the whole issue. This I’m sure is particularly true of those of you in the United States which, despite a very definite trend towards science and reason in the last decade, still maintains a clear majority of god-fearing citizens.

If you have grown up in a religious household, surrounded by religious neighbours and religious teachers, for you to internally rebel against it is an impressive achievement in itself. To ask you to take an active opposition against many of those you love might be asking too much. But that is exactly what I am encouraging.

Looking beyond Poker, I feel that this is a field I could very happily spend a career in. When always surrounded by like minded individuals, it is easy to forget that there is even a debate about such issues as evolution. Evolution is a scientific fact, and yet there are still a horrifyingly large amount of schools in the world where it is not taught as such. I feel very strongly that this is a travesty, and is something that will be deeply corrosive to our chances of a better future society. If throughout my lifetime I could open up the minds of a significant amount of individuals to the wonder and beauty science can provide, I would feel like I was making a very real and important contribution to the world.

Until then, I urge those laid back agnostics among you to investigate Richard Dawkins for yourself. During High School, years before I was introduced to him, I engaged in several enthusiastic debates with religious friends of mine. I was already a stout protector of scientific truth over superstition, but engaging with the work of Dawkins reinvigorated my involvement with the subject. Watch one of his documentaries, read one of his books, and see if you too can ignite an active passion for science, logic and reason.

Till next time.


2010 Pokerstars VPP Count: 345,322 VPP

Digg this Post! Add Post to del.icio.us Bookmark Post in Technorati Spurl this Post! Google Bookmark this Post!
Comments 66 Email Blog Entry  
Comments
05-27-2010
Donkadocus is offline Donkadocus
Donkadocus's Avatar
The God Delusion is one of my favourite books and I describe myself as anti-theist.

I like Dawkins but I can see why theists do not - I am not certain he will ever convert anyone just because he is pretty abrasive. I also think he is a bit obsessed by Darwin; which for me is an almost trivial battleground (although fair enough he is an evolutionary biologist).

We only believe in one less god than religious people
05-27-2010
sh58 is offline sh58
sh58's Avatar
i think the problem with dawkins is he has an evil voice. if he had a lovely voice i'm sure people wouldn't dislike him so much. he is pretty polite, likeable guy if you actually just listen to what he says
05-27-2010
Sc000t is offline Sc000t
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9600994873365#

Give this a look if you haven't already. I like Richard Dawkins but I like the way NDT speaks and presents the same topics compared to Dawkins for some reason.
05-27-2010
klink- is offline klink-
i suggest reading the following:

the selfish gene - dawkins
the blank slate - pinker
on human nature - wilson
05-27-2010
BareBase is offline BareBase
As a religious person, I have often put philosophical anti-religious questions and ideas to myself as I think that it is vital for the seeking of truth (which is in essence what religion is about).

As such a person, I purchased a copy of The G-d Delusion ready to deal with the challenges that were put in front of me. I have only read part of the book thus far and I must say, that he puts some strong arguments and questions for the reader to ponder. However, the main problem with both the book and Professor Dawkins in general is that he is a Biologist trying to write philosophy. It is not his field of academia and as a result, both much impact is lost and it is difficult to really take him seriously in such matters.

I can't say that I agree with very much of your post and I think that one sentence sums your ideology up:

'If you have grown up in a religious household, surrounded by religious neighbours and religious teachers, for you to internally rebel against it is an impressive achievement in itself. To ask you to take an active opposition against many of those you love might be asking too much. But that is exactly what I am encouraging. '

What you are essentially advocating here is rebellion for rebellion's sake. Just because one is influenced by something doesn't mean that that thing doesn't exist. If you think that our existence is coincidence, a pure fluke of constants in nature accidentally all being spot on to allow life on our planet and that, for example, the make up of man is coincidence, then so be it. However, to suggest that our world and man's existence suddenly spawned into existence seems far more absurd to me than being at least open to the concept of an existence outside of our natural existence.
05-27-2010
cityburke is offline cityburke
Strap yourselves in. This could get ugly.
05-27-2010
klink- is offline klink-
Updated 05-27-2010 at 12:02 PM by klink-
don't really want to get into a huge discussion about this, but BareBase, you def need to read a lot more of the literature to have something even remotely meaningful to say about the subject. Discrediting dawkins for that reason is pretty dumb.
05-27-2010
QuartermasterT is offline QuartermasterT
"It is not his field of academia and as a result, both much impact is lost and it is difficult to really take him seriously in such matters." // BareBase

BareBase I won'y listen to your critic of Dawkins book because you're not a proffesional book critic and as such it's hard to take you seriously.

Being an anti-theist must be the biggest waste of time, although I do agree that all schools should teach the theory of evolution, most that learn evolution won't understand it anyway. Spore has ruined youths view of evelotion.
05-27-2010
K_Man is offline K_Man
BareBase,

As Klink said I really think you need to do a lot more reading before we can have a meaningful conversation. You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, and obviously Richard Dawkins will explain that to you with far more elegance in his books than I can in a LeggoPoker blog comments section.

Very simply, evolution does not suggest that "man's existence suddenly spawned". There is nothing random about natural selection, it is in fact the complete opposite. To find out more, finish the book
05-27-2010
K_Man is offline K_Man
Quote:
Being an anti-theist must be the biggest waste of time, although I do agree that all schools should teach the theory of evolution, most that learn evolution won't understand it anyway.
I obviously disagree strongly. When taught correctly there is no reason that anyone won't be able to understand evolution, it is despite its elegance a very simple theory. When presented with the massive amounts of evidence the hope is that every student has that moment where the 'penny drops', and they realise that evolution is the only possible logical explanation to life.
05-27-2010
Probability is offline Probability
Probability's Avatar
Quote:
Strap yourselves in. This could get ugly.
when i read the blog all i could think was "christ". no pun intended.
05-27-2010
grogheadflow is online now grogheadflow
grogheadflow's Avatar
I read something recently, along the lines of:

Militant Atheism is itself a religion. It's followers have 'Gods' who are beyond question (Darwin), 'bibles' (Origin of Species, God Delusion), and have a completely unshakable belief in their own righteousness, as in 'they realise that evolution is the only possible logical explanation to life'.

So taking a more laid back approach, but with an intelligent open mind either way (evolution happens LDO, but does that seriously explain the zillion to 1 coming together of conditions in the universe needed to create life in the first place, does it explain the creation of the universe, does it explain the existence of matter and anti matter in the first place to even create the universe etc) wins imo.

edit: can't get my Malfaire saver to work. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Vs-EWVdpVN...ght-shorts.jpg
05-27-2010
IcarusJam is offline IcarusJam
Let the games begin
05-27-2010
Probability is offline Probability
Probability's Avatar
05-27-2010
BareBase is offline BareBase
Quote:
You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution, and obviously Richard Dawkins will explain that to you with far more elegance in his books than I can in a LeggoPoker blog comments section.

Very simply, evolution does not suggest that "man's existence suddenly spawned". There is nothing random about natural selection, it is in fact the complete opposite. To find out more, finish the book
You are too short-sighted. What I said wasn't an attack on evolution, or at least not on the level to which I believe you are referring. When I talk of the world spawning into existence, it is clearly inaccurate and careless wording on my part. What I mean to say is that I have never seen a 'scientist' bring a remotely sensible or plausible semblance of an explanation as to how the world started. If you have any academic papers with good suggestions that don't require infinity (be it a multiverse theory, a G-d or anything else) then I would be very interested in reading it because, as I said at the start, I search for the truth.

Further, whilst you may not like what I said about Professor Dawkins, I hold by it. He raises some good questions that 'religious' people need to answer and he is excellent in his field of Biology but he is NOT a philosopher.

Btw +1 to Grog's input. A mature and objective viewpoint to offer imo.
05-27-2010
klink- is offline klink-
i don't get the relevance of him being a biologist... you realize that many "philosophers" come from non philosophy backgrounds: Steven Pinker is a neuroscientist but still won a Pulitzer writing about evolutionary psychology. Chomsky is a linguist yet his political theories are highly regarded.
05-27-2010
acsutch is offline acsutch
I think Grog's post is by far the best on here so far. Would love to hear your specific response to it K_Man.
05-27-2010
stockton is offline stockton
Quote:
As a religious person, I have often put philosophical anti-religious questions and ideas to myself as I think that it is vital for the seeking of truth (which is in essence what religion is about).
some people think religon is not about seeking the truth but is actually the opposite. what would you say to those people?
05-27-2010
bigLEOser is offline bigLEOser
bigLEOser's Avatar
ive never read dawkins book and youve never read God's book. EVERYONE has there own opinion and we should shut the fuck up and just respect other peoples ideas. you and i are no better then each other. we have many different beliefs im sure.
public schools should not teach religion or evolution as it is yet another thing that should be taught by responsible parents.

i agree with grog also.
05-27-2010
bigLEOser is offline bigLEOser
bigLEOser's Avatar
nice try matt.
05-27-2010
Probability is offline Probability
Probability's Avatar
but seriously... who created god? eh, amirite?
05-27-2010
stockton is offline stockton
Quote:
public schools should not teach religion or evolution as it is yet another thing that should be taught by responsible parents.
why should public schools not teach evolution? schools are for education, no? most all parents aren't qualified to teach evolution, that's why kids are sent to schools, so they can be taught by people that are qualified (at least supposed to be)
05-27-2010
bigLEOser is offline bigLEOser
bigLEOser's Avatar
stockton because theres tons of controversy between believers and non believers. does a non believer want his kid taught religion by a teacher who is a believer? i think not.
05-27-2010
bigLEOser is offline bigLEOser
bigLEOser's Avatar
matt i hope your joking. you were suppose to be the one putting water on the flames not making it bigger
05-27-2010
Probability is offline Probability
Updated 05-27-2010 at 09:37 PM by Probability
Probability's Avatar
it's a joke. ...or is it?
05-27-2010
stockton is offline stockton
Quote:
stockton because theres tons of controversy between believers and non believers. does a non believer want his kid taught religion by a teacher who is a believer? i think not.
there's only controversy outside of academia. find peer reviewed articles that claim evolution doesn't happen..... Inside the scientific community there is no controversy.
05-27-2010
the fox is bak jak is offline the fox is bak jak
i believe in God so i looked for a logical explanation as to why we cannot understand who created God,i also believe that faith is faith and each to their own..

[QUOTE]but seriously... who created god? eh, amirite?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called “eternity.” God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created. He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

Paul S. Taylor,[/QUOTE]
05-27-2010
bigLEOser is offline bigLEOser
bigLEOser's Avatar
inside a like minded community there is no controversy? what a surprise.
05-27-2010
stockton is offline stockton
Quote:
inside a like minded community there is no controversy? what a surprise.
you act as though scientists don't try to disprove one another. Disproving evolution would earn you a nobel prize in an instant. They wouldn't even think twice. Scientists are always battling one another, it helps nobody for them to uphold false information.
05-27-2010
K_Man is offline K_Man
Quote:
Militant Atheism is itself a religion. It's followers have 'Gods' who are beyond question (Darwin), 'bibles' (Origin of Species, God Delusion), and have a completely unshakable belief in their own righteousness, as in 'they realise that evolution is the only possible logical explanation to life'.
Atheism at any level can never be considered a religion. It is a buzz phrase religious people say to try to bring everyone down to the same level.

Darwin is most certainly NOT beyond question, and that is the whole point of science. If someone were to provide substantiated evidence that contradicted evolution, scientists would at a single stroke no longer be ‘believers’. With religion, science can very comfortably disprove every single holy book that exists, and the believers still believe. Why? Because they do. They rely on faith, and faith is a concept in direct opposition to science.

With new evidence being brought forward every day since 1859 that is studied and critiqued thoroughly, not a single piece has verifiably contradicted Darwinian natural selection. Even without a single piece of evidence, in terms of a pure logic game, evolution would be by far the best option to ‘believe’ in. Thankfully though, there are literally millions of pieces of evidence, capped off by the game ending breakthrough in DNA research.

As much as gravity, evolution is a scientific fact. The presence of controversy created by non scientific individuals does not diminish it as a fact one bit.
 
Recent Blog Entries by K_Man