By - Clean_Membership6939
I don't think the Lesswrong community spends a lot of time worrying about being "saved" or doing the impossible. I think it's whole premise is founded on being a better person in the future than you were in the past. Like a lot of statements and posts put forward in this sub, I think your basic premise is just bad.
Of course you would say that. This subreddit is just "what atheists think about Christianity" nowadays.
I'm not surprised that's your reaction. Then again, I think a lot of Christians like you don't really believe in the Ninth Commandment when you try to spread your nonsense.
So you came for discussion and got upset when you got it. Why?
The funny thing is the resurrection of Jesus passes Bayes' theorem, unless you presuppose that miracles don't happen. Check out Gary Habermas' minimal facts argument if you haven't heard it before. There's a bunch of historical evidence surrounding Jesus which even skeptical scholars accept, and it fits and explains the claim that he was executed on a cross, buried, rose from the dead, and was seen afterwards by many eye witnesses.
This is especially funny to me as I'm currently reading Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, in which Harry has to come to terms with the fact that magic exists lol. But to suggest that Jesus was resurrected is a bridge too far for this ideology, apparently.
The minimal facts argument is very questionable when you consider the source for all of his "facts" come from the New Testament.
You don't get to toss out evidence simply on the basis that the conclusion of the document containing the evidence is one you disagree with. The facts Habermas argues from are the ones that are agreed upon by virtually all scholars on the subject, including the secular and skeptical ones.
Usually most solid historical claims rely on more than one source, and having archaeological or other evidence helps. I haven't gone down this rabbit hole recently, but last time I checked, the claim "agreed upon by virtually all scholars on the subject, including the secular and skeptical ones" is yet another lie.
> I think you are placing more importance upon it than the average atheist does, though as atheists following the evidence with rational thinking, and following the consensus of experts, is something that we all do
Yep. LessWrong is like a breeding ground for the sort of self-proclaimed rationalist who things people like Rick Sanchez are "just like him" and who logicked himself into being an anti-SJW. Like HPMOR on that site literally defends child abuse on consequentialist grounds and thinks so hard about the implications of Flitwick's goblin ancestry that it accidentally(?) reinvents scientific racism. This post is basically just "Hey, did you know that there are also *atheists* in the alt-right?"