= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on [LINK] Why I'm not on the Rationalist Masterlist - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (866)
There a ban on talking about religion on Lesswrong that I'm aware off. I'm aware off a ban on talking about the basilisk and a ban from talking about advocating specific violence.
Could you point to an discussion in which Lesswrong supposedly agreed that talking about religion is wrong?
I think it's more of a matter that this community lacks people who can make interesting arguments in favor of religion.
The last interesting discussion about religions on Lesswrong I remember was how the catholics scored best on the reverse ideological turing test. I think that making arguments on that level about religion is welcome on LW.
Sorry, the "...talking about religion because it's wrong" should have said "talking about the validity of religion because it's wrong."
The discussion I referenced was about that an ideological turing test is a way to test the validity of arguments.
I don't think that you are forbidden to talk about the validity of religion because it's wrong. It just that there aren't many interesting things you can say about the issue.
If you write a boring post against religion that argues against a few strawman you get voted down, but that doesn't mean that the topic is inherently forbidden.
Let's say Nassim Taleb would come to Lesswrong and argue his position on religion. Do you really think that LW consensus would be: "Go away, because the topic is dealt with."?
No, the discussion could be a fruitful discussion about how to choose bayesian priors.