are you an atheist?

The core of tons of religious writings in traditions that have a ton of other writings emphasising exactly how this unknowable god demands that we live our lives? xp

start with god and work backwards until it's pretty watered down usually to a useless level

practically a word-for-word recapitulation of how kabbalists envision the tree of life/ten sefirot model

The core of tons of religious writings in traditions that have a ton of other writings emphasising exactly how this unknowable god demands that we live our lives?

religions contain multitudinous viewpoints

"God as an unknowable force" I mean if nobody human can conceptualize god in any way than what relevance can the meaning of god possibly have on anything? Again I feel like it's working backwards to fit the word god somewhere into a view of existence.

" atheists love to conveniently ignore this"

hahahahahahaha

OH NO WE'VE BEEN CAUGHT OUT

THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING

to draw a clumsy analogy - scientists, for example, cannot explain why time exists. They assume there was some process or force that put it in place, but they don't know what it is, and conceptualizing that force means resorting to analogies and abstractions. yet they can conceive of it by observing time in action, they can observe it's effects.

this is exactly how people like, say, Maimonides describe god. if you want me to print you out a reading list of similar arguments from different theologians from different religions we might be here awhile, as this is a common thread in hinduism, islam, christianity, etc.
xp

when you start describing god at a certain level of abstraction, you'd have to call these guys atheists. probably not to their face, but you could give them the atheist fist bump.

As a realist I find my imagination is looked down on that I don't give credence to the existential possibilities that may exist beyond my perception or conceptualization. But to subscribe to a belief structure that places a creating force with reasoning that on some level resembles my own- I think that is actually more of a limited imagination for how much more digestible it is for a human mind to understand.

Can I repost myself from above. Any God I can conceive of isn't godlike enough to warrant faith.

It seems reasonable to assume that any god that was capable of creating space-time would exist independently of space-time. Humans have notorious difficulties imagining what existance outside of space-time would entail. A more promising avenue of enquiry into this "unknowable force" would be looking for evidence of the activities of such a god, as they manifest themselves within space-time. After all, force is a physical concept, so it should manifest physically somewhere.

What many religions tell us is that the god they conceive and worship is capable of breaking physical laws. So far, what science tells us about the universe is that it appears to be entirely rule-bound. Also, one of the basic axioms of science is the Law of Uniformity, stating that any physical law that applies in one part of the universe can be assumed to work uniformly in all parts of the universe.

These two sets of assumptions would seem to be at odds.

As of now, I much prefer to think that science's description of the universe is more accurate, until such time as the Law of Uniformity is falsified by evidence. However, the Law of Uniformity is not incompatible with all religions, only those which claim the operation of special providence, miracles and other types of law-breaking.

probably not to their face, but you could give them the atheist fist bump.

I don't think Maimonides or Augustine would be down with being called atheists fwiw

So Rob Halford actually was singing a religious song.

xpost

lol

There do seem to be different rules on different planes though. Hasn't most of 20th century science been baffling evidence that rules that apply on the quantum scale don't necessarily apply to the every day world?

well in terms of physics yeah mostly

rules that apply on the quantum scale don't necessarily apply to the every day world?

This does not falsify the Law of Uniformity. The rules, such as they are understood, are evidently never broken. This would imply that our understanding is imperfect, not that the rules are imperfectly followed.

religions contain multitudinous viewpoints

Any big tent is gonna be full of clowns I guess.

pretty much

at the same time I find it hilarious that atheists would claim theologians whose works are taught to every rabbi, priest or monk are actually atheists. well done guys. "if I agree with it, it must not be religious!" really.

Aimless I don't understand how you can separate rules from the understanding.

Yeah, 'evidently' is troubling me in your post, Aimless

they live amongst youuu...
i'm not super versed in modern atheist movements but my understanding is they came directly out of these religious analytical traditions, and to this day many atheists are still within those theological seminaries. not to make it sound like they are sleeper agents or anything.

seems like a pretty big leap from Maimonides to Madeleine Murray O'Hair but what do I know

god forbid you admit your conception of religion is cartoonish and innacurate

don't you judge me!

Tbf, it would make sense that those who read the religious analytical tradition in the west and remained unconvinced would end up, well, atheists or agnostics. I read a book not long ago about Biblical errancy by an ex-evangelical who kept doing post-grad at pretty religious schools and developed a great fluency with the Bible but also ended up an atheist.

Speaking of cartoonish and inaccurate: Bible-Toting High School Cheerleaders Continue Futile Quest to Get God to Care About Football

It ain't like this shit is rare, not in the USA. Academic theology is one thing, religion as practiced is entirely another.

god forbid you admit your conception of religion is cartoonish and innacurate

Kinda harshes the whole 'free will' buzz, tho

that's funny, I thought they both fell under the umbrella "religion". I think the distinction you're looking for is between smart people and stupid people.

xp

Phil D. I wonder how you pronounce that high school's name.

xp, obv

I don't understand how you can separate rules from the understanding.

Perhaps you have forgotten about epicycles? The planets have, to the best of anyone's knowlege, always perfectly obeyed physical laws. At one time our understanding of those laws was that planets followed circular orbits modified by other circular motions known as epicycles. As new discrepancies between the evidence and the rules were observed, new epicycles were introduced to account for them.

I thought all this was pretty basic. Maybe I used unclear terminology. However, I don't think the standard model has yet been accepted as rising to the level of universally acknowleged physical law.

If God is an unknowable force, I am fairly confident it has no opinion whatsoever on whether I eat shellfish, what I do with my genitals or who wins high school football games.

xp nah even smart people fall prey to that behavior

lol Michael White, that slipped right by me.

Aimless, I agree withe method, I just don't see why the assumption necessarily follows that there aren't exceptions to the rules. Sure, it has been our faulty understanding or perception before but that doesn't mean that our understanding isn't occasionally rationally unsatisfying; light is both wave and particle?!

If God is an unknowable force, I am fairly confident it has no opinion whatsoever on whether I eat shellfish, what I do with my genitals or who wins high school football games.

fair enough, but the denial of the latter does not require the denial of the former

"it would make sense that those who read the religious analytical tradition in the west and remained unconvinced would end up, well, atheists or agnostics."

I think what Shakey is protesting is my assertion that they don't actually need to be unconvinced to be in the atheist/agnostic tentpole, or at least founding fathers of that tentpole. To me, at that level, such an abstract belief versus nonbelief feels like a wrap/burrito distinction.

Also re: handwringing over self-labeling, you can call yourself a pisces without adhering to astrology, so it doesn't seem like if you have any other cultural ties to a religious tradition that belief ought to be the primary reason for labeling or not labeling yourself of that group.

fair enough, but the denial of the latter does not require the denial of the former

True enough, but then we get into Occam's Razor territory for me.

Or even more succinctly, if I deny the latter, then the former has no effect on my life whatsoever.

fair enough, but the denial of the latter does not require the denial of the former

then where does morality come from?

there are lots of different arguments about that. personally I think morality is a relative social construct developed to ensure the survival and cohesion of the tribe/country/species. I don't accept the existence of some kind of universal moral law.

don't see why the assumption necessarily follows

I said: "The rules, such as they are understood, are evidently never broken. This would imply that our understanding is imperfect, not that the rules are imperfectly followed."

By "evidently" I was referring to evidence. The rules of the standard model of quantum physics are currently claimed only to reliably describe what happens at a quantum level, for obvious reasons. However, within that domain, no evidence has been observed that these rules are broken. That's what my first sentence was meant to convey.

Nor did I say that it necessarily followed that there are not exceptions to the rules, only that there was an implication that our understanding of what rules apply is currently ill-formed. This implication exists because of the axiomatic strength of the Law of Uniformity. Past experience would show that contradictions between rules (which exist below the level of axioms or laws) and evidence are generally resolved without having falsified a physical law.

light is both wave and particle?!

As far as we know, yes.

depends how you're measuring it

that's what she said

personally I think morality is a relative social construct developed to ensure the survival and cohesion of the tribe/country/species. I don't accept the existence of some kind of universal moral law.

sorry, I thought you were arguing that upthread but I guess it was just mordy.

yeah well you know what you get when you put two jews in a room? three opinions

i accept the existence of some kind of universal moral law! some kind at least. i think most ppl agree w/ that too.

In a Chomskian kind of way, I think I agree w/Mordy.

yeah well you know what you get when you put two jews in a room? three opinions

One of my favorite jokes.