Sunday School November 25th 2018
November 25, 2018 at 12:19 pm #24703
Today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.
I hope the country that jails bloggers, considers atheists to be terrorists, murders journalists, kills civilians in Yemen, supports Islamic terrorism and sends radicals to preach in mosques around the world will stop torturing women for seeking their human rights.
Texas students to get both real and fake history education in school.
Church of England attendance falls further. Good.
This weeks’ Woo: My leaky gut tells me I don’t have a leaky brain.
Is believing without evidence always morally wrong?
Why Einstein was convinced that God did not play dice.
There are no Blue Laws about attending Sunday School.
Should Evolution treat our Microbes as part of us?
The biggest threat to free speech that nobody is talking about.
What are the ethical consequences of immortality technology?
Rather than trying to indoctrinate remote tribes with our primitive ideas we should look to see what we can learn from them.
The Star Trek interracial kiss that has lingered on the lips for 50 years.
Rickey Jackson goes home.
A new cancer support group for non-believers is setup. (Also see video below).
A look at the Chinese particle collider that will dwarf the LHC.
I don’t think this guy will be watching Mary Poppins this Christmas.
Some photographs taken last week.
While you are waiting for the kettle to boil…..November 25, 2018 at 12:21 pm #24704
Have a great week everyone!!
Well, I don’t care about being dead! Because I won’t know about it. That is the best thing about being dead. You don’t know about it. It’s like being stupid; it’s only painful for others. …
Ricky Gervais to Stephen Colbert.November 25, 2018 at 2:06 pm #24705
Re:There are no Blue Laws about attending Sunday School.
To begin with, the Supreme Court has repeatedly, and fairly recently, ruled that blue laws are constitutional: The state can prohibit commercial activities on certain days, even if the days are selected for apparently religious reasons. The reasoning is that the state may have an interest in people spending social time away from work or commerce in a coordinated way, and it is reasonable for the state to accommodate existing social forms, such as religion.
While this may seem like a back door to the establishment of religion, it’s actually a distinctively progressive view of how the law functions. Implicitly, by approving blue laws, the Supreme Court is admitting the view that the state may implement very specific, apparently arbitrary rules to achieve non-economic, general well-being-related goals like “leisure time for workers.”
In other words, blue laws are also a way that the state enshrines a special time for citizens to exercise rights to assembly, religious and secular
Come on, the SCOTUS is supposed to protect the constitution, and this person is saying the ends justify the means…what a clown. My firm shuts down for Christmas. I would rather they gave me more vacation and just be able to pick my own “holy-dayz”.November 25, 2018 at 2:19 pm #24706
Thanks, Reg!November 25, 2018 at 7:21 pm #24707
Re: Is believing without evidence always morally wrong?
Belief without evidence has to be morally acceptable, …if Cosmology’s Standard Model, the Big Bang, is to survive.November 25, 2018 at 9:17 pm #24708
Accepting or rejecting BB Cosmology is not a moral issue. I accept the BB Theory based upon my understanding of it. It is not a matter of belief or faith in the same way that Evolution is not a matter of belief but rather one of scientific understanding. I reject the EU “theory” not because I don’t believe it but from what I have read of it, including what you have previously supplied me with.
I no longer hold with String Theory even though I once thought it a very good theory. I find the ideas supporting Quantum Loop Gravity to be stronger contenders in the search for a “Grand Unifying Theory”. But at no point was faith, belief without evidence or moral considerations ever involved.
At any point in my life I will reject or modify my understanding of such reality forming ideas based upon new evidence without it ever being an issue for me. Our understanding of the Universe will come about by how we understand the quantum world and the forces (of nature) that govern it.
Telling me my understanding of reality is wrong because yours is right is the theist’s approach. Tell me where BB Cosmology is wrong and I will edit my “beliefs” accordingly. I will chuck it out immediately if you can convince me. Would Fred Hoyle have done so too?
I mean he coined the term “Big Bang” and thought his “Steady State” theory was correct. He had evidence to show that galaxies were moving away from each other at increasing rates. OK, technically the space between them is expanding so that at some point in the past they were closer together. At some point all matter occupied a (very) small space. Physicists have accurately and independently worked this out using the Hubble Constant to be circa 13.8 billion years old.
How did you get on with the Bayesian probabilities at your conference?November 26, 2018 at 5:11 pm #24709
“Is believing without evidence always morally wrong?”
– if we accept that “truth is love” (knowledge of reality allows us to deal with it and change it if necessary, effectively, to an ethical advantage) then it logically follows that it is morally dubious to believe things without evidence.
I know this is a charge that is often levelled at religious people, but I think this is unfair, since they would most likely see “all of creation” as evidence of the Creator God, and nature’s generous abundance (to the lucky ones) as evidence of God’s mercy and love.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.