Sick of playing against wayward queen

Sort:
sndeww

I enjoy reading llama and melvin. This is what discussion should be like. 

llama51
MelvinGarvey wrote:
llama51 a écrit :

Sure, let's talk about limits.
How many people were cured of blindness during 1000s of years of superstition?
How many in the last 100 years with science?

Religion has cultural value, but let's not pretend it has epistemic value.

 

Science is not a thing. It's only a word that means "knowledge". As such knowledfe in baking allows people to bake better bread and cakes. But knowledge alone does just plain nothing.

You're asking why or how miracles, like big obvious miracles seem to be rare. But how would I know?

Now, if there are any such miracle as you mentioned, do you truly believe because it's not in the newspapers or the news on TV, that it never happens?

Because I've been witness of many amazing or terrible events, that would have deserved to be in the news, but were left into the mouth to ear circle of some village, or suburb. For reporters are not here to inform you of all what is going on, but to give you thrilling news, of the kind that allows to sell the surrounding adverts spaces a better price.

Anyhow, I'll insist upon the fact, "science" does nothing, like nothing at all. People do things, with, or without the tools they've got. Among these tools, knowledge, like architectural knowledge for an example, is sure a good tool. But nothing to be worshiped, nor opposed to a religious belief.

Now, I don't see the main point of religion, to perform any specific earthly task, but more like a set of ideas, that is supposed to help us to connect to whoever or whatever would be "above" us, and would have some power to change us, from the petty half animals we are, to some more godly versions of ourselves. That, provided there is anything there.

I agree with the majority of this. A few points I want to make though.

I wouldn't call science knowledge, I'd call it a tool for getting knowledge. Humans are generally bad at gaining knowledge (1000s of years of no progress) and science is a methodology that tries to remove our natural biases as much as possible when we're trying to learn something.

You touch on the idea that knowledge alone is not necessarily admirable (it doesn't do anything). I'll go a bit further and say I think it's unnatural. We want taller buildings, faster airplanes, larger populations... but why? For what purpose? Is a life spent gaining knowledge a life well lived? Does technology make life worth living? I don't think so. (Yes medicine and e.g. plumbing improve quality of life, but going to move on to the next point I want to talk about.)

As for the news reporting miracles, well, it's even simpler than that. For example look at life expectancy and population. 1000 years ago you had every dirty peasant praying for the king and queen every day. Historically did kings and queens live longer, be wiser, have less disease, etc? Of course not. These days everyone walks around with a camcorder in their pocket. There's a reason walking on water and turning water into wine happened 1000s of years ago but never today. (Or always happened to a friend, or in a dream, or etc)

I also disagree a bit about religion. I don't think the purpose is to connect us to something above us. I think that misses the point. Religion, to me, is about how we treat each other, and how we treat ourselves. As pious as it is praying all day, we have to admit that God never talks back. Prayer, or a person's "relationship" with God let's say, is meditative and solitary and has even less practical value than the improvements of next year's phone. A "good" life is defined by how you treat other humans, including how you treat yourself. Religion is at its best when it's used as that type of guidebook. That's how I view religion.

jZipThe1st

If you play it right, it can be better for you.

llama51

Hmm, I'll think about it a bit.

Thanks for a friendly discussion happy.png

sndeww

or they could be sleeping.

FoxWithNekoEars

or after some time you will find out that there is at least five more kittens out of nothing ...

llama51
MelvinGarvey wrote:
miskit_mistake a écrit :

"The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” - Mike Tyson's lesser known brother

 

Is it not hilarious that one could replace "universe" by "God" in that sentence?

It's such a pattern I observe all the time, arguments that can backfire, be turned the other way around, etc.

If we want to be rational, and will accept irrationality in quantum physics experimetations results (which is no rational stance, as I explained earlier) but then hurry to throw the label "irrational" to people who believe there is somewhere, some superior being gifted with powers we can barely imagine, we are only fooling ourselves, and will have a dishonest way to debate, whatever we believe in.

The problem is not in what we believe, but what bias we are ready to accept and propagate in order to see the universe fit our beliefs.

There is a bit of a difference though... if you burned every math and physics book on he planet (and if a lot of people died) it might take 1000 years before we regain that knowledge, but it's possible that humans would rediscover all of it.

If you destroyed all religious books, it's true that humans would continue to make religions, but you'd never recover the specific gods of those destroyed religions... I have no problem with the idea that something beyond our understanding exists... but I do have a problem with anthropomorphic gods in general.

Anyway, that's a long winded way of saying belief in specific gods requires more assumptions, so Occam's razor makes those beliefs less palatable.

Mathieu9229
jZipThe1st a écrit :

If you play it right, it can be better for you.

Lost in the ocean... 

llama51 & MelvinGarvey maybe you could have those long discussions in a dedicated topic? 

FrancisWeed

i think you see it a lot less after 1300 and pretty much never after 1500 unless they're trolling you

Vialk
WQA becomes more rare after 1200+.
Some people will still play it always, but. Because Queen is dangerous and must be carried with appropriately!

1 K4 K4 2 QR5 NQB3 3 BB4 PKN3! 4 QB3 PKB4!? (Tricky! Stronger NKB3 (=/+))5 PxP?! NQ5 6 QQ3? PQ4! 7 BN3 BxP (-/+) Black has advantage of White’s errors, but is dangerous to counter attack like so.
1 K4 P-QB4 2 QR5 Q3 3 BB4 K3 (Alternative P-KN3 4 QB3 NKB3 (=/+)) 4 NK2 NKB3 (=/+) White
loses tempo but can still play okay game.
1 K4 K3 2 QR5 Q4 (NKB3 3 QR4 BK2 4 K5 NQ4 5 QN3 O-O (~/~) Unfamiliar & dangerous because of White Queen looking at King) 3 K5 PQB4 4 NKB3 NQB3 5 BN5 KNK2 (=/+) Black with good structure. White structure is weak!
1 K4 Q4 2 QR5?! NKB3 3 QK2 PxP 4 NQB3 BB4 5 QN5+ BQ2 6 QxNP NB3 7 BN5 RN1 8 QR3 RN3 9 QR5 PQR3 10 BxN BxB 11 QB4 K3 (=/+) Black commands with the powerful pieces.

For demonstrations!
Queen is not just annoying, but is eerily dangerous also.
kingcobra7777

Wow I thought this thread was about learning how to defend against a hyperaggressive player, I go to the end, and see a comment about Occam's Razor lol.  Occam's Razor has limited applicability, and it has to do with the probability of one event over another, not that simpler is more likely.

You won't be able to prove a non-sensory reality using sensory reality.  It is completely naive to assume that all reality can be experienced through the senses, or that it encompasses it.  Science by the way is a formula that structures sensory data and interprets it, and therefore only has limited applicability.

We can all easily experience non-sensory reality, and in fact the very act of thinking is of this sort, as is the existence of consciousness itself.  I think, therefore I am, and of what I think, they are.

It turns out that it is the objective world, not the subjective one, that is tenuous.  We experience the subjective world directly, and what we consider objective is ultimately a consensus of subjectivity.  The only reality we can be sure of is thought, and we surely cannot disregard it.  Whether or not our subjective experiences correlate well or not with others does not in any way diminish their reality.

 

FoxWithNekoEars

I play rapid with people around 2100

and hey the plan Bc5 Qf6 Qxf2# is still pretty good here

Only you need to play some more moves around to it wasn't so much sussy

 

Kowarenai

i know the butcher enjoys nasty queen openings hehe