And yet it is a belief: the atheist simply has no idea whether a so-called creator exists or not, so he believes he doesn’t exist.
The religious person also has no idea whether a so-called creator exists or not, but he believes he does exist.
The belief is the common factor, only the object of belief is different.
You see, the atheist doesn’t say ‘ I don’t know’, which is the only fact both of them ‘have’. But neither stick to that fact and both enter the realm of belief.
And yet it is a belief: the atheist simply has no idea whether a so-called creator exists or not, so he believes he doesn’t exist.
The religious person also has no idea whether a so-called creator exists or not, but he believes he does exist.
The belief is the common factor, only the object of belief is different.
You see, the atheist doesn’t say ‘ I don’t know’, which is the only fact both of them ‘have’. But neither stick to that fact and both enter the realm of belief.
The atheist can say I don't know because that would be a lack of belief.
You have not described Zermelo's theorem correctly. It is that a finite, deterministic two-player, zero sum game of perfect information has a definite result which can be achieved by either player with some deterministic strategy. This result is not true for games that fail to satisfy one of several conditions. I agree it seems obvious, but this is a lucky case where what is obvious happens to be true.
(This is not always so! Eg the "obvious" nature of the parallel postulate of geometry, which one of the greatest mathematicians in human history and all who followed him for over 2000 years failed to see was not actually true, but rather one of three options).
It is obvious in the context of Chess, which is what we are discussing here. That this conclusion is less apparent and holds greater interest for other games doesn't really matter, since Vickalan was presenting it as an "interesting conclusion" for readers of this particular thread. It would be kind of like trying to stand up before a class of professional musicians and then regale them with the wonders of the circle of 5ths.
Vickalan opined:
"...because it had some interesting conclusions. Basically, if White can force a win then Black cannot. And vice-versa."
That is what I am responding to. Nothing else. I don't give a flying whatever about Zermelo here, because that theorem in terms of Chess is as interesting as proving 2 triangles with equal side lengths must have equal areas. It's inherently obvious. Vickalan's usual appeals to authority don't really hold water or prove any real points. If he quoted Einstein, he'd probably try to use Einstein's words to back up his assertion that 2 trains speeding in opposite directions from each other, each going the speed of light, are receding from each other at twice the speed of light 
. One day, he'll Google up a fake Abraham Lincon quote or something...
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Abraham Lincoln
And yet it is a belief: the atheist simply has no idea whether a so-called creator exists or not, so he believes he doesn’t exist.
The religious person also has no idea whether a so-called creator exists or not, but he believes he does exist.
The belief is the common factor, only the object of belief is different.
You see, the atheist doesn’t say ‘ I don’t know’, which is the only fact both of them ‘have’. But neither stick to that fact and both enter the realm of belief.
The atheist can say I don't know because that would be a lack of belief.
Then he wouldn’t be an atheist anymore. Usually the atheist says that there is no God.
Here I stopped to formally look up the word. I didn’t have to for it’s obvious, but just to go buy the book.There are two definitions people use for that word, ‘atheist’.
The definition no. 2 is ‘ people who believe that God doesn’t exist’. Exactly what I was saying.
The first definition has two branches:
One is for positive atheists, or strong atheists, who believe that God doesn’t exist. Again, same thing I was saying.
The other one is for negative atheists, or weak atheists, who just don’t commit in saying anything about God. They are sometimes called atheists-agnostics. But regardless of what they say, their mind sees no God out there. When a theist talks about God, their mind would start an argument from the position that God is not.
If these so-called weak atheists would really stop at that position, and not take another step in any direction, then the mystery would be revealed. But you see, the intellect doesn’t stop there, and so they cannot help but keep moving, which prevents the whole thing from revealing itself.
Please stop hurting my brain
Many atheists are probably the weak atheists.
However troy is probably a strong atheist.
Strong or weak, they both believe, despite what they choose to project about themselves.
Ponz, you are not paying attention: if one doesn’t know and stops there, he is neither atheist nor theist. Then he doesn’t need to speculate anymore, his perception changes.
But atheists do not do that.
And we also said both thrusts and atheists are not free from fear, therefore they are both projecting an image which is giving them shelter and security, the reaction stemming of fear or insecurity. That is the common root of both theists and atheists. Therefore, projection and belief is what they both share.
And the projection being a figment of their imagination taken to be the real thing, the security they find is false.
The rationalization of the atheists only attempts to cover up the hidden, deep-rooted insecurity.
Only those free of fear can truly be free of belief.
Atheists, just like the rest of mankind, are not free of fear.
Please stop hurting my brain
Running away from pain is what keeps it in place.
You have not described Zermelo's theorem correctly. It is that a finite, deterministic two-player, zero sum game of perfect information has a definite result which can be achieved by either player with some deterministic strategy. This result is not true for games that fail to satisfy one of several conditions. I agree it seems obvious, but this is a lucky case where what is obvious happens to be true.
(This is not always so! Eg the "obvious" nature of the parallel postulate of geometry, which one of the greatest mathematicians in human history and all who followed him for over 2000 years failed to see was not actually true, but rather one of three options).
It is obvious in the context of Chess, which is what we are discussing here. That this conclusion is less apparent and holds greater interest for other games doesn't really matter, since Vickalan was presenting it as an "interesting conclusion" for readers of this particular thread. It would be kind of like trying to stand up before a class of professional musicians and then regale them with the wonders of the circle of 5ths.
Vickalan opined:
"...because it had some interesting conclusions. Basically, if White can force a win then Black cannot. And vice-versa."
That is what I am responding to. Nothing else. I don't give a flying whatever about Zermelo here, because that theorem in terms of Chess is as interesting as proving 2 triangles with equal side lengths must have equal areas. It's inherently obvious. Vickalan's usual appeals to authority don't really hold water or prove any real points. If he quoted Einstein, he'd probably try to use Einstein's words to back up his assertion that 2 trains speeding in opposite directions from each other, each going the speed of light, are receding from each other at twice the speed of light . One day, he'll Google up a fake Abraham Lincon quote or something...
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Abraham Lincoln
As I mentioned, things can be intuitively obvious and yet be false. Fortunately in this case we have an example of something that is intuitively obvious and true, But ONLY because chess satisfies a list of conditions.
For example, consider the game of chicken. In this game each player has two legal moves which they play simultaneously, swerving to the right or going straight ahead, The scores for the players are as follows:
Both go straight ahead: -100 each (for dying)
One goes straight ahead, the other swerves: 10 points for braveness for the one who didn't swerve, -10 points for being a chicken for the other one.
Both veer off: -10 points for each for being a chicken.
The idea of the game is to score as much as possible. What can you say about best strategies, the achievable expected score and so on?
[Also, what conditions does this game not satisfy that chess does?]
...How could this be a surprising conclusion for you...
You're wrong. It wasn't.
...How could this be a surprising conclusion for you...
You're wrong. It wasn't.
...if it was neither interesting nor surprising to you, then passing it along assuming others would find it so would be little more than condescending ego on your part, now wouldn't it?
No, it's quite common among mathematicians to draw upon one another's work. It's a normal process which leads the advancement of knowledge in a particular subject. The practice is done matter-of-fact, and without adding hyperbole, nor insults.
No, it's quite common among mathematicians to draw upon one another's work. It's a normal process which leads the advancement of knowledge in a particular subject. The practice is done matter-of-fact, and without adding hyperbole, nor insults.
Lol. I've seen your horrendously bad analysis more than 150 pages ago. You, sir, are no mathematician.
So your feelings are still hurt?
So your feelings are still hurt?
So, still sidestep everything you can't refute? Hurt feelings would require that I value your opinion in some way...
Evidently there is some work "150 pages ago" that had an affect on you. Please be specific about the issue, and we can go over it again.
Evidently there is some work "150 pages ago" that had an affect on you. Please be specific about the issue, and we can go over it again.
I've been "specific about it" plenty of times already. So don't try to pretend I'm bringing something up out of the blue. Surely, you can remember my asking you repeatedly to back up your "18 years" analysis. I'm sure others remember it quite well, and it didn't even directly involve them.
Since you asked again, I'll answer again. The position that we don't know when chess might be solved is prima facie. No mathematician or game theorist has determined the number of mathematical operations required to solve chess, therefore nobody can say if and when it will be solved. It might be in one year, 10 years, 1000 years, or it may never be solved. Would you like any more clarification on this?
Yes...I would. Why have you changed positions 3 times now? From a couple of decades (~page 60), to 200 years (~page 110), to "it may never be solved" (page 225)? Why is your position now essentially in agreement with *my* position, yet somehow you think you can pretend you've held this position all along? And, if you believe that the possible spectrum of solving chess runs from 1 year to "never", what do you realistically think the chances are that it will happen in the first 18 years of such a vast timeline? Because until you stop hemming and hawing, that is your last concrete analysis on the subject. 18 years.
Your only attempt at analysis was severely flawed, and your non-committal stance now is face saving, nothing more.
However, since you claim your stance now is that chess may never be solved, I will remind you of this next time you choose to flip-flop again.
Are you sure ponz?
You see, it’s the opposite side of the same coin. Which is belief.
A religious person says ‘ I believe that God exists.’
An atheist says: ‘ I believe that God does not exist.’
They both believe, they both don’t know, they both have doubts. Same difference. In fact the same amount of doubt is countered by the same amount of ‘faith’, or counter-doubt. It appears differently only because the conscious and the unconscious percentages vary from person to person—one may exhibit 31% doubt and 69% ‘faith’, consciously, while unconsciously it’s the opposite. The bottom line percentage is always 50-50, just like desire, which always has a counter-desire, if one observes the human psyche closely.
Now, the atheist is simply not aware of his doubts, of his beliefs, of his projections. But in the middle of an acute crisis, the atheist will also invoke a superhuman factor, a creator, someone who has the power to change a sad (for him) destiny. Just watch an atheist in times of crises, or watch yourself if you are one. Even when the prayer to such an entity is repressed, it only indicates the hidden belief in the superstitious factor.
The reason is simple: both the religious and the atheist are not free of fear, of the illusion which produces fear, insecurity and so they both project the same supernatural image, in essence.
Atheism is a lack of belief in god not a belief in that god doesn't exists.