And instantly someone downvotes although they can´t possibly have read throught the post in 30 seconds. Sadly, some people can´t handle anything even remotely related to religion, however important it may be even from a rationalist´s standpoint.
Wasn’t me, but I downvoted, too, without reading through the entire wall of text because copypasta from a Christian apologetics website does not a good LW post make. If you have a point and want to make it, use your own words.
Oh, good to know. I couldn´t find that particular note anywhere on the site. Since Eliezer said in the about section that you guys tend to be respectful towards theists I gave it a shot. Couldn´t find a more fitting place to post than the Discussion section. I have as already stated confirmed the facts and edited the errors I know of. Everything in this article I have read elsewhere aswell. (I could even have left out the source since no one would have noticed but I didn´t.)
If I did wrong, shouldn´t it be more constructive to let me know than to simply downvote instantly and leave?
Yes I looked for a mall to help me with so naturally I googled it :) I found a good mall and it happened to be that. Would you have known that it wasn´t me if I hadn´t linked? I am 19 years old, I don´t feel the pressure to impress anyone yet. You guys are very harsh on me considering I had no idea to know what was “worthy of Less Wrong”. I did my best to figure out where to put this article.
In case you think that I am an apologetic christian, I am not. I don´t feel the slightest interest in convincing anyone on this site to believe in any god whatsoever. BUT if you could point out to me where to read up on theism and theism in history on this site I would be grateful.
If I did wrong, shouldn´t it be more constructive to let me know than to simply downvote instantly and leave?
You assume that people on an internet forum have an obligation to you to “be constructive” and explain things. That is… not so.
You are in a new to you social setting with its own norms and customs. You’re trying to figure out these norms and customs, partially through trial and error. That’s perfectly fine. Put your ego aside and treat downvotes as noisy signals as what some people here find acceptable and what they do not.
Figure out things yourself, do not rely on others explaining them to you.
Yeah, I got that pretty fast. But it will take time to learn by trial and error when every error count´s for 5-10 karma and you need 2 karma to do anything at all here :D
First, only large errors will cost you 5-10 karma and you should stop doing them pretty fast.
Second, you don’t need positive karma to post comments (as opposed to top-level posts) and that’s more than enough for a lot of participation and learning.
This site calls itself a “community blog”, but it lies—it’s actually a forum and you could be an active participant without ever making a top-level post.
Well that is good to know. But even though my mistakes are more obvious now in hindsight, I think I will stay out of any sort of discussion involving religion after this one. I´m not sure it´s not worth to discuss anything related to religion with hardcore atheists.
I´m not sure it´s not worth to discuss anything related to religion with hardcore atheists.
That, of course, depends on whether the participants of the discussion are willing to change their mind (to “update” in local lingo).
I don’t think your mistake was in trying to discuss religion with atheists, I think it was in assuming the other side was uneducated and stupid: “Look—Newton believed in God, haha, bet you didn’t know this!” :-/
You assuming that I assumed that you are stupid is what is really stupid. This is where you get it all wrong and so it clouds everything you read since you can´t keep your neutral attitude towards me or the so called article. Fun to be me.
I´m not using this as a “look at me I´m a theist, look how much I know!” argument. Cause I have no argument. But I do believe that many (not even calling it a majority, that would be going far too far) knows just how widespread theism was amongst the old thinkers and some of the modern. (meaning 1900 ->) The fact that many who have commented here seems to think that religion was a primitive superstition that was only occuring because it was the norm “back then”, is a new attitude that I haven´t stumbled upon earlier. It is really interesting from my point of view. Like theism is a disease that is being cured when someone learns nuclear physics or something.
Consider that being an atheist back then was really unsafe. Unsafe as in being fired, becoming a social outcast, possibly depending on how far back being jailed, lynched, exiled, or killed.
Why not? The fact that someone who announces they are atheist would be lynched would explain why scientists were religious back then. Any one who didn’t wouldn’t stay alive and well and we’d never hear from them again.
You are vastly overestimating the concequences of being atheist and you seem to think this was true for all these people. If they did not ACTUALLY believe in a god there was no need for supporting it and writing about it.
Yes, a good point. One of the reasons why many atheists criticize theists is indeed because many theists have this idea that God can only fit in the gaps of what we don´t know yet.
Since Eliezer said in the about section that you guys tend to be respectful towards theists I gave it a shot.
The problem isn’t that it’s theistic. The problem is that it’s low quality.
“Famous dead people believed X” is no interesting argument for this website. Rationalism is about reasoning in a certain way. It’s not about the result of your reasoning.
I understand quite well your point already :) You still haven´t answered my question on copyright. I would appreciate if you did, assuming you actually know what you are talking about, so that I can delete the article.
The source should make no difference if the facts are right as they appear to be. This is kind of cherry picking of course but it may indeed surprise the one or other. I was surprised by Descrates second step and Newtons numerology.
The source should make no difference if the facts are right as they appear to be.
Writing is written for an audience. A post that’s written for an audience at a Christian apologetic website would very likely take major editing to be well written for the LW audience and vice versa.
And instantly someone downvotes although they can´t possibly have read throught the post in 30 seconds. Sadly, some people can´t handle anything even remotely related to religion, however important it may be even from a rationalist´s standpoint.
It wasn’t me, but 30 seconds is plenty to recognise this as unworthy of LessWrong.
Wasn’t me, but I downvoted, too, without reading through the entire wall of text because copypasta from a Christian apologetics website does not a good LW post make. If you have a point and want to make it, use your own words.
Oh, good to know. I couldn´t find that particular note anywhere on the site. Since Eliezer said in the about section that you guys tend to be respectful towards theists I gave it a shot. Couldn´t find a more fitting place to post than the Discussion section. I have as already stated confirmed the facts and edited the errors I know of. Everything in this article I have read elsewhere aswell. (I could even have left out the source since no one would have noticed but I didn´t.)
Don’t kid yourself. Your source is the very first result.
If I did wrong, shouldn´t it be more constructive to let me know than to simply downvote instantly and leave?
Yes I looked for a mall to help me with so naturally I googled it :) I found a good mall and it happened to be that. Would you have known that it wasn´t me if I hadn´t linked? I am 19 years old, I don´t feel the pressure to impress anyone yet. You guys are very harsh on me considering I had no idea to know what was “worthy of Less Wrong”. I did my best to figure out where to put this article.
In case you think that I am an apologetic christian, I am not. I don´t feel the slightest interest in convincing anyone on this site to believe in any god whatsoever. BUT if you could point out to me where to read up on theism and theism in history on this site I would be grateful.
You assume that people on an internet forum have an obligation to you to “be constructive” and explain things. That is… not so.
You are in a new to you social setting with its own norms and customs. You’re trying to figure out these norms and customs, partially through trial and error. That’s perfectly fine. Put your ego aside and treat downvotes as noisy signals as what some people here find acceptable and what they do not.
Figure out things yourself, do not rely on others explaining them to you.
Yeah, I got that pretty fast. But it will take time to learn by trial and error when every error count´s for 5-10 karma and you need 2 karma to do anything at all here :D
First, only large errors will cost you 5-10 karma and you should stop doing them pretty fast.
Second, you don’t need positive karma to post comments (as opposed to top-level posts) and that’s more than enough for a lot of participation and learning.
This site calls itself a “community blog”, but it lies—it’s actually a forum and you could be an active participant without ever making a top-level post.
Well that is good to know. But even though my mistakes are more obvious now in hindsight, I think I will stay out of any sort of discussion involving religion after this one. I´m not sure it´s not worth to discuss anything related to religion with hardcore atheists.
That, of course, depends on whether the participants of the discussion are willing to change their mind (to “update” in local lingo).
I don’t think your mistake was in trying to discuss religion with atheists, I think it was in assuming the other side was uneducated and stupid: “Look—Newton believed in God, haha, bet you didn’t know this!” :-/
You assuming that I assumed that you are stupid is what is really stupid. This is where you get it all wrong and so it clouds everything you read since you can´t keep your neutral attitude towards me or the so called article. Fun to be me.
I´m not using this as a “look at me I´m a theist, look how much I know!” argument. Cause I have no argument. But I do believe that many (not even calling it a majority, that would be going far too far) knows just how widespread theism was amongst the old thinkers and some of the modern. (meaning 1900 ->) The fact that many who have commented here seems to think that religion was a primitive superstition that was only occuring because it was the norm “back then”, is a new attitude that I haven´t stumbled upon earlier. It is really interesting from my point of view. Like theism is a disease that is being cured when someone learns nuclear physics or something.
Consider that being an atheist back then was really unsafe. Unsafe as in being fired, becoming a social outcast, possibly depending on how far back being jailed, lynched, exiled, or killed.
Good point. Wouldn´t have changed my beliefs though.
Why not? The fact that someone who announces they are atheist would be lynched would explain why scientists were religious back then. Any one who didn’t wouldn’t stay alive and well and we’d never hear from them again.
You are vastly overestimating the concequences of being atheist and you seem to think this was true for all these people. If they did not ACTUALLY believe in a god there was no need for supporting it and writing about it.
You might be interested in the God of the gaps approach.
Yes, a good point. One of the reasons why many atheists criticize theists is indeed because many theists have this idea that God can only fit in the gaps of what we don´t know yet.
That’s not how LW works. Part of LW is that low quality posts get voted down.
The problem isn’t that it’s theistic. The problem is that it’s low quality. “Famous dead people believed X” is no interesting argument for this website. Rationalism is about reasoning in a certain way. It’s not about the result of your reasoning.
Just so you know, 4 people have downvoted this since it was deleted. I don’t know why.
I understand quite well your point already :) You still haven´t answered my question on copyright. I would appreciate if you did, assuming you actually know what you are talking about, so that I can delete the article.
The source should make no difference if the facts are right as they appear to be. This is kind of cherry picking of course but it may indeed surprise the one or other. I was surprised by Descrates second step and Newtons numerology.
Writing is written for an audience. A post that’s written for an audience at a Christian apologetic website would very likely take major editing to be well written for the LW audience and vice versa.