Some of that might be because of evaporative cooling. Reading the sequences is more likely to cause a theist to ignore Less Wrong then it is to change their beliefs, regardless of how rational or not a theist is.
I agree intuitively with your second sentance (parsing ‘beliefs’ as ‘religious beliefs’); but as I assign both options rather low probabilities, I suspect that it isn’t enough to cause much in the way of evaporative cooling.
but fairly hostile to those that try and say that religion is not irrational
I haven’t really seen that hostility, myself.
This doesn’t limit itself to atomliner; in my experience generally when atheists talk about their previous religion they seem to have always held (or claim they did) some extremely non-standard version of that religion.
Hmmm. It seems likely that the non-standard forms have glaring flaws; close inspection finds the flaws, and a proportion of people therefore immediately assume that all religions are equally incorrect. Which is flawed reasoning in and of itself; if one religion is flawed, this does not imply that all are flawed.
but fairly hostile to those that try and say that religion is not irrational
I haven’t really seen that hostility, myself.
I think John means “hostility” more in the sense of “non-receptiveness” rather than actively attacking those who argue for theism.
This doesn’t limit itself to atomliner; in my experience generally when atheists talk about their previous religion they seem to have always held (or claim they did) some extremely non-standard version of that religion.
Hmmm. It seems likely that the non-standard forms have glaring flaws; close inspection finds the flaws, and a proportion of people therefore immediately assume that all religions are equally incorrect.
That was certainly hostile, yes. However, I take the fact that the post in question is at −10 karma to suggest that the hostility is frowned upon by the community in general.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. Also, the spelling is unchanged, and I’d just seen a certain Tarantino movie.
Edit: Also, politeness has its virtues and is often more effective in achieving one’s goals—yet Crocker’s Rules are certainly more honest. Checking the definition of moron—at least as it pertains to that aspect of a person’s belief system—I mean, who would seriously dispute its applicability, even before South Park immortalized Joseph Smith’s teachings?
I dispute its applicability, because I’ve known very smart Mormons. Humans are not logic engines. It’s rare to find even a brilliant person who doesn’t have some blind spot.
Even if it were clinically applicable, you presented it as an in-group vs. out-group joke, which is an invitation for people from one tribe to mock people from another tribe. Its message was not primarily informational.
I don’t doubt there are Mormons with a higher IQ than myself, and more knowledgeable in many fields. Maybe the term “stupid person” is too broad, I meant it with Mormonism as the referent, and as being limited in scope to that. Yet it is disheartening that there are such obvious self-deceiving failures of reasoning, and courtesy afforded to dumb beliefs may prop up the Potemkin village, may help hide the elephant behind the curtain.
Reveal Oz in the broad daylight of reason, so that those very smart Mormons you know must address that blind spot.
It stands to reason that if you’ve successfully read even parts of the Sequences, or other rationality related materials, and yet believe in the Book of Mormon, there’s little that will force you to address that blind … area …, so why not shock therapy. Or are you just too looking forward to your own planet / world? (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:259) Maybe that’s just to be taken metaphorically though, for something, or something other?
Why go to the Journal of Discourses? D&C 132 clearly states that those that receive exaltation will be gods, the only question is whether that involves receiving a planet or just being part of the divine council. The Bible clearly states that we will be heirs and joint heirs with Christ. The Journal of Discourses is not something that most members look to for doctrine as it isn’t scripture. I, and any member, am free to believe whatever I want to on the subject (or say we don’t know) because nothing has been revealed on the subject of exaltation and theosis other then that.
Personally, I think there are some problems with the belief that everyone will have a planet due to some of the statements that Jesus makes in the New Testament but I could be wrong and I am not about to explain the subject here, though I may have attempted to do so in the past.
Crocker’s Rules are not an excuse for you to be rude to others. They are an invitation for others to ignore politeness when talking to you. They are not an invitation for others to be rude to you for the sake of rudeness, either; only where it enables some other aim, such as efficient transfer of information.
What you did, when viewed from the outside, is a clear example of rudeness for the sake of rudeness alone. I don’t see how Crocker’s rules are relevant.
Ironically, this turned out not to be the case; he was thinking of Kawoomba, our resident … actually, I’d assumed he only attacked me on this sort of thing.
A common problem when one person tries to explain the words of another to a third party, yes.
Funny thing—I had a brief interaction over private messaging with Kawoomba on the subject of religion some time back, and he seemed reasonable at the time. Mildly curious, firmly atheistic, and not at all hostile.
I’m not sure if he changed, or if he’s hostile to only a specific subcategory of theists?
As I said, I’d assumed it was just me; we got into a rather lengthy argument some time ago on whether human ethics generalize, and he’s been latching onto anything I say that’s even tangentially related ever since. I’m not sure why he’s so eager to convince me, since he believes his values are incompatible with mine, but it seems it may have something to do with him pattern-matching my position with the Inquisition or something.
I agree intuitively with your second sentance (parsing ‘beliefs’ as ‘religious beliefs’); but as I assign both options rather low probabilities, I suspect that it isn’t enough to cause much in the way of evaporative cooling.
I haven’t really seen that hostility, myself.
Hmmm. It seems likely that the non-standard forms have glaring flaws; close inspection finds the flaws, and a proportion of people therefore immediately assume that all religions are equally incorrect. Which is flawed reasoning in and of itself; if one religion is flawed, this does not imply that all are flawed.
I think John means “hostility” more in the sense of “non-receptiveness” rather than actively attacking those who argue for theism.
Yup, this seems to fit.
Being called a moron seems hostile to me, just to use an example right here.
That was certainly hostile, yes. However, I take the fact that the post in question is at −10 karma to suggest that the hostility is frowned upon by the community in general.
Sorry, I should have specified “except for Kawoomba”.
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be. Also, the spelling is unchanged, and I’d just seen a certain Tarantino movie.
Edit: Also, politeness has its virtues and is often more effective in achieving one’s goals—yet Crocker’s Rules are certainly more honest. Checking the definition of moron—at least as it pertains to that aspect of a person’s belief system—I mean, who would seriously dispute its applicability, even before South Park immortalized Joseph Smith’s teachings?
I dispute its applicability, because I’ve known very smart Mormons. Humans are not logic engines. It’s rare to find even a brilliant person who doesn’t have some blind spot.
Even if it were clinically applicable, you presented it as an in-group vs. out-group joke, which is an invitation for people from one tribe to mock people from another tribe. Its message was not primarily informational.
Crocker’s Rules are not an invitation to be rude.
I don’t doubt there are Mormons with a higher IQ than myself, and more knowledgeable in many fields. Maybe the term “stupid person” is too broad, I meant it with Mormonism as the referent, and as being limited in scope to that. Yet it is disheartening that there are such obvious self-deceiving failures of reasoning, and courtesy afforded to dumb beliefs may prop up the Potemkin village, may help hide the elephant behind the curtain.
Reveal Oz in the broad daylight of reason, so that those very smart Mormons you know must address that blind spot.
Calling us morons doesn’t reveal anything to reason or even attempt to force me to address what you may think of as a blind spot.
It stands to reason that if you’ve successfully read even parts of the Sequences, or other rationality related materials, and yet believe in the Book of Mormon, there’s little that will force you to address that blind … area …, so why not shock therapy. Or are you just too looking forward to your own planet / world? (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:259) Maybe that’s just to be taken metaphorically though, for something, or something other?
Why go to the Journal of Discourses? D&C 132 clearly states that those that receive exaltation will be gods, the only question is whether that involves receiving a planet or just being part of the divine council. The Bible clearly states that we will be heirs and joint heirs with Christ. The Journal of Discourses is not something that most members look to for doctrine as it isn’t scripture. I, and any member, am free to believe whatever I want to on the subject (or say we don’t know) because nothing has been revealed on the subject of exaltation and theosis other then that.
Personally, I think there are some problems with the belief that everyone will have a planet due to some of the statements that Jesus makes in the New Testament but I could be wrong and I am not about to explain the subject here, though I may have attempted to do so in the past.
Crocker’s Rules are not an excuse for you to be rude to others. They are an invitation for others to ignore politeness when talking to you. They are not an invitation for others to be rude to you for the sake of rudeness, either; only where it enables some other aim, such as efficient transfer of information.
What you did, when viewed from the outside, is a clear example of rudeness for the sake of rudeness alone. I don’t see how Crocker’s rules are relevant.
Ah. To my mind, that would be ‘neutrality’, not ‘hostility’.
Ironically, this turned out not to be the case; he was thinking of Kawoomba, our resident … actually, I’d assumed he only attacked me on this sort of thing.
A common problem when one person tries to explain the words of another to a third party, yes.
Funny thing—I had a brief interaction over private messaging with Kawoomba on the subject of religion some time back, and he seemed reasonable at the time. Mildly curious, firmly atheistic, and not at all hostile.
I’m not sure if he changed, or if he’s hostile to only a specific subcategory of theists?
As I said, I’d assumed it was just me; we got into a rather lengthy argument some time ago on whether human ethics generalize, and he’s been latching onto anything I say that’s even tangentially related ever since. I’m not sure why he’s so eager to convince me, since he believes his values are incompatible with mine, but it seems it may have something to do with him pattern-matching my position with the Inquisition or something.