Is that vitriol I can smell? Tough to say. However, I definitely enjoyed this:
“There is only one superpower that exists in this universe, and those who seek to master it are called Bayesians.”
I would love to read a thousand words on this Eliezer, and I say that with no hint of sarcasm or challenge. I understand Bayes, I’d just like to get my head around your “religion”.
Regarding your most recent response above, Eliezer, I can assure you (as one who had his Catechism drummed in from an early age) that nothing so theoretically interesting could be allowed in Christianity. The virtue displayed by defying God’s will to do what you know is, by God’s own terms, the right thing would be tantamount to a one way ticket to heaven. If you refused to kill your firstborn, you wouldn’t be smitten with a thunderbolt, you’d be told you had passed the test, and were truly worthy. This isn’t an inconsistency in the nature of God, it’s the nature of human-written scripture.
For the most part, the major religions had the obvious moral dilemmas tied up centuries ago. If they were anything but self-contained, they’d either have changed their dogma or been taken to bits by rationality. The only rational weapon we have against them is the fact that they are all almost certainly superstitious hogwash.
I disagree. I think there are ways you could “defy God’s will” by doing what could be considered a service to others… and not ever have a loophole to wiggle out of hell.
A good example might be a Christian choosing to shoot babies—so their souls could go straight to heaven while they were still “innocent”… It’s plausible that a (rather twisted) christian could consider this a good thing for the souls of the babies, but I don’t see any way that they would then get a one way ticket to heaven” out of it.
Is that vitriol I can smell? Tough to say. However, I definitely enjoyed this:
“There is only one superpower that exists in this universe, and those who seek to master it are called Bayesians.”
I would love to read a thousand words on this Eliezer, and I say that with no hint of sarcasm or challenge. I understand Bayes, I’d just like to get my head around your “religion”.
Regarding your most recent response above, Eliezer, I can assure you (as one who had his Catechism drummed in from an early age) that nothing so theoretically interesting could be allowed in Christianity. The virtue displayed by defying God’s will to do what you know is, by God’s own terms, the right thing would be tantamount to a one way ticket to heaven. If you refused to kill your firstborn, you wouldn’t be smitten with a thunderbolt, you’d be told you had passed the test, and were truly worthy. This isn’t an inconsistency in the nature of God, it’s the nature of human-written scripture.
For the most part, the major religions had the obvious moral dilemmas tied up centuries ago. If they were anything but self-contained, they’d either have changed their dogma or been taken to bits by rationality. The only rational weapon we have against them is the fact that they are all almost certainly superstitious hogwash.
I disagree. I think there are ways you could “defy God’s will” by doing what could be considered a service to others… and not ever have a loophole to wiggle out of hell.
A good example might be a Christian choosing to shoot babies—so their souls could go straight to heaven while they were still “innocent”… It’s plausible that a (rather twisted) christian could consider this a good thing for the souls of the babies, but I don’t see any way that they would then get a one way ticket to heaven” out of it.
If this is so, then I have to question why Abraham got the same response for not refusing to kill the first child resulting from his marriage.