Sunday School

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Humanists International releases 2022 Annual Report.

In Fort Worth vs. atheists, the atheists have it right.

What exactly does the term ‘Christian Nationalism’ really mean? Would you consider Jim Garlow to be one and why does Jesus lie about election results?

Trump-appointed judge orders Airline lawyers to undergo Religious “Liberty Training”.

Bay Area Atheists who fought for cross removal: Christians shouldn’t have ‘special privilege’.

Canadian Supreme Court refuses to hear appeals over worship restrictions on Christian churches.

World of Woo: Seattle psychic startup hit with copyright lawsuit it never saw coming.

Environment: Atlantic collapse: Q&A with scientists predicting a colder Europe.

Covid-19 appears to be making a comeback.  More info here.

AI is building highly effective antibodies that humans can’t even imagine.

Scientists at Fermilab close in on fifth force of nature.

What is Moral Relativism?

Clinical trial achieves 100% remission rate for all cancer patients.

Long Reads: ‘Ruzzki not welcome’: the Russian exiles getting a hostile reception in Georgia.  Why a placebo can work—even when you know it’s fake.

Sunday Book Club:  In a Flight of Starlings.

Some photographs taken last week.  Comedy pet photography awards.

While you are waiting for the kettle to boil……

Coffee Break Video:  Is religion inevitable?  Unraveling the mystery of the “Curse of Knowledge” with Steven Pinker.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Have a  great week!

[StregaModerator]

Thanks Reg!!

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:

What is Moral Relativism?

As opposed to being a moral realist.  Moral realists think you can get an “ought” from an “is”, philosophically.  Unfortunately, despite whole libraries being written in the attempt, they have so far failed, because it’s impossible.  Philosophy can’t deliver an ought – only living beings can deliver an ought, because only a living being can have goals.  Oughtness = normativity = the pressure to achieve goals.  Philosophy and logic do not feel this pressure, because it’s cold and dead, no matter how useful and accurate it may be.

The article defines moral relativism as making judgments depending on your perspective.  I think this is partly correct.  I think the wholly correct answer is to say that something can be morally correct according to a particular value.

So, according to the values of honest dealing and non-cheating and non-exploitation, stealing is wrong.  But if you’re stealing to feed your family, it’s the right thing to do according to the value of looking after your family.  Something can morally right, or correct, according to values a, b, and c, but wrong according to values x, y, and z.  Things are nearly always not all wrong or all right, because there is a multiplicity of values.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Reg

The Fort Worth vs. atheists article is behind a paywall and the reloading trick didn’t work this time.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Reg and Simon

There’s a more sociological definition of moral relativism. In other words, one that doesn’t define it in terms of individuals making choices by their own lights:

Moral relativism is a philosophical position that asserts that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture, meaning that whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced.

For example, in some Islamic societies, it’s wrong for a woman to show her face or her hair in public whereas that is patent nonsense in Western societies.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg,

The stories about the remission of cancer patients from immunotherapy as a first resort and the use of AI to find anti-cancer antibodies are really bright spots in my day while I slowly get my strength back from the Rhabdo-Monster.

I can only imagine the pain cancer sufferers must feel and hope these new developments bring them and all of us potential victims an end to the Cancer-Monster.

And never forget: There are some really misguided–or perhaps all-too-aware–people out there who actually want to “pause” all this! Let’s never let them try it without response!

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling
• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling again

[StregaModerator]

@unseen

Fort Worth Atheists Launch Billboard Campaign. Lawsuit Continues.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

Some time earlier, we were discussing the possibility of restoring a Post-Apocalypse humanity with just one man and one woman and I had stated the genetic reasons why it wouldn’t be possible and cited the work of Richard Dawkins.

Here below is the Sunday School where the topic came up, (also relevant to this Sunday School because it reiterates my thoughts on Moral Relativism):

https://atheistzone.com/groups/sunday-school/forum/topic/sunday-school-november-13th-2022/

After I rummaged through paperwork that got backlogged during my latest hospital stay, I finally found the note of where I recorded Dawkins’ thoughts. What he said was that there was never a first single human from which all humans came. While somewhat different from how I put it, his words tie in and make my point and here they are:

Richard Dawkins Explains Why The Was Never A First Human Being

Richard Dawkins Explains Why There Was Never a First Human Being

He also stated this in an interview on WGBH.org, on 3/28/2018, but I couldn’t find the relevant podcast link. They most likely keep transcripts for interested listeners.

Since I had made the positive assertion that one man and one woman could not restore a decimated human species, and the burden of proof rests with me in this case, I thought I owed you and the Forum this much.

(Nota Bene: To show that I’m not all buzz-killer, though it would be impossible to restore a decimated human species with one man and one woman, one can still certainly have fun trying. 👩‍❤️‍💋‍👨 😁)

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Addendum link

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Unseen wrote:

@Reg and Simon There’s a more sociological definition of moral relativism. In other words, one that doesn’t define it in terms of individuals making choices by their own lights:

Moral relativism is a philosophical position that asserts that morality is relative to the norms of one’s culture, meaning that whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced.

That’s true, but I think it boils down to the same thing.  Each culture assigns different weights or significance to particular values.  So, Iran, or their ruling elite, assigns a lot of weight to patriarchal values, whereas in the West we assign more weight to autonomy, liberty and egalitarianism.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Unseen – I have no subs to any of the sites that I link, except for the occasional NYT article that I can “gift”. I can only surmise that it is geo blocked based upon location. I have sometimes been unable to access USA sites when in the USA but I can view them without a problem from Ireland or the UK and even from the Canary Islands where I often disappear to for a few days.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Reg

I do use a VPN whenever not forbidden (some sites recognize and reject VPN-using visitors). However, the article in question is in the United States and so is the location of the VPN server I most often use.

[UnseenParticipant]

@Enco

I’m fuzzy on the original discussion but I don’t think I would ever claim that humanity did come from just two beings. Did I?

I do think humanity could be restarted from one surviving man and one surviving woman, though their subsequent generations would have to breed out some of the negative traits that result from drawing on a severely limited gene pool. They would have to have some understanding of genetics and tight control over who gets to procreate with whom, so it’s all very theoretical as well as unlikely to work, people being people.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by  Unseen.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Unseen,

The entire thread is linked above for you to review and, again, with just one man and one woman, there wouldn’t be enough genetic diversity to produce all the traits to enable humans to survive in all the different environmental conditions on Earth.

Moreover, in a Post-Apocalyptic scenario, there would be no luxury of time and safety from the elements and predators to study all of cumulated human Science to keep any child born in the world long enough to carry on, to carry on.

A pipe dream…and a Blood-, Sweat-, and Tear-filled one at that. Hard pass.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Reg,

Long Reads: ‘Ruzzki not welcome’: the Russian exiles getting a hostile reception in Georgia.

One good thing here in the U.S.: Every day on Stingray’s Classica Channel on no-cost-with-limited commercials PlutoTV, the station plays as part of it’s program circulation a ballet selection from Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker Suite.. A beautiful thing to awaken to in the morning!

Clearly, Stingray and Pluto TV do not hold against all Russians the plundering, murderous ways of Putin, Dugin, and Kyrill and that is wonderful. Both Ukrainian and innocent Russian dissenters are in a terrible bind from Putin’s war and the faster he either surrenders, dies naturally, or gets picked off, the better.

[Author]

Posts