= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dreaded_Anomaly comments on Theists are wrong; is theism? - 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 (533)
I think the theism/atheism debate is considered closed in the following sense: no one currently has any good reasons in support of theism (direct evidence, or rational/Bayesian arguments). We can't say that such a reason won't show up in the future, but from what we know right now, theism just isn't worth considering. The territory, from all indications, is Godless (and soulless, for that matter), so the map should reflect that.
The argument that we probably live in a simulation is the specific argument in support of theism that the OP invokes (but does not mention specifically).
I may add that the SA forces us to adopt theism as a consequence of current physical theory, not as some modification to current theory for which we require new evidence, and this is what makes it especially powerful.
I was an atheist until I updated on the SA, and I have yet to find any rational opposition to it.
When you say there are no good reasons in support of theism, I assume you mean the truth of theism, not the idea that it may create positive externalities? Or are you claiming that there is no benefit to theism whatsoever?
If the territory is to be faithfully represented, we cannot say that the existence of a deity is a necessary component, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the existence of religion is a pure negative.
Yes, I was just talking about the truth of theism. The existence of religion isn't a pure negative, but I think the human race could do better.