= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MBlume comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! - 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 (1953)
A couple of possible additions to the page which I'm still a bit unsure of:
and
Any thoughts?
Maybe single out the theists? Buddhism and Taoism are "religions" too - by most accounts - but they are "significantly" less full of crap.
I'm not convinced Buddhism has less crap. It's just more evasive about it. The vast majority of Buddhist practitioners have no idea what Buddhism is about. When you come right down to it, it's a religion that teaches that the world is bad, love is bad, and if you work very hard for thousands of lifetimes, you might finally attain death.
I'm not sure where you are getting that from. A more conventional summary:
"Buddhists recognize him as an awakened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end their suffering by understanding the true nature of phenomena, thereby escaping the cycle of suffering and rebirth (saṃsāra), that is, achieving Nirvana. Among the methods various schools of Buddhism apply towards this goal are: ethical conduct and altruistic behaviour, devotional practices, ceremonies and the invocation of bodhisattvas, renunciation of worldly matters, meditation, physical exercises, study, and the cultivation of wisdom."
I vote definitely yes to the first.
As to the second the message isn't a bad idea. But there are so many OB posts being linked to I'm not sure linking to more is the right idea. Maybe once the wiki gets going there can be a summary of our usual reasons there?
The Wiki is going =)
I'll start thinking about a short intro.
I think the first one's good to have: it's positive, and gets people somewhat acclimated to the whole karma thing. I really don't know what to say about the 2nd; if there were a perfect boilerplate response to religious criticism of rationalism, I suppose this forum probably wouldn't exist. Yours is still as good an effort as any, though could we possibly take debating evolution completely off the table? That and calling any scientific theory "just a theory"?
After the note to the religious, perhaps a nice, comforting "you are still welcome here as long as you don't cause trouble." That is, of course, assuming they are still welcome here. Because they are, right?
We are all looking to be "less wrong", so I can't imagine why anyone would be barred.
Something like that?
Yeah, that works. If I had to edit it myself I would do something like this:
Just food for thought. I trimmed it up a bit and tried being a little more charitable. I also started an article on the wiki but someone else may want to approve it or move it. The very last sentence is a bit aggressive, but I think it is the softest way to make the point that this is an unmovable object.
Shouldn't just assert that it isn't groupthink. Maybe it is. Let them judge that for themselves. Now it sounds defensive, even.
It's probably always dangerous and often wrong to assert that you, or your group, is free of any given bias.
Otherwise I do like the paragraph.
Blinks well that'll save me a lot of work, thank you =)
I'd like to think so, yes, though they shouldn't be too offended if people poke and prod them a bit.
I like both of these (though yes, theism rather than religion will avoid some nitpicking).
The first paragraph seems good.
Despite the vocal atheist and nonreligious majority, I wouldn't doubt that there are many religious people here. Is the second paragraph really helpful? Any religious folks (even pagans, heathens, unitarians, buddhists, etc) here to back me up on this?
I know one evangelical christian who reads but does not post to Less Wrong.