I don't know why Eliezer is even having an argument like this when it seems that someone of his "singulitarian" persuasion would hold that the inevitable superintelligent entity will know what is most healthy for all lifeforms, thus what is healthy for human children to be taught growing up. Although I suppose what is essentially the "god" version of the singularity is not necessarily how it will happen so the discussion may still be worth having.
They didn't seem to elaborate on what is even meant by "abandon religion". Obviously I don't think that Bible stories should be told to kids with the implication that they are actually true, but I wonder if Eliezer means that children shouldn't hear them until a later, more academic setting (which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with). I think there is folklore that is acceptable for kids to hear, but Abrahamic religion's tendency to tell stories purporting to be history is a problem for me.
What I hate is how people use God as an excuse to not explain something. Like "We can't explain how the universe was created so it must've been God". Just because we don't have the answer yet doesn't mean there isn't one. It goes the other way too. Just because we can scientificly explain something doesn't disprove God. I try to keep an open mind about all possibilities. Even that what we think god is is actually an alien race that visited us early in our development as mankind that seem godlike
So, we continue with this 'heritage' of lies, Adam? I believe because I believe, in 72 virgins in heaven? Bringing pure reason to 'masses' may not be feasible, but surely masses can doubt and question, instead of wallowing in blind belief and fanatical faith...
The creationism argument is not really that powerful since the stereotype hasn't been true for years. No Christian scientist today believes that. Not to mention a lack of understanding of the opposition is not an argument against the opposition. We already know you uninformed you've proved that. Thanks
Even if no Christian scientist ever believed that, doesn't make his argument wrong. He was making an analogy, which doesn't have to be true. The point of analogy is to explain something in another words.
This error is one of the most common, whenever people see an analogy of an argument, then they find some 'weakness' in that analogy and try to use that to falsify the original argument. Of course, that's logically false.
I don't know why Eliezer is even having an argument like this when it seems that someone of his "singulitarian" persuasion would hold that the inevitable superintelligent entity will know what is most healthy for all lifeforms, thus what is healthy for human children to be taught growing up. Although I suppose what is essentially the "god" version of the singularity is not necessarily how it will happen so the discussion may still be worth having.
JaredHutcheson1 8 months ago
They didn't seem to elaborate on what is even meant by "abandon religion". Obviously I don't think that Bible stories should be told to kids with the implication that they are actually true, but I wonder if Eliezer means that children shouldn't hear them until a later, more academic setting (which I wouldn't necessarily disagree with). I think there is folklore that is acceptable for kids to hear, but Abrahamic religion's tendency to tell stories purporting to be history is a problem for me.
JaredHutcheson1 8 months ago
Way to not even link to the actual full video on the blogging heads site. FAIL
orbenn 9 months ago
What I hate is how people use God as an excuse to not explain something. Like "We can't explain how the universe was created so it must've been God". Just because we don't have the answer yet doesn't mean there isn't one. It goes the other way too. Just because we can scientificly explain something doesn't disprove God. I try to keep an open mind about all possibilities. Even that what we think god is is actually an alien race that visited us early in our development as mankind that seem godlike
XxProtocoLxX 1 year ago
So, we continue with this 'heritage' of lies, Adam? I believe because I believe, in 72 virgins in heaven? Bringing pure reason to 'masses' may not be feasible, but surely masses can doubt and question, instead of wallowing in blind belief and fanatical faith...
besursangeet 1 year ago 4
ARGH why not link to the rest of the video?
InsideOutAnus 2 years ago
The creationism argument is not really that powerful since the stereotype hasn't been true for years. No Christian scientist today believes that. Not to mention a lack of understanding of the opposition is not an argument against the opposition. We already know you uninformed you've proved that. Thanks
jjsajd 2 years ago
Even if no Christian scientist ever believed that, doesn't make his argument wrong. He was making an analogy, which doesn't have to be true. The point of analogy is to explain something in another words.
This error is one of the most common, whenever people see an analogy of an argument, then they find some 'weakness' in that analogy and try to use that to falsify the original argument. Of course, that's logically false.
nawitus 2 years ago
Owned.
galahad1st 2 years ago