Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[The_Doc_Man]

No, no, didn't you see? D&D is nothing but literal black magic grimoires published under the ruse of being a game!

Two divergent thoughts here...

First, if the "D&D is Satanic" crowd hated the 'sword & sorcery' games published back then, they would probably foam at the mouth over the 'Magic the Gathering' card game, which is on their 15th or 16th iteration of new card series. This year I believe they are featuring dragons as critters to include in your horde.

Second, (the momentary diversion) it was D&D that gave me a basis for a hobby I picked up while my mother was still alive but needed a 'sitter' to be available if she needed me. I became a novelist and finished five full-length novels in the D&D genre, though I was careful to avoid treading on the toes of the creations of Tolkein or Gygax. I have never had them published but I have a couple of nice rejection letters, at least.

I have to admit an ulterior motive in this post - I saw from the main topics page that this thread was at 5999 posts. You KNOW I couldn't just leave it there. I just LOVE to watch mileage gauges "click over" to the next unit of 1000.

 

[Frothingslosh]

1) Actually, M:tG has always had dragons. Both the Shivan Dragon and the Dragon Whelp were available from the day Alpha launched in 1993 the Dragon Engine was a thing in the March, 1994 Antiquities expansion, and Elder Dragon Legends (including the utterly terrifying, if too-hard-to-play Nicol Bolas) were included when Legends came out in June, 1994. Many (if not most) expansions contain one or more dragons.

2) Oh GOD yes, the screams of outrage were raised from Coast to Coast when the game came out, and they STILL call the game 'demonic' and 'Satanic'.

3) Actually, yours appears to be post 6001. You did post 6000 a few days ago.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Yes, but the front page was still showing 5999 at the bottom.

As to M:tG, satanic & demonic only if you really like the black cards. I have a white deck that is based on angelic creatures. If I can get a couple of the special effects out quickly enough, you can't do enough damage to my critters to get through to me because of life-link and because of life bonuses for all cases of tapping white mana. Plus the effect that makes all my creatures indestructible and vigilant.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I was a tournament player (ranked 35 in the DCI in 1996 or 1997), so I didn't have a set 'deck'; I simply played whatever deck I felt was the strongest. So, in necro summer, I ran a necro deck tweaked to deal with all the white weenie decks I was facing. Then Ehrnageddon, then Marogeddon. Sligh, green weenie, white weenie with firestorm, hatred, K-post, Pros-Bloom, you name it. Hell, I even took tournaments with a blue weenie deck that completely lacked counterspells (it did NOT lack Man-o-War, Phantom Warrior, or Tradewind Rider, or this cheap blue wall that unsummoned anything it blocked. Or 4 copies of this enchantment that made my opponent play 2 mana per enchantment per attacker.)

My favorites were probably the final version of the necro deck and a Type I (classic, now) deck that was all about using and re-using artifacts that provide more mana than their cost, Hurkyl's Recall, Prosperity, and black vice. I scored more first-turn wins with that deck than any other I used.

Unfortunately, I've not played since 1999 or so, so I haven't the slightest clue what today's tournament environment looks like.

 

[Frothingslosh]

And FYI, Affinity was after my time, or I guarantee you I would have been playing that monstrosity as well.

 

[Vassago]

I haven't played MtG since the mid-90s. I still have all of my alpha and beta through Generation (4?) cards.

I wonder how much they are worth these days.

 

[Frothingslosh]

4th edition.

Depends on the set, the condition, and the card itself. Beat up 4th Edition commons would likely range from worthless (Grizzly Bear) to a few cents (Lightning Bolt). Fair condition Alphas would be worth a few cents to a few bucks (Lightning Bolt) to significantly more (Black Lotus: an alpha sold for $27,000 a few years back). Mint condition Betas, should you have any, are probably your highest priced options, but then again, if your hands have touched them, then they're no longer mint. (A perfect mint Beta Black Lotus - the only known to still exist - was on eBay last year for $100,000, but IIRC, didn't sell.)

Overall, your 4E cards will probably average a cent or two per card for the entire collection, your Revised will be in the same ballpark, and your Unlimited Edition will probably average a few cents per card higher. (Revised still has dual lands, which remain pricey even now, and Unlimited still had the Power Nine, which are VERY expensive these days.) Your betas and alphas will go for a fair amount, but unless you sell them yourself individually, you're going to be lucky to average ten or 15 cents per card overall.

Basically, you can sell them en masse to a dealer or hobby shop for about 15% to 20% of their list price, or you can sell them on eBay and get full price but over a much longer time, and with the caveat that most Unlimited, Revised, and 4E commons and uncommons aren't going to sell, and even most rares won't be particularly popular.

Now, if you have a Beta Black Lotus in even fair condition, you can get some serious money, and the same to a lesser extent for the rest of the Power Nine.

 

[oumahexi]

OMG, I've been out of the forum for a few years and come back to find this debate is still going on lol.
In my years away I still haven't found God...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The role of religion in government is still contested by die-hards, so it is no surprise that this debate won't die either.

 

[Frothingslosh]

OMG, I've been out of the forum for a few years and come back to find this debate is still going on lol.
In my years away I still haven't found God...

Have you checked behind the couch?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

When I checked behind the couch, all I found was dust that blew away into nothingness at the slightest air disturbance. Which I guess IS consistent with God.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Last time I looked behind the couch, I found a TRULY ridiculous number of cat toys.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I have to admit that a few years ago when #2 grandson was still pre-school, we found all sorts of Matchbox cars under the sofa. He's gotten past that stage, though.

 

[Dick7Access]

40 years ago, back in RI my wife hid jelly beans for the kids to find at Easter. A few years ago, in FL we were downsizing and I took the legs off the coffee table for storage. We found the last of the jelly Bean.

 

[Orthodox Dave]

I have come to this forum 10 years late and (sorry) haven't read all the posts. But I have a very simple point.

Either (a) matter created or evolved into intelligence
Or (b) intelligence was always there (and perhaps created matter).

I find (a) requires more faith than (b). On balance I lean towards (b).

That doesn't mean I believe in an "old man in the sky", or evangelicalism, or disbelieve in evolution.

My IQ was measured in the top 2% so don't let's pretend all believers are stupid.

Also don't assume most scientists are atheists - see this survey:
https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html

 

[Galaxiom]

I have come to this forum 10 years late and (sorry) haven't read all the posts. But I have a very simple point.

Either (a) matter created or evolved into intelligence
Or (b) intelligence was always there (and perhaps created matter).

I find (a) requires more faith than (b). On balance I lean towards (b).

Science doesn't require faith.

The universe exists as because of the fundamental drive to maximise disorder such that nothing would exist. However, in an infinite random nothing, having all points the same would require infinite order. Consequently some amount of order is inevitable in any infinite system. It is the fundamental nature of randomness.

This tiny amount of order that resulted in a single pixel of pure amorphous energy currently known as the Big Bang. Science can trace the progression from this single pixel to everything we see now using a small number of very simple laws.

Those laws are based on random fundamental constants. These constants in our universe happen to be those which make matter and life possible.

Contrary to the claims of the faithful, the constants in our universe do not need to be chosen by a god. Scientists estimate there may be as many as 10^500 different combinations of the constants. Most of these universes would barely exist before disappearing again.

Other universes where the the constants are not so fortuitous do not result in intelligent being that are able to contemplate existence. As such it should be no surprise that the constants in our universe are those which allow life.

Matter to intelligence is simple because intelligence is selected for.

Any form of intelligence requires highly ordered complexity. The notion that that this could exist before anything that drives such complexity breaches the fundamental nature of randomness.

A belief in gods requires faith and is in conflict with natural order. There can be no logical reason to believe that intelligence came before matter. As such all who believe in gods as the origin of existence are manifestly irrational, generally because of their childhood indoctrination.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The work of Alan Turing, who was certainly a genius, is most popularly remembered for his contributions to breaking the Enigma code during WW II. What is less remembered is his research on the tendency of simple components to migrate to complex combinations solely through natural law.

OrthodoxDave, you claim genius-level IQ. But the question I have for you is, from where do/did you get your religious ideas? Did you derive them from analysis or did your parents instill that faith in you while you were still a child? Because if it is the latter, then you have not yet faced the necessary cognitive dissonance that would help you overcome their propagation of religion for yet another generation.

There is a problem that you need to examine using that genius brain of yours - can intelligence exist without a supporting matrix? And if so, how? Your (b) choice obviously denies the need for a matrix. You are therefore going to have to decide how a disembodied intelligence operates, because otherwise you have turned a blind eye towards your own first cause.

I happen to believe that intelligence requires a "home" - a place to be supported - in order to function. To say that an intelligence was "always there and perhaps created matter" is a religious belief even if not founded in any organized religion.

I grew up in a religious family but at some point I had my cognitive dissonance in which I realized that my parents were merely repeating the lies they were told by THEIR parents (and that were reinforced by those whose BUSINESS it is to propagate those lies - i.e. the preachers).

To me, it is EASY to imagine primitive Man, who wants to believe he can explain things, to suddenly face the unexplainable. But his easy-way-out solution is the first variant of "God-did-it" in cave-man talk. As science pushes back the boundaries of the unexplainable, it becomes less and less necessary to resort to any variant of "God-did-it" and to instead point to some basic scientific principle.

I have a problem with "God-did-it" as an answer since it instantly leads to more questions. ALL of those questions, if allowed to continue, would burst the God bubble. Questions such as "WHY God-did-it" (and the attempt to stifle that question is usually some drivel like "because we are not meant to know the mind of God" or "God works in mysterious ways.") And there are the other branches of questions like "How did that God come into being?" Which leads to the "God was always there" - which then leads to "but since the universe WASN'T always there in this form, where was God?" And then you need to define some place where this intelligence could exist but it has to be outside the current universe. And THAT doesn't require more faith? Puh-leeze, gimme a break.

 

[Frothingslosh]

To be fair, you can be top 2% without being a genius. Top 2% of IQ is 'merely' 130 IQ, while genius, as determined by IQ, begins at 140. (That 140, by the way, is roughly 1 in 260.)

Also, Orthodox Dave: Waving your IQ around here is kind of pointless. There are a number of actual geniuses who post here, and I don't know ANY genius who puts that much value in straight IQ. What you DO with it is significantly more important.

 

[Orthodox Dave]

Thank you Doc Man for taking the time and trouble to explain your carefully-considered and honest view. It is very much appreciated.

One thing we can both agree on is that life is a very precious and rare commodity in the universe, although we now have it within our capabilities to destroy it.

Not all of our leaders are rational. But I have to say that if I were to choose between George W Bush and Joseph Stalin as leaders, I would choose GW every time (distasteful as that thought is!) Quite possibly Joseph Stalin was a more intelligent man. But Joseph Stalin was an atheist and, as a result, he saw no problem in murdering millions when he felt it expedient for him or his grand ideas, or for "the people". GW, believing there is a being that will hold him to account, will at least partly hold himself back.

Yes, religion has been, at least indirectly, the cause of countless bloody conflicts in history. But the deaths from religious wars are vastly dwarfed by the genocides brought about by Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hitler during the 20th century. These guys also happened to be atheists. That is looking at it dispassionately - it is a fact.

That is not a proof that God exists of course. But I sometimes think even if God didn't exist he would need to be invented to hold such men back from doing the unspeakable!

In answer to your question, my parents weren't really religious, and certainly never rammed religion down my throat. In fact I came to it through the very cognitive dissonance you mention, long after leaving home. I believe strongly that no-one should try to force anyone else to believe. Such a belief would be false anyway.

We human beings are multi-dimensional. By which I mean, yes we have a rational / scientific side. But there is another side that is equally valid, the side that embraces love, music, art and beauty. Cognitive dissonance theory shows that these different sides should be in harmony, not at war with each other. I don't buy the idea that religion and science are mutually exclusive.

I am not out to convert you or anyone else to my way of thinking, but rather my vision is for a world where we can all live together in mutual respect. The view of many in today's culture is that religion is "thankfully" in its dying gasps, the last vestiges of which are clung to in fear by stupid people. I wanted to show in my clumsy way that at least some of those people are not entirely stupid, but rather have thought it through and find it is a more harmonious way of life.

 

[Orthodox Dave]

Also, Orthodox Dave: Waving your IQ around here is kind of pointless. There are a number of actual geniuses who post here, and I don't know ANY genius who puts that much value in straight IQ. What you DO with it is significantly more important.

Actually Frothingslosh, I couldn't agree more. I am sorry. I never normally do this and nor do I agree with it. In this case, I merely wanted to make the point for anyone who assumes religious people are stupid. In fact IQ just shows you can solve problems, that sort of thing, but you can have a sky high IQ and be completely inept socially and culturally.