We can happily and easily disprove the idea that Judeo-Christian cosmology “damages society” by comparing the modern secular society developing after 1500AD with that of the Christian society before it.

1. You're cherrypicking features of the society. I could respond by pointing to feudalism or slavery, for instance. Having less hospitality but no slavery seems overall positive.

2. I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating what hospitality requires. If it was actually required to feed and house all beggars who come to your door, people would be overwhelmed by beggars.

3. "Judeo-Christian" here doesn't make sense. You'll have to at least include Islam. And even then, I wouldn't say that non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions made the society especially horrible. Ancient China and Japan weren't great, but in ways comparable to how "Judeo-Christian" societies weren't great.

4. "Judeo-Christian" cosmology "causes problems" by holding science back. Obviously, ancient societies had less science than we do, so this is perfectly consistent with reality.

He asks “How interested are you in Widgets?” He has learnt from previous job interviews that, if he answers honestly, the interviewer will think he is any of lying, insane, or too weird to deal with, and not hire him, even though this is not in the best financial interests of the company, were they fully informed.

By the standard "intentionally or knowingly cause the other person to have false beliefs", answering 'honestly' would be lying, and answering in a toned down way would not (because it maximizes the truth of the belief that the interviewer gets).

In Materialist Conceptions of God, I wrote about how one can interpret religious claims as hyperstititions, beliefs that become true as a result of you believing in them.

While this works for some religious claims, it doesn't work for many of the most important ones. If heaven doesn't exist, believing in it, and even acting as though you want to go there, won't get you there. And believing that the world was created in seven literal days, and acting thus, not only doesn't cause the world to have been created in seven literal days, it leads you to damage the society around you.

Here’s how easy it is to run an LLM evaluation of a debate.

Running it through the LLM is easy.

Refuting the argument that you're using the LLM's output for takes longer, though.

The motte and bailey is:

1. "All I'm asking you to do is to run this through an LLM".

But

2. "Actually, that's not all I'm asking you to do. You also need to refute this whole post."

And your stated reason for not responding to any of it is that it’s inconvenient.

It's inconvenient to reply to lots of things, even false things. I probably wouldn't reply to a homeopath or a Holocaust denier, for instance, especially not to refute the things he says.

When someone in my family expresses their concern that Covid-19 vaccines are causing harm to the population, I can respond by: “I also think that it is very important to seriously monitor the adverse health effects of all drugs, in the case of [...]”.

If they said that the Jews are drinking the blood of Christian babies, would you reply that of course you think it's important to keep babies safe?

Your description of finding common ground is within a hairsbreadth of being concern trolling.

You're going heavy on the motivated reasoning here. The reason people don't want to respond to you is not that you're pure genius, it's that it isn't worth the effort.

You're also doing a motte and bailey on exactly what argument you're trying to make. If all you're saying is "sending X through an LLM produces Y", then yes, I could just try an LLM. But that's not all that you're saying. You're trying to draw conclusions from the result of the LLM. Refuting those conclusions is a lot of effort for little benefit.

The challenge was to simply run the argument provided above through your own LLM and post the results. It would take about 30 seconds.

If you claim that "Not one of you made a case. Not one of you pointed to an error.", that isn't going to be resolved by running the argument through an LLM. Pointing to an error means manually going through your argument and trying to refute it.

Not one of you made a case. Not one of you pointed to an error. And yet the judgment was swift and unanimous. That tells me the argument was too strong, not too weak. It couldn’t be refuted, so it had to be dismissed.

Believing that your post was voted down because it was too strong is very convenient for you, which means that your belief that it was voted down because it's too strong is likely motivated reasoning.

It's a lot easier to write BS than to refute it, so people don't usually want to bother exhaustively analyzing why BS is BS.

I support putting bank robbers in jail. Yet I refuse to support anything that would put myself in jail. I'm clearly supporting it in an imbalanced way that is beneficial to myself.