Sunday School
Sunday School October 13th 2024
This topic contains 49 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by Simon Paynton 3 weeks, 2 days ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 18, 2024 at 2:54 pm #54947
“A lie doesn’t become truth, wrong doesn’t become right, and evil doesn’t become good, just because it’s accepted by a majority.”
― Booker T. Washington
October 18, 2024 at 6:02 pm #54948Science is the systematic endeavor to observe empirical facts about reality and use them to formulate coherent theories that explain natural phenomena. As new measurements and observations are made, an increasing number of facts become available. Consequently, scientific theories must be continuously revised, expanded, or even replaced. This characteristic is not a flaw but rather the cornerstone of the scientific method’s success. The inherent openness of scientific knowledge to new and better evidence ensures that the theories developed are as close to the truth as current understanding allows.
It is important to clarify that the term “theory,” as used in scientific discourse, differs significantly from its colloquial usage. In everyday language, a theory is often considered a mere guess, conjecture, or hunch. Many people mistakenly believe that scientific progress follows a linear trajectory from hypothesis to theory and ultimately to law. This misconception is evident when people assert that “evolution is just a theory,” suggesting that if scientists were genuinely confident in their findings, they would refer to it as the “Law” or “Fact” of Evolution.
In reality, facts serve as the raw material for scientific inquiry. While factual observations are vital, they are not the ultimate objective of science. The primary aim of science is to understand why nature behaves in certain ways, which necessitates the application of a structured process for gathering and evaluating evidence. This process, known as the scientific method, typically unfolds in a sequential manner.
Initially, a specific set of facts prompts a scientist to propose a hypothesis. A hypothesis is a conditional statement structured as “if A occurs, then B will follow.” This format naturally lends itself to the design of experiments, where conditions are set to observe whether B results from A. However, at this stage, a hypothesis lacks explanatory power; it does not reveal whether A caused B or what underlying mechanisms connect the two. While a hypothesis can be useful for guiding research, it does not provide an in-depth understanding.
Similarly, scientific laws offer limited explanatory scope. A law is a concise description of a physical phenomenon. For instance, Newton’s law of universal gravitation describes the gravitational force between two objects, but it does not explain the nature of gravity or why it attracts rather than repels. Despite this limitation, laws are practical tools for predicting natural phenomena, such as the trajectories of cannonballs and satellites. They function as generalized descriptions applicable in typical circumstances but are not definitive or universally accurate across all situations.
Following the formulation of a hypothesis and the execution of experiments, the resulting data will either support the hypothesis or refute it. If the results are favorable, a scientist may proceed to develop a theory to explain the data. A robust theory provides a coherent explanation of the collected evidence and generates new hypotheses to be tested. Through this iterative process, theories evolve, expanding to encompass an ever-growing array of experimental results, while being refined based on the outcomes of subsequent experiments.
Theories that are well-supported and thoroughly tested are considered the pinnacle of scientific achievement. However, they are not immutable truths beyond the reach of future revision. Instead, they represent the most comprehensive understanding of the natural world given the current state of knowledge. The scientific process is inherently unending; at no point will a scientist conclude that they possess “absolute truth.” There will always be data that remain unexplained, questions yet to be answered, or phenomena that defy current understanding. Science progresses continuously, embracing the challenge of the unknown and perpetually refining its theories.
October 18, 2024 at 8:02 pm #54949Yeah well that is only your theory Reg.
Real hard core truth is immutable. It is the church speaking ex cathedra. Truth aint beauty. Truth aint couth. Truth is ruthless. And we can only attain truth listening to the prophets and prelates who bestow their pellets. Having a direct line we must be resigned to an austere existence filled with fear and without resistance.
The river flows.
October 19, 2024 at 7:19 am #54950Science is the systematic endeavor to observe empirical facts about reality and use them to formulate coherent theories that explain natural phenomena. As new measurements and observations are made, an increasing number of facts become available.
Did you write all that with AI? It’s really good if you didn’t.
My morality stuff is a scientific theory under these definitions. The reasons it is successful are 1) the internet makes available a huge sector of scientific papers and books, especially the important classical ones; and 2) the field has really come together in the last 10-15 years with people like Sarah Hrdy and Michael Tomasello doing their scientific and philosophically informed things.
I see that something called perplexity.ai has been on my web site. Maybe someone was trying to get a summary of an article.
October 19, 2024 at 8:46 am #54951No, I wrote it myself and posted it on the old TA site about 12 years ago when theists used to join. But I have spliced other posts into it and got AI to rework it was as one post. Christians are generally to afraid to have open debates on sites likes this and prefer to ‘post and run’ on FB instead. Facebook allow them to reach their intellectual maturity.
October 19, 2024 at 1:03 pm #54952Let’s imagine that 10% (or any %) of atheists turn to terrorism. Would that form a valid basis for attempts to stifle or stamp out atheism?
Yes, if the other 90 per cent did little to nothing to stop the ten percent and/or if there was something inherently wrong within atheism that promulgated terrorism.
Of course, that is all impossible because atheism alone isn’t even an ideology.
October 19, 2024 at 5:01 pm #54953If pigs had wings they’d fly.
But if atheism was a cult that promoted virulent antisemitism, subjugation of women, brainwashed its babies in cultculture so that very few would ever esacape its mindfuck virus, regulated every stinking aspect of existence, punished its victims who violated ridiculous and unreasonable norms in draconian ways and even executed those who dare challenge the dictatorship and was actively attempting to establish a world caliphate and islamise western civilization along with regularly producing jihad love death more than life terrorists?
Yeah absolutely stifle it to death if possible.
Coddling it makes as much sense as inviting a plague into your home.
October 19, 2024 at 5:20 pm #54954Jake said: “I think Harris is making a mistake in following tired advice to stay above the fray. Instead she should roll up her sleeves, get her hands dirty and expose the utter mess that is Trump.”
That doesn’t work, FauxNews and republicans already has their followers convinced that Democrats are the ENEMY. And any ‘fighting back’ is just business as usual / carries no weight.
October 19, 2024 at 5:24 pm #54955MAGA policies
“Wrong is right, and lies are truth”.
“Ignorance is Strength”
October 19, 2024 at 6:22 pm #54956unapologetic, i agree with you.
Most have decided. It is the undecided that both candidates are trying to reach. Now if she humiliated him there might be a tiny percentage of his base that would have an aha moment that the king is stark fucking naked. It is the responsible republicans and independents who she might be able to reach by undressing the orange thing.
October 19, 2024 at 8:18 pm #54957Jake, I don’t even think that anyone’s still pondering who to support. The ‘Undecided’ is now those who haven’t decided whether to vote or not. If some Republicans can’t bring themselves to vote for the Democratic nominee on principle, they may simply not bother to vote at all. This is really the only dial that’s left. This has to be who she’s looking to reach.
October 19, 2024 at 9:26 pm #54958Let’s imagine that 10% (or any %) of atheists turn to terrorism. Would that form a valid basis for attempts to stifle or stamp out atheism?
Yes, if the other 90 per cent did little to nothing to stop the ten percent and/or if there was something inherently wrong within atheism that promulgated terrorism.
Of course, that is all impossible because atheism alone isn’t even an ideology.
So, it’s not just okay in your view to stamp out a group not just for their actions but for their beliefs. Yes or no?
Ideology schmidgeology. It is an ideology (a belief controlling or conditioning behavior) in every atheist’s mind. It depends upon what one understands the word “ideology” to mean. By my lights, you’re belief, as expressed in your words, is nonsense.
October 19, 2024 at 9:30 pm #54959Strega, that makes sense. I did recently hear on NPR or a news station undecideds being interviewed. Presumably that is a tiny minority.
I think it would be both politically savvy and just plain cool to see a woman who is in the image of the iron lady, Golda Meier. There are so many sexists who perceive women as weak and easily manipulated. And that is probably more the case among republicans. Trump is incredibly vulnerable in besmirching her as stupid. But there is no precedent for what i am suggesting. So i expect nothing but customary politics.
BTW even though the betting lines have Trump as a solid favorite…that great prognosticator with the 13 factors is calling Harris the likely winner.
October 19, 2024 at 11:31 pm #54960Let’s imagine that 10% (or any %) of atheists turn to terrorism. Would that form a valid basis for attempts to stifle or stamp out atheism?
Yes, if the other 90 per cent did little to nothing to stop the ten percent and/or if there was something inherently wrong within atheism that promulgated terrorism.
Of course, that is all impossible because atheism alone isn’t even an ideology.
So, it’s not just okay in your view to stamp out a group not just for their actions but for their beliefs. Yes or no? Ideology schmidgeology. It is an ideology (a belief controlling or conditioning behavior) in every atheist’s mind. It depends upon what one understands the word “ideology” to mean. By my lights, you’re belief, as expressed in your words, is nonsense.
What a foolish statement. Let me help you with your basic comprehension of atheism. It is a lack of belief in god(s), period. No way to parallel that with all the trappings that religions or ideologies bring. An atheist can be a humanist, a communist, a MAGA Republican, a radical anti-theist or a terrorist. But not because they are an atheist.
The Pope of atheism has declared you a sinner, unseen, and you shall be punished for all eternity.
October 21, 2024 at 4:13 am #54974The Pope of atheism has declared you a sinner, unseen, and you shall be punished for all eternity.
Bless thee, Robert.
-
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.