You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Manfred comments on Open Thread, November 8 - 14, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion

1 Post author: witzvo 08 November 2013 08:13PM

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

Comments (141)

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

Comment author: Manfred 09 November 2013 07:22:09PM *  4 points [-]

The "control" argument predicts more specific things than the "rebellion" argument, and so is a more useful hypothesis. But then again, it's not the whole story at all (desire for community, actual belief, glaring cognitive biases), and once you start inserting caveats the testability goes way down. So I'd say neither argument is worth making.

Comment author: ChristianKl 09 November 2013 09:13:27PM *  0 points [-]

The "control" argument predicts more specific things than the "rebellion" argument, and so is a more useful hypothesis.

Actually a rebellion argument also predicts something. It would predict that atheists also rebel against other social norms.

Comment author: Manfred 09 November 2013 09:25:06PM 1 point [-]

Because the competing hypothesis ("atheists are willing to state a true thing even when most of society disagrees") also predicts some degree of general rebelliousness, I think the prediction is more about pointless and self-destructive behaviors.

And if atheists are just allowed to be tricked by the devil, then I don't know how that pans out into other behaviors.