←back to thread

Personality Basins

(near.blog)
160 points qouteall | 2 comments | 21 Nov 24 12:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.402s | source
Show context
aithrowawaycomm ◴[21 Nov 24 13:52 UTC] No.42204297[source]▶
One of the more depressing things of the AI boom is watching engineers and “atheists” get hoodwinked by mystic gibberish like this blog. There is nothing here but astrology: even Myers-Briggs is more scientific.

I think 30% of atheists bothered to think carefully about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and recognized Pastafarianism as a funny commentary on epistemic uncertainty. The remaining 70% said “heh, stoopid Christians believe in a spaghetti monster!” and took it as confirmation of their tribe’s superiority.

replies(4): >>42204399 #>>42204476 #>>42204487 #>>42204506 #
steveBK123 ◴[21 Nov 24 14:12 UTC] No.42204476[source]▶
Personally I've always found, ironically, some of my most ardent atheist friends to essentially treat the topic with a level of intensity you might expect from a religious evangelist. Often there's also a level of religious fervor they carry over to politics as well.

I don't really care what other peoples religion/non-religion is anymore than what type of underwear they prefer, and yet...

replies(3): >>42204566 #>>42204585 #>>42204625 #
add-sub-mul-div ◴[21 Nov 24 14:29 UTC] No.42204625[source]▶
Feeling strongly about lack of belief in something wild without evidence is not congruent to strong belief in something wild without evidence. Even if the people in the former camp can be equally passionate or annoying.

Suddenly there's this big unnamed (or is it named and I don't know it?) cognitive error that I see everywhere that is believing in an automatic symmetry between two opposing viewpoints. Sometimes one idea is better than another. No, you don't get "objectivity" points for virtue signaling that you're above the whole debate.

replies(2): >>42204695 #>>42210368 #
1. steveBK123 ◴[21 Nov 24 14:37 UTC] No.42204695[source]▶
It's funny that questioning evangelical atheism is getting me more downvotes than even questioning AI or Crypto..
replies(1): >>42204848 #
2. add-sub-mul-div ◴[21 Nov 24 14:54 UTC] No.42204848[source]▶
Well, again, believing that modern AI is close to what human consciousness and intelligence are, or that coders will fix society without running into Chesterton's fence, are good examples of huge beliefs that require huge justification. For which faith isn't a good substitute. You shouldn't be made to feel like you're extremist in the opposite direction for requiring that justification.