MugaSofer comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013) - Less Wrong

27 Post author: orthonormal 01 April 2013 04:19PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (1750)

Comments (1750)

Sort By: Best

Show:

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MugaSofer 14 April 2013 06:33:01PM -2 points [-]

but fairly hostile to those that try and say that religion is not irrational

I haven't really seen that hostility, myself.

I think John means "hostility" more in the sense of "non-receptiveness" rather than actively attacking those who argue for theism.

This doesn't limit itself to atomliner; in my experience generally when atheists talk about their previous religion they seem to have always held (or claim they did) some extremely non-standard version of that religion.

Hmmm. It seems likely that the non-standard forms have glaring flaws; close inspection finds the flaws, and a proportion of people therefore immediately assume that all religions are equally incorrect.

Yup, this seems to fit.

Comment author: JohnH 14 April 2013 07:04:30PM 2 points [-]

Being called a moron seems hostile to me, just to use an example right here.

Comment author: CCC 14 April 2013 07:18:02PM 1 point [-]

That was certainly hostile, yes. However, I take the fact that the post in question is at -10 karma to suggest that the hostility is frowned upon by the community in general.

Comment author: Kawoomba comment score below threshold [+] (6 children)

Comment author: PhilGoetz 14 April 2013 07:58:14PM 5 points [-]

I dispute its applicability, because I've known very smart Mormons. Humans are not logic engines. It's rare to find even a brilliant person who doesn't have some blind spot.

Even if it were clinically applicable, you presented it as an in-group vs. out-group joke, which is an invitation for people from one tribe to mock people from another tribe. Its message was not primarily informational.

Crocker's Rules are not an invitation to be rude.

Comment author: Kawoomba 14 April 2013 08:05:42PM -2 points [-]

I don't doubt there are Mormons with a higher IQ than myself, and more knowledgeable in many fields. Maybe the term "stupid person" is too broad, I meant it with Mormonism as the referent, and as being limited in scope to that. Yet it is disheartening that there are such obvious self-deceiving failures of reasoning, and courtesy afforded to dumb beliefs may prop up the Potemkin village, may help hide the elephant behind the curtain.

Reveal Oz in the broad daylight of reason, so that those very smart Mormons you know must address that blind spot.

Comment author: JohnH 14 April 2013 08:09:31PM 2 points [-]

Calling us morons doesn't reveal anything to reason or even attempt to force me to address what you may think of as a blind spot.

Comment author: Kawoomba 14 April 2013 08:23:15PM 0 points [-]

It stands to reason that if you've successfully read even parts of the Sequences, or other rationality related materials, and yet believe in the Book of Mormon, there's little that will force you to address that blind ... area ..., so why not shock therapy. Or are you just too looking forward to your own planet / world? (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 18:259) Maybe that's just to be taken metaphorically though, for something, or something other?

Comment author: JohnH 14 April 2013 09:13:12PM 1 point [-]

Why go to the Journal of Discourses? D&C 132 clearly states that those that receive exaltation will be gods, the only question is whether that involves receiving a planet or just being part of the divine council. The Bible clearly states that we will be heirs and joint heirs with Christ. The Journal of Discourses is not something that most members look to for doctrine as it isn't scripture. I, and any member, am free to believe whatever I want to on the subject (or say we don't know) because nothing has been revealed on the subject of exaltation and theosis other then that.

Personally, I think there are some problems with the belief that everyone will have a planet due to some of the statements that Jesus makes in the New Testament but I could be wrong and I am not about to explain the subject here, though I may have attempted to do so in the past.

Comment author: CCC 15 April 2013 08:36:06AM 2 points [-]

Crocker's Rules are not an excuse for you to be rude to others. They are an invitation for others to ignore politeness when talking to you. They are not an invitation for others to be rude to you for the sake of rudeness, either; only where it enables some other aim, such as efficient transfer of information.

What you did, when viewed from the outside, is a clear example of rudeness for the sake of rudeness alone. I don't see how Crocker's rules are relevant.

Comment author: MugaSofer 15 April 2013 11:10:40AM -1 points [-]

Sorry, I should have specified "except for Kawoomba".

Comment author: CCC 14 April 2013 06:58:53PM 0 points [-]

I think John means "hostility" more in the sense of "non-receptiveness" rather than actively attacking those who argue for theism.

Ah. To my mind, that would be 'neutrality', not 'hostility'.

Comment author: MugaSofer 15 April 2013 11:30:51AM -2 points [-]

Ironically, this turned out not to be the case; he was thinking of Kawoomba, our resident ... actually, I'd assumed he only attacked me on this sort of thing.

Comment author: CCC 15 April 2013 05:32:23PM 0 points [-]

Ironically, this turned out not to be the case

A common problem when one person tries to explain the words of another to a third party, yes.

Funny thing - I had a brief interaction over private messaging with Kawoomba on the subject of religion some time back, and he seemed reasonable at the time. Mildly curious, firmly atheistic, and not at all hostile.

I'm not sure if he changed, or if he's hostile to only a specific subcategory of theists?

Comment author: MugaSofer 19 April 2013 02:25:23PM -2 points [-]

As I said, I'd assumed it was just me; we got into a rather lengthy argument some time ago on whether human ethics generalize, and he's been latching onto anything I say that's even tangentially related ever since. I'm not sure why he's so eager to convince me, since he believes his values are incompatible with mine, but it seems it may have something to do with him pattern-matching my position with the Inquisition or something.

MugaSofer comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! (5th thread, March 2013) - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (1750)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (1750)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login