Quote from Blinking Spirit »Quote from slipknot72102 »This type of belief in god is known as deism and most of the "founding fathers" of the united states were deist.I would not equate Spinozanism with the deism of Jefferson and Adams. (I would also not so swiftly dismiss the rest of the Founding Fathers who were not expressly deist.) The deists imagined a "watchmaker God", who created the universe then stood back to let it run along according to the laws he set down. For Spinoza, there's some controversy about how to interpret him, but he seems to have instead equated God and the universe: the universe is not a creation of God's, but is God, or exists within God as a part of God. This is called pantheism (all-is-God) or panentheism (all-is-in-God). The watchmaker God exercised his will in designing the universe to achieve his intentions, but the Spinozan God does not have free will, designs, or intentions, instead acting at all times according to his own perfect nature. To the deist, the laws of reality are like a blueprint, but to Spinoza, they're more like a heartbeat. Big difference.
Panentheism and deism are sorta cousins. They just see spirituality slightly different. My wording wasn't quite clear instead of "type" I should have used "another belief in a similar vain of no person god."
Quote from slipknot72102 »This type of belief in god is known as deism and most of the "founding fathers" of the united states were deist.
Quote from Highroller »Quote from Callahan09 »but, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty and arbitrary that God requires people to "accept"/"believe in" him, or else they are damned? This thought most certainly has struck other people besides you. You are correct, if God damns people who do not believe in him, then God has behaved monstrously.
As Blinking pointed out, you're ignoring a lot of Congregationalists and Presbyterians in making that statement.
Quote from Callahan09 »but, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty and arbitrary that God requires people to "accept"/"believe in" him, or else they are damned?
Quote from el_pato »Yes I've noticed this before, and I think it's a good example of one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to believe that people's nature can be changed and controlled while conservatives tend to believe that people's nature can't be changed and should be worked around some other way.
Quote from DankConfidant »Am I the only one happy with modern masters 2015? I think people are forgetting that a lot of the value in the first MM at rare was comprised of overpriced (at the time)fringe commander playables that tanked a week after the set came out, not actual format staples.
Quote from Callahan09 »Sorry to intrude on this conversion, I'm jumping in late, and as someone who was not raised in an Abrahamic religion, I may not entirely know what I'm talking about... but, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty and arbitrary that God requires people to "accept"/"believe in" him, or else they are damned? Why would he even care? Why does it matter? It just seems kind of arrogant to me, I guess.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Quote from GreatNateMTG »Quote from Aegraen »Anticipate lets you keep a lot of hands you'd otherwise have to mulligan. Real real good. It also saved my bacon against my friends UWR Geist deck in Round 4, after he cliqued away my Verdict, I shuffled with a fetch and then anticipated into it after I had all ready killed one geist with snapcaster block. It also lets you play a more diverse SB imho.
I am Aegraen's friend that was playing UWR Geist. As an opponent to a control deck utilizing Anticipae, the spell seemed very very good. Everytime the spell was cast I felt like he was able to begin sculpting a hand that ha everything he needed to win, which he ultimately did.
I have also been casting Anticiate in various builds of UWR Control and Esper Control and I am convinced the spell has a home as a 4 of in both builds. Both decks have had ways to gain card advantage, but they lacked efficient instant speed selection. There has been many times that I have anticipated into 2 lands and another Anticipate which I was then able to cast and go down an additional 3 cards. When digging for an answer, I'm very glad to be able to skip past the dead land draws and find what I need.
Quote from Aegraen »Anticipate lets you keep a lot of hands you'd otherwise have to mulligan. Real real good. It also saved my bacon against my friends UWR Geist deck in Round 4, after he cliqued away my Verdict, I shuffled with a fetch and then anticipated into it after I had all ready killed one geist with snapcaster block. It also lets you play a more diverse SB imho.
Pearl-Lake Ancient is the BEST control finisher hands down against basically any strategy. That’s why imo, it’s totally unnecessary to be running things like random Dragons/Ugin/Ashiok etc etc.
So are the random Dragons. As long as Pearl-Lake is played optimally (tap out for him appropriately against specific decks and at the right time) the other finishers are totally unnecessary and the slots that those finishers take up can easily be substituted for better/cheaper disruption.
Also, in my opinion Anticipate doesn't have a home in straight up UB Control. If you look at your list ^^ you're cutting down your copies of your best removal (BB/Downfall) and taking out one of your best raw card advantage cards (Jace's Ingenuity to squeeze them in. Ingenuity is one of the best draw engines available because usually if you can resolve it on your opponent's end step on an empty board you will be super far ahead and your opponent can't win. Anticipate only effectively draws you one card and you lose cheap removal by going up to 4 copies of Anticipate. In the early game, I would much rather, end step remove a threat then Anticipate - hopefully find a relevant card and then have to wait to cast it later.
Quote from DTG99I just came across this video in response to Pascal's wager and was hoping it could catalyze a conversation. For anyone unfamiliar with Pascal's wager, it essentially states or argues that since the existence of God is possible, the rational person should operate under the assumption that such a proposition is true. Not accepting God yields an infinite loss if wrong and pays no dividends if correct. This is an argument based on probability theory.
Anyway, I only wish I could string my thoughts together as eloquently as this guy did in this video. His conclusion, of accepting infinite hell fire for his beliefs (or disbelief) because he couldn't stomach the fact of spending an eternity with a being whose "empathy would be so easily trumped by his vanity", pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.