orthonormal comments on Open Thread: June 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (651)
Occasionally someone will show up here and try to flame-bait us, not really arguing (or not responding to counterarguments) but just trying to provoke people with contrary opinions. (This is, after all, the Internet.) It's obvious from your other contributions that you're not doing that, but someone who'd only seen your two comments above might have wrongly assumed otherwise. I was explaining why the downvotes should be taken back, as it appears they were.
By the way, the mainstream view among Less Wrong readers is that any evidence we've seen for theism is far too weak to overcome the prior improbability of such a sneakily complex hypothesis (and that much of the evidence that we might expect from such a hypothesis is absent); but there are a few generally respected theists around here. The community norm on theism has more to do with how people conduct themselves in disputes than with the fact of disagreement— but you should be prepared for a lot of us to talk amongst ourselves as if atheism is a settled question, and not be too offended by that. (Consider it a role reversal from an atheist's social interactions with typical Americans.)
I've enjoyed my exchanges with you so far, and look forward to more!
I recently found out that you can't downvote someone past zero, so that must be why they stopped :)
I might just delete the post anyways. Ah well.
It's considered poor form to delete a post or comment on LW, since it makes it impossible to tell what the replies were talking about. (Also, it doesn't restore the karma.)
What's preferable, if one regrets a comment, is to edit it in a manner that keeps it clear what the original comment was, or to add a disclaimer. Here's one example— note that if cousin_it had just deleted the post, it would be more difficult to understand the comments on it.
Or a fake example:
should probably be edited to
if the content is to be removed.
I enjoyed that example. I would hope it wouldn't get deleted.
It might be better to just spend some time reading the sequences. A lot of people here like myself disagree with the LW consensus views on a fair number of issues, but we have a careful enough understanding of what those consensus views are to know when to be explicit about what assumptions and what methods of reasoning we are using.