lol
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:25 (eleven years ago) link
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?
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:26 (eleven years ago) link
well in terms of physics yeah mostly
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:28 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:34 (eleven years ago) link
religions contain multitudinous viewpoints
Any big tent is gonna be full of clowns I guess.
― ledge, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:36 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:38 (eleven years ago) link
Aimless I don't understand how you can separate rules from the understanding.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:41 (eleven years ago) link
Yeah, 'evidently' is troubling me in your post, Aimless
― The windiest militant trash (Michael White), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:43 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:43 (eleven years ago) link
seems like a pretty big leap from Maimonides to Madeleine Murray O'Hair but what do I know
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:46 (eleven years ago) link
god forbid you admit your conception of religion is cartoonish and innacurate
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:47 (eleven years ago) link
don't you judge me!
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:48 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― The windiest militant trash (Michael White), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:50 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:50 (eleven years ago) link
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
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:51 (eleven years ago) link
Phil D. I wonder how you pronounce that high school's name.
― The windiest militant trash (Michael White), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:52 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:52 (eleven years ago) link
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
― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:52 (eleven years ago) link
lol Michael White, that slipped right by me.
― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:53 (eleven years ago) link
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?!
― The windiest militant trash (Michael White), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 17:58 (eleven years ago) link
fair enough, but the denial of the latter does not require the denial of the former
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:00 (eleven years ago) link
"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.
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:02 (eleven years ago) link
True enough, but then we get into Occam's Razor territory for me.
― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:03 (eleven years ago) link
Or even more succinctly, if I deny the latter, then the former has no effect on my life whatsoever.
― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:04 (eleven years ago) link
then where does morality come from?
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:07 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:11 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:13 (eleven years ago) link
depends how you're measuring it
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:14 (eleven years ago) link
that's what she said
― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:15 (eleven years ago) link
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.
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:17 (eleven years ago) link
yeah well you know what you get when you put two jews in a room? three opinions
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:21 (eleven years ago) link
i accept the existence of some kind of universal moral law! some kind at least. i think most ppl agree w/ that too.
― Mordy, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:22 (eleven years ago) link
In a Chomskian kind of way, I think I agree w/Mordy.
― The windiest militant trash (Michael White), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:24 (eleven years ago) link
One of my favorite jokes.
― purveyor of generations (in orbit), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:25 (eleven years ago) link
by universal, I presume you mean the universe of human interactions, not the universe of galaxies.
― Aimless, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:25 (eleven years ago) link
What do you get when you put two Irish Jews in a room?
― The windiest militant trash (Michael White), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:26 (eleven years ago) link
three opinions and a fistfight?
― Aimless, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:36 (eleven years ago) link
well most people believe in god so, yeah.
― wk, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:39 (eleven years ago) link
xxp yes, i don't believe stars have an ethical imperative not to explode + consume galaxies. universal for humans
― Mordy, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:40 (eleven years ago) link
erin go bracccchhhhh ?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:40 (eleven years ago) link
alotta latkes?
― the fucking deslongchamps (rip van wanko), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 18:49 (eleven years ago) link
Morality comes from evolution, the higher brain functions of mammals versus reptiles, things like compassion, raising your young, etc. are evolutionarily recent phenomenon.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 19:37 (eleven years ago) link
not that i've ever met an ethical snake, but why can't reptiles have morality?
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 19:39 (eleven years ago) link
distracts from gerbil-eating
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 19:41 (eleven years ago) link
reptilian moral imperatives: eat! don't be eaten! reproduce! repeat as needed!
― Aimless, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 19:42 (eleven years ago) link
you forgot sleep
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 19:42 (eleven years ago) link
snakes can't make pals? (i never had a pet snake but people who do seem to like them all the same)
― Philip Nunez, Tuesday, 25 September 2012 19:44 (eleven years ago) link
morality is a collective endeavor, something that governs relationships between members of a group. snakes don't belong to groups, not even family units (cf. Aimless' reference to raising young etc.)
― stop swearing and start windmilling (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 25 September 2012 19:46 (eleven years ago) link
interesting to consider the question for social animals tho... say, ants.