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.

buybuydandavis comments on Alpha Mail - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: Chef 24 July 2014 05:01AM

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

Comments (32)

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

Comment author: buybuydandavis 24 July 2014 11:48:54PM *  2 points [-]

From your reply, I don't think I was clear enough about what I meant.

I'm a theist, or not, dependent on my attitude to a purported God, not on a purported God's attitude toward me, and not on anything the God does, intends, or wants.

Let the usual All Powerful Celestial Psychopath actually exist. Knows all, sees all, and will judge all in the end. Let me know it, not just believe it. No faith. Overwhelming evidence.

Knowing that still doesn't make me a theist.

I think modern day theism is best characterized as a belief in an unchosen obligation to be an adoring slave.

I saw the best (and most horrifying) example while driving past a church one day. I'm still kicking myself for not taking a picture. If anyone can place the phrase, as I'm guessing it is some quote or allusion, please provide the reference.

"Though I burn in the flames of Hell, I will Love the Lord my God."

Comment author: mwengler 27 July 2014 06:29:07PM 0 points [-]

I think modern day theism is best characterized as a belief in an unchosen obligation to be an adoring slave.

I think your definition of theism is filled with disutility.

My ex-wife has been watching Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Cosmos. She remarked that it was impossible to watch it without believing in god. I told her Tyson was a rather famous atheist. She was puzzled. I suggested to her that the God that Tyson didn't believe in is a different god than the one that she does find evidence for in the power and beauty of the universe.

It would be better if we could unpack the terms. If your definition of theism as "as a belief in an unchosen obligation to be an adoring slave" was common usage, then it would make sense to use the word that way. But despite the prevalence of the judeo-christian-islamo white haired god with a personality who demands worship and picks winners and losers, this is not at all an obvious definition to anybody who grows up outside those traditions. One would expect a great amount of value to be unlocked, a great number of arguments to be converted to discussions, if those who hate theism as you defined it were able to understand that a significant fraction of the time, the people they are talking to have no idea that that is what they are talking about.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 28 July 2014 12:17:35AM *  1 point [-]

But despite the prevalence of the judeo-christian-islamo white haired god with a personality who demands worship and picks winners and losers,

Despite those 3.8 billion people? I think my definition applies to the vast majority of theists in the world.

If you just want to be a deist, and say that you think the natural order implies some intentional Creator, fine. I agree that that is a very different thing than what I've described. I also think it's poor inference, but that's an entirely separate matter, and really insignificant, compared to people who think we're all justly slaves, that they know what our Master wants, and think it's their duty to satisfy his wants.

Keep in mind that the theists were busy lumping deists like Thomas Paine in with atheists. My definition is based on what I consider not just the common feature, but the distinguishing feature of theists. Deists don't really have it.

I suggested to her that the God that Tyson didn't believe in is a different god than the one that she does find evidence for in the power and beauty of the universe.

To be clear, Tyson doesn't believe in your wife's deistic Creator God either.

p.s. I don't know why people had to downvote you. Your thoughtful reply was appreciated by me.

Comment author: mwengler 28 July 2014 07:27:15AM 0 points [-]

But despite the prevalence of the judeo-christian-islamo white haired god with a personality who demands worship and picks winners and losers,

Despite those 3.8 billion people? I think my definition applies to the vast majority of theists in the world.

There are many people who believe in god who are not primarily interested in being an adoring slave. You can argue with me that they are irrational or aren't understanding the implications of their professed faith, but the point of a good definition is not to enable one side or the other to score rhetorical points without doing heavy lifting, the point is to actually mean the same thing to broad swaths of people on various sides of the debate.

Keep in mind that the theists were busy lumping deists like Thomas Paine in with atheists. My definition is based on what I consider not just the common feature, but the distinguishing feature of theists. Deists don't really have it.

It is common in arguments that the one side excuses its own poor choices and irrationalities by citing the similar poor choices and irrationalities of the other side. I don't think this is the best we can do, as rationalists.

p.s. I don't know why people had to downvote you. Your thoughtful reply was appreciated by me.

Well thank you! Of course, for me, a net downvote of 1 (my current status) is doing pretty well, but I definitely appreciate a kind word.

Cheers, Mike

Comment author: Chef 25 July 2014 01:24:44AM *  0 points [-]

I don't think it's quite enough to simply have a particular attitude to a God to be a theist. It has to go both ways.

theĀ·ism noun belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.