Scott explains why he's not interested in participating in the current wave of God debates on Substack, arguing that religious explanations fall into the same category as conspiracy theories by invoking "powerful hidden entities" to explain anomalies.

Scott Alexander rejects the 'cultural Christianity' argument, stating that both Christian and secular liberal societies eventually succumb to modernism, making Christianity no more stable than secular alternatives.

Scott Alexander investigates whether non-religious people are more prone to believing conspiracy theories, finding a U-shaped relationship between religiosity and skepticism.

Scott Alexander examines the rise and fall of New Atheism, arguing it was replaced by social justice as the dominant online 'hamartiology' explaining society's problems.

Scott Alexander explores the concepts of 'pulling goals' (driven by specific desires) and 'pushing goals' (driven by existing structures), expressing his preference for the former and strategies to deal with the latter.

In a fictional story, five islanders confront their society's religious taboos after a shipwrecked sailor points out their blue eyes, leading them to question and ultimately reject their beliefs.

Scott Alexander defends the use of extreme thought experiments in moral philosophy, using Phil Robertson's controversial remarks as an example to explain their necessity and purpose.

Scott explores why conservative religious movements thrive while liberal ones decline, suggesting that strict rules and commitments strengthen communities, and considers this in the context of atheist religion-substitutes.

Scott Alexander examines how 'weak men' arguments can be weaponized to unfairly discredit entire groups, forcing defensive coalitions and unnecessary conflicts.

Scott Alexander, though pro-gay rights, criticizes the suspension of Phil Robertson for his comments, arguing for broader societal tolerance of differing views beyond legal requirements.

Scott Alexander discusses the Rationalist Solstice Ritual, exploring how 'cringeworthiness' can strengthen communities and the challenges atheists face in community-building.

Scott critiques Chesterton's 'truth-telling thing' argument, suggesting that religion's apparent coherence stems from cultural conditioning rather than inherent truth.

Scott Alexander explores whether atheists can fully appreciate Chesterton's work, arguing that the moral beauty in his writing stems more from modern humanism than Christianity itself.

Scott Alexander argues that many debates are 'bravery debates' where different groups need opposing advice, making it challenging to target advice effectively.

Scott Alexander discusses how the clarity experienced when awakening from meditation-induced delusions mirrors his appreciation for simplifying philosophical concepts.

Scott Alexander explores how selection bias might create the stereotype of angry, vocal atheists, and speculates on how this concept might apply to other groups.

Scott shares a comedic video about people praising a non-existent Pope, using it to humorously critique Catholic tendency to believe in nonexistent father figures.

Scott Alexander humorously profiles potential papal candidates from an atheist's perspective, focusing on their quirky aspects rather than theological positions.

Scott Alexander presents comprehensive results from the 2011 Less Wrong survey of 1090 respondents, covering demographics, beliefs, probability estimates on various topics, and a calibration test that shows the community performs better than average but has some calibration issues.

Scott explores whether philosophers genuinely seek answers or prefer endless debate, noting that while philosophy generates many solutions to problems, it lacks mechanisms like scientific experimentation to settle which solutions are correct.

Scott analyzes why multiple groups in America simultaneously claim persecution, identifying psychological motivations behind these claims and warning against the rhetorical trick of presenting oneself as both persecuted underdog and inevitable winner.

Scott shares and comments on favorite rationalist poetry by Pope, Omar Khayyam, Piet Hein and Byron to show that poetry and rationality have long been allies.

Scott argues that rationalists should test their objections against 'the least convenient possible world,' where convenient excuses are removed, in order to find their true reasons and avoid dodging hard questions.