= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eliezer_Yudkowsky comments on Pascal's wager re-examined - 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 (117)
I don't think you're a Christian. I do think you want Christianity to have a chance in hell, because... well, I'm not going to speculate. Meta-contrarianism would be one reason. Everyone voting down shminux, please note that they never said they thought Goetz was a Christian.
Everyone voting down shminux, please also note that they did say:
I'll downvote for those. While I don't claim Goetz' treatment of the topic to have been perfect, I don't see evidence of it necessarily having been motivated by anything else than an honest curious interest in the topic. Claims that he clearly wants Christianity to have a chance or that he wouldn't be able to change his mind on the topic seem to me to be just as uncalled for as claims that he would be a Christian.
There was definite evidence of this. As I pointed out in my reply the specific numbers picked looked a lot like what one would expect if one had a conscious or unconscious desire for the argument to just barely go through.
You are probably correct that, taken out of the poster's profile context, one might not
I have my doubts, but in retrospect it looks like my emotions got the better of me, and I concede that my original reply was less neutral than called for. Hey, I'm still new to this rationality thing.