= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AllanCrossman comments on Epistemic Luck - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (132)
Do you also get annoyed by people who don't believe in ghosts who criticize people who do without being aware of their own irrationality?
No because I don't read/hear from these people, I've never met an aghostist.
You've never met someone who doesn't believe in ghosts?
I should have clarified better. I usually don't meet people who make a big fuss about being aghostists and ridiculing ghostists and how irrational it is to be a ghostist and then enumerate all the pedophiles that are ghostists and how much money is stolen by ghostists and that ghostists fly planes into buildings and ghostists are the ones who are responsible for all kind of violence and human suffering and etc... etc... etc...
EDIT: Consider this slogan: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." It was suggested to be used at the Bus campaign. There is just so much wrong with this, well I hope I don't have to explain what and you can figure this out by yourself.
Nobody bothers to make a fuss about ghostists because ghostism isn't particularly important.
I agree, but this comment is vapid unless you offer a reason why ghostism isn't particularly important.
No, that isn't so; it suffices that as a matter of fact ghostism doesn't wield very much political or other thought-shaping power in the countries in which we live.
Of course if we lived in countries where people get executed for being witches, we might have different priorities.
Details are tasty and good. A comment like Allan's ends conversations and there is nothing more to learn afterward.
A comment like yours can lead into useful conversations about the specific differences between ghostism and theism and the wonderful followup question: Is there something other than theism that qualifies as important but people don't make a big fuss over?
To ask that question we need to know the details about what is important.
Of course, if no one wants to ask questions, that is fair enough. But I consider those comments/discussions vapid.
Hang on, there' s a huge gap between "vapid" and "doesn't spark the particular discussion I'm interested in having". I think the things you raise would indeed be interesting to discuss, but AllanCrossman's comment is a specific and sufficient answer to the specific question that roland asks - "what justifies the decision to put more work into attacking theism than ghostism".
It's sufficient because no-one disputes the factual accuracy of the answer.
Hmm... when I looked up vapid in my dictionary I got this:
Looking at other dictionaries it seems like it can also mean lacking life or tedious. I was going for more the former use than the latter use.
So I agree with you. Replace "vapid" with "boring" and you'll have more of what I was aiming for. "Boring" was too weak so I amped it up with "vapid," but apparently that was too strong. But whatever. It's not important.
Allan, no insult was meant. Your comment is fine.
I prefer a slight variant: "Maybe science can make jet aeroplanes or tall buildings, but it takes religion to bring these things together."
Oh! Haha, I finally got it. :P