Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 2m . @Mollie_Malone1 & I have done TV report tonight on PM's attempt at reset BUT today a real life example of policy fall-out of partygate with NHS plan not ready (stuck btwn DoH/No 11/No 10/NHS) And concerns over PM conduct back to fore again following harassment of Starmer
I'm not keeping up with the mad conspiracy, alt-right, anti-vax, QAnon view of the world so I don't understand why Julian Assange has got anything to do with it all?
Revealed the truth that the MSM didn't want you to hear, or some such shit.
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
The vast majority of black British of all ages in the UK are religious, including evangelical Christians, as are the vast majority of British Asians whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, as are the majority of Orthodox Jews.
Even evangelical and young Roman Catholic white Christians have more children on average than atheist white Britons.
As for Starmer and the culture wars, most of the MPs voting against Plan B restrictions were Conservatives and LDs very few were Labour. The protestors are not happy with Boris but they are even less happy with Starmer Labour. Not that I condone their actions of course
Is it certain the Jimmy Savile case actually was raised by the protestors who harassed Keir Starmer today? I didn't hear Savile's name mentioned, let alone chanted, in the clip shown at the Independent's website. The word "freemason" comes across, and the man who is doing most of the shouting also mentions Julian Assange.
What is the flag that looks like a St George's cross but has some blue writing on it (possibly "England" or "English") together with a small blue symbol?
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
"I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Well well. Just reading a Wikipedia article, following up an interesting lead on Hacker News, and @rcs1000 is mentioned in the article. Small world and all that.
"Oxford jab smears probably killed hundreds of thousands, says scientist
An Oxford scientist who worked on the AstraZeneca vaccine has said that critics of the jab “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people” by damaging its reputation. Speaking to the BBC, Professor Sir John Bell said: “They have damaged the reputation of the vaccine in a way that echoes around the rest of the world. I think bad behaviour from scientists and from politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people — and that they cannot be proud of.”"
It has been 0 days since BoZo featured in the evening news headlines.
And not in a good way...
When he’s gone, as he surely will in the next few months, who or what are you going to obsess over then ? What will fill that gap in your life he seems to fill ?
Lot of people pointing a lot of fingers in a lot of directions tonight. Last week we were being told, "Boris promised to take control of No.10. And that's what he's done". Fine. So how's that working out. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1490785862308839426
Tories at a crossroads. Do they want to follow the path trod by the Trump GOP or do they want to be conservatives. It’s as simple as that.
The Canadian Conservatives are also going down the Trumpite route removing their more moderate leader and replacing him with a harder right figure backing the anti vaccination mandate and anti restriction truckers attacking Trudeau's government.
In Italy Salvini stands on a similar platform, as do Zemmour and Le Pen on a populist Nationalist ticket anti restrictions and vaccine mandates.
Indeed Boris is somewhat more moderate than them, he introduced Plan B when almost a third of his MPs voted against it and he pushed the vaccine. Indeed even Trump is moderate compared to the anti vaxxers, given he too backs the vaccine
Labour need to to fight dirty. Go on go for the fucking jugular. It’s the Conservative party who will come out worse.
Let's say Labour did this.
The problem with the approach is that Johnson's comment is a classic case of the best lies contain a grain of truth.
Starmer wasn't responsible for the decision. But he was DPP when the decision was made. And while there is absolutely no evidence to back Johnson's claim, there will be a body of people who say "well, he was DPP, are you telling me a high profile case such as Savile would not have been passed upwards?". The fact that the papers relating to the case have also apparently been destroyed also doesn't help Starmer's case because it can't be proved one way or other what was exactly said or done.
Labour would be better keeping quiet and letting the Conservative MPs attack Johnson
Is it certain the Jimmy Savile case actually was raised by the protestors who harassed Keir Starmer today? I didn't hear Savile's name mentioned, let alone chanted, in the clip shown at the Independent's website. The word "freemason" comes across, and the man who is doing most of the shouting also mentions Julian Assange.
What is the flag that looks like a St George's cross but has some blue writing on it (possibly "England" or "English") together with a small blue symbol?
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
The vast majority of black British of all ages in the UK are religious, including evangelical Christians, as are the vast majority of British Asians whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, as are the majority of Orthodox Jews.
Even evangelical and young Roman Catholic white Christians have more children on average than atheist white Britons.
As for Starmer and the culture wars, most of the MPs voting against Plan B restrictions were Conservatives and LDs very few were Labour. The protestors are not happy with Boris but they are even less happy with Starmer Labour. Not that I condone their actions of course
The strength of my Grandfather's religious convictions were such that he was a conscientious objector during WWII, and joined the Friends Ambulance Unit. He is survived by six grandchildren. Not one of us is religious.
Just do a non-apology even for heaven's sake - sorry if he felt insulted or some such - that's better than the story going on because will only 'clarify' remarks. The longer it goes on the fewer know what even know what he said and the more will only remember him attempting to associated Saville with Starmer.
Labour need to to fight dirty. Go on go for the fucking jugular. It’s the Conservative party who will come out worse.
Let's say Labour did this.
The problem with the approach is that Johnson's comment is a classic case of the best lies contain a grain of truth.
Starmer wasn't responsible for the decision. But he was DPP when the decision was made. And while there is absolutely no evidence to back Johnson's claim, there will be a body of people who say "well, he was DPP, are you telling me a high profile case such as Savile would not have been passed upwards?". The fact that the papers relating to the case have also apparently been destroyed also doesn't help Starmer's case because it can't be proved one way or other what was exactly said or done.
Labour would be better keeping quiet and letting the Conservative MPs attack Johnson
The far-right trope online link with the mob in real life do Labour's work for them in taking priority over the more abstracted points you're describing in this case, I would say.
I agree with Ping that Labour should go hard on the Trumpite politics angle of this, because in fact it can help illuminate the workings, and undermine a large part of entire modus operandi of, the Johnson administration, from the beginning till now.
If you don't ride out into the field and battle this Trumpesque crap you'll soon realise, just like moderate Republicans did, that your party doesn't exist anymore. Sure it might have the same name. But it's gone. That's what's facing the UK Tories right now. https://twitter.com/LJ_Skipper/status/1490789465467637772
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
I'd headline that 'A mere six' rather than 'at least six'.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
I'd headline that 'A mere six' rather than 'at least six'.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
I'd headline that 'A mere six' rather than 'at least six'.
1.7% of Conservative MPs critique Britain Trump - not exactly a counter-revolution, is it?
I'm not keeping up with the mad conspiracy, alt-right, anti-vax, QAnon view of the world so I don't understand why Julian Assange has got anything to do with it all?
Horseshoe innit.
This is why right and left are inadequate terms. There’s a belief system out there that believes the deep state / forces of globalism are in a grand conspiracy to control the world through nefarious means. Some of them are on the far left. Others on the far right. All seem to have a soft spot for the likes of Putin, Assad, and characters like Assange, Piers Corbyn, Galloway, Bannon.
As pointed out above the trouble is often these conspiracy theories are founded on a grain of truth. That’s what makes them all the more dangerous.
Just do a non-apology even for heaven's sake - sorry if he felt insulted or some such - that's better than the story going on because will only 'clarify' remarks. The longer it goes on the fewer know what even know what he said and the more will only remember him attempting to associated Saville with Starmer.
I'm glad I was out doing something useful while the God argument was on. Well done @rcs1000 for holding the fort for those of us lucky enough not to get sucked in (which I would have been).
I have seen some pretty good argument for the existence of God, but not today. We seem to have:
@MrEd - 'The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that atheist believe "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence'. What? We don't start from God can not exist at all. More than happy to be proved wrong and find my end is not being eaten by worms. At no point do I start from that assumption.
@Leon - On a brand new (2 hydrogen atom) start to the Universe and an application of the classical physics conservation of matter where none of that applies.
@hyufd - Arguing for religion on the basis that it is needed to hold the West together. Ignoring whether that is true or not, how about whether God exists rather than it is better if he does. The belief in a God to hold a society together is as old as the hills and usually turns out badly.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
They really should be walking. It's clear that the Conservative party has been too well purged of the sensible element and that they are now in a minority.
Personally I'm past the point of thinking I can forgive the Conservative party for these last few weeks. Anyone who hasn't had their letter in for months owns this. And while I can't know exactly who, I know just on sheer weight of numbers that the vast majority of Tory MPs are rotten for letting this happen. Seriously, if I were one of those MPs I'd cut and run. To hell with even the idea of doing it to save your own skin, this is dangerously close to not getting blood on your hands.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
I'd headline that 'A mere six' rather than 'at least six'.
Well well. Just reading a Wikipedia article, following up an interesting lead on Hacker News, and @rcs1000 is mentioned in the article. Small world and all that.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
Interesting mix though - oldies in safe seats, newbies in safe seats, a Red Waller and some in between.
Smith - MP since 2010, 50 years old, Northern very safe seat, 23k majority Gale - MP since 1983, 78 years old, South East very safe seat, 17k majority Ellwood - MP since 2005, 55 years old, Southern moderately safe seat 8k majority Hammond - MP since 2005, 60 years old, currently marginal southern seat, 600 majority Mangnall, MP since 2019, 32 years old, very safe South West Tory seat, 12k majority Bell - MP since 2019, 41 years old, Red Wall seat so safety uncertain, 7k majority Largan - MP since 2019, 34 years old, bellweather seat in north, 500 majority
Mangnall is interesting as he is young, new to parliament, so no historic axe to grind with Boris, but given the seat may not feel much personal loyality to him for the win either.
"Oxford jab smears probably killed hundreds of thousands, says scientist
An Oxford scientist who worked on the AstraZeneca vaccine has said that critics of the jab “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people” by damaging its reputation. Speaking to the BBC, Professor Sir John Bell said: “They have damaged the reputation of the vaccine in a way that echoes around the rest of the world. I think bad behaviour from scientists and from politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people — and that they cannot be proud of.”"
I note that it is no longer being used in the UK.
Perhaps that Oxford Scientist ought to have a chat with the vaccines minister before going ant further.
Just do a non-apology even for heaven's sake - sorry if he felt insulted or some such - that's better than the story going on because will only 'clarify' remarks. The longer it goes on the fewer know what even know what he said and the more will only remember him attempting to associated Saville with Starmer.
No, a non-apology will not do.
I don't say it would do for me, but it would typically be enough for most within a party. They are used to justifying believing a non-apology is a real apology, they can claim when people moan to them 'Look, he apologised', even if they know the apology was weak. Having to ignore it altogether is more challenging an ask.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
Interesting mix though - oldies in safe seats, newbies in safe seats, a Red Waller and some in between.
Smith - MP since 2010, 50 years old, Northern very safe seat, 23k majority Gale - MP since 1983, 78 years old, South East very safe seat, 17k majority Ellwood - MP since 2005, 55 years old, Southern moderately safe seat 8k majority Hammond - MP since 2005, 60 years old, currently marginal southern seat, 600 majority Mangnall, MP since 2019, 32 years old, very safe South West Tory seat, 12k majority Bell - MP since 2019, 41 years old, Red Wall seat so safety uncertain, 7k majority Largan - MP since 2019, 34 years old, bellweather seat in north, 500 majority
Mangnall is interesting as he is young, new to parliament, so no historic axe to grind with Boris, but given the seat may not feel much personal loyality to him for the win either.
I'm glad I was out doing something useful while the God argument was on. Well done @rcs1000 for holding the fort for those of us lucky enough not to get sucked in (which I would have been).
I have seen some pretty good argument for the existence of God, but not today. We seem to have:
@MrEd - 'The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that atheist believe "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence'. What? We don't start from God can not exist at all. More than happy to be proved wrong and find my end is not being eaten by worms. At no point do I start from that assumption.
@Leon - On a brand new (2 hydrogen atom) start to the Universe and an application of the classical physics conservation of matter where none of that applies.
@hyufd - Arguing for religion on the basis that it is needed to hold the West together. Ignoring whether that is true or not, how about whether God exists rather than it is better if he does. The belief in a God to hold a society together is as old as the hills and usually turns out badly.
I have faith God exists, I don't need proof he does
Just do a non-apology even for heaven's sake - sorry if he felt insulted or some such - that's better than the story going on because will only 'clarify' remarks. The longer it goes on the fewer know what even know what he said and the more will only remember him attempting to associated Saville with Starmer.
No, a non-apology will not do.
I don't say it would do for me, but it would typically be enough for most within a party. They are used to justifying believing a non-apology is a real apology, they can claim when people moan to them 'Look, he apologised', even if they know the apology was weak. Having to ignore it altogether is more challenging an ask.
You know who else didn't apologise for his actions? Jimmy Savile.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
I'd headline that 'A mere six' rather than 'at least six'.
Also, seems to have a problem with counting?
At least 'at least six' includes seven ;-)
Probably wrote the headline when another one broke - why when writing reports I advise people to mention a changable stat as little as possible, as when revising the draft you will miss one for sure.
I'm glad I was out doing something useful while the God argument was on. Well done @rcs1000 for holding the fort for those of us lucky enough not to get sucked in (which I would have been).
I have seen some pretty good argument for the existence of God, but not today. We seem to have:
@MrEd - 'The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that atheist believe "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence'. What? We don't start from God can not exist at all. More than happy to be proved wrong and find my end is not being eaten by worms. At no point do I start from that assumption.
@Leon - On a brand new (2 hydrogen atom) start to the Universe and an application of the classical physics conservation of matter where none of that applies.
@hyufd - Arguing for religion on the basis that it is needed to hold the West together. Ignoring whether that is true or not, how about whether God exists rather than it is better if he does. The belief in a God to hold a society together is as old as the hills and usually turns out badly.
I have faith God exists, I don't need proof he does
Well well. Just reading a Wikipedia article, following up an interesting lead on Hacker News, and @rcs1000 is mentioned in the article. Small world and all that.
In fairness, Big G, I don't think Hyufd has the power to remove Boris.
Maybe he could recall his tanks from Scotland or wherever they are this week and send them against Downing Street, but otherwise - nah.
The only Tory MP we definitely know listens to us has already sent in his letter anyway.
Not sure. When it comes to the point that he loses Epping, he’ll surely realise the game’s up.
The Tories did not even lose Epping in 1997 and the polls now are still better for the than they were before 1997 and the Tories got over 60% of the vote here in 2019
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Hm - but I'd guess(?) one of the reasons you find religion easy is that you grew up in an idiom in which believing in God was seen as a reasonable way of making sense of the world.
I didn't, really. I grew up in a going-through-the-motions idiom. We had nominally religious assemblies at primary school, but no-one really believed it. You sung a hymn and said a prayer because that's what you were told to. The teachers no more believed than the children. When a teacher who genuinely did believe turned up - and complained that by messing about we were begrudging God 20 minutes of our day - the blank incomprehension of both children and other teachers was palpable. The unspoken consensus - no, we aren't, because he doesn't exist, not really.
(I also went to Sunday school. But that was just a reason for mum and dad to have a bit of alone time. And actual church gave me the willies. Again, the sincerity gap.)
And so while I was never told there's no God, I never grew up around any sort of sincere belief that God was a thing. I'm not trying to be virtuously atheistic: my atheism is in many ways as circumstantial as others' belief. But it's just not a concept which makes any sort of sense to me personally. It's not easy to believe. It doesn't make any sort of sense. Less sense than the absolutely vast scale of the galaxy and the counter-intuitivity of quantum physics, anyway.
I find all this genuinely sad
To deny a child the wonderful gift of Faith is as bad, to me, as forcing on them some grotesque fundamentalist creed: Wahhabism or Wee Free Presbyterianism or whatever
Faith is an enormous solace, and we are hard wired for it. We are MEANT to believe. It helps you cope. There is a reason why NA and AA are the most proven and successful means of quitting major addictions, they both rely on a belief in a Higher Power. You surrender to the God that will save you. And it works. Better than fucking methadone. And I have tried both
And it works because it utilizes an algo-module already in our heads. The God module
My advice, if you are atheist but seek faith, is try ayahuasca. If it is anything like the wild shit I did in Ibiza in December you will emerge a believer
I don't think I was denied faith. My parents are, I think, atheists, though it's not a thing we've ever discussed - but they've certainly never tried to pass on their atheism. I dutifully encountered religion at school. But it was never terribly convincing, and the few people I met who were genuinely and outwardly convinced of God were all rather odd.
Even as far back as the 1970s, religion in mainstream urban Britain was - well, not exactly sidelined, but an anachronism we persisted with but weren't entirely sure why - like soup spoons or ties.
I agree we have a god module in our heads though. There's an evolutionary biologist whose name now escapes me who is quite interesting on that - his view is that tribes which 'did' religion thrived, because they reinforced group identity - and thus outcompeted those tribes which did not, and those without the god module.
I don't really seek faith - it strikes me as an inconvenience and a potential source of unwanted existential terror - but I am interested in it. I am an atheist, but that it is a statement of fact rather than an angry badge of identity, and I am genuinely curious about religious belief.
Could the experience of ayahuasca not equally well make you think 'I have taken a hallucinogenic drug which is having strange effects on my brain'?
That's very similar to my view. And I really think it's important to note that what I have is absence of belief, not belief of absence. I don't go around actively disbelieving in God - which is what so many religious people seem to think atheists do (and I guess in the case of Dawkins, it's true) - I simply don't have any active belief in him.
Do you believe in Truth? I.e. that there is a correct scientific explanation for things, even if our current level of understanding is not able to grasp every detail of it?
That's sounds like a really good description of my views. Even though I have never thought of it in those terms before.
Thankyou. Once again you have given me a new perspective. .
There exist statements in arithemetic which are true, but which it is impossible to prove are true.
More astonishingly, in any possible system of thought or notation you could ever invent, if it is as expressive, or more expressive, than arithmetic, there exist in that system statements which are true but which it is impossible to prove are true.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
Interesting mix though - oldies in safe seats, newbies in safe seats, a Red Waller and some in between.
Smith - MP since 2010, 50 years old, Northern very safe seat, 23k majority Gale - MP since 1983, 78 years old, South East very safe seat, 17k majority Ellwood - MP since 2005, 55 years old, Southern moderately safe seat 8k majority Hammond - MP since 2005, 60 years old, currently marginal southern seat, 600 majority Mangnall, MP since 2019, 32 years old, very safe South West Tory seat, 12k majority Bell - MP since 2019, 41 years old, Red Wall seat so safety uncertain, 7k majority Largan - MP since 2019, 34 years old, bellweather seat in north, 500 majority
Mangnall is interesting as he is young, new to parliament, so no historic axe to grind with Boris, but given the seat may not feel much personal loyality to him for the win either.
Bellwether! Sorry, pet peeve.
I did spot it after I hit post, but I felt I had to leave it up to face appropriate ridicule, else I could never critique peoples' use of 'reign/rein' or 'John Hopkins' ever again.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
Interesting mix though - oldies in safe seats, newbies in safe seats, a Red Waller and some in between.
Smith - MP since 2010, 50 years old, Northern very safe seat, 23k majority Gale - MP since 1983, 78 years old, South East very safe seat, 17k majority Ellwood - MP since 2005, 55 years old, Southern moderately safe seat 8k majority Hammond - MP since 2005, 60 years old, currently marginal southern seat, 600 majority Mangnall, MP since 2019, 32 years old, very safe South West Tory seat, 12k majority Bell - MP since 2019, 41 years old, Red Wall seat so safety uncertain, 7k majority Largan - MP since 2019, 34 years old, bellweather seat in north, 500 majority
Mangnall is interesting as he is young, new to parliament, so no historic axe to grind with Boris, but given the seat may not feel much personal loyality to him for the win either.
Not really a surprising list. Largan and Hammond are both virtually certain to lose at the next election even if the Tories salvage a majority. Ellwood's seat is also an outside Labour chance like Bell's.
It was then that Marvin got religion. Not the quiet, personal kind, that involves doing good deeds and living a better life; not even the kind that involves putting on a suit and ringing people's doorbells; but the kind that involves having your own TV network and getting people to send you money.
I'm glad I was out doing something useful while the God argument was on. Well done @rcs1000 for holding the fort for those of us lucky enough not to get sucked in (which I would have been).
I have seen some pretty good argument for the existence of God, but not today. We seem to have:
@MrEd - 'The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that atheist believe "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence'. What? We don't start from God can not exist at all. More than happy to be proved wrong and find my end is not being eaten by worms. At no point do I start from that assumption.
@Leon - On a brand new (2 hydrogen atom) start to the Universe and an application of the classical physics conservation of matter where none of that applies.
@hyufd - Arguing for religion on the basis that it is needed to hold the West together. Ignoring whether that is true or not, how about whether God exists rather than it is better if he does. The belief in a God to hold a society together is as old as the hills and usually turns out badly.
I have faith God exists, I don't need proof he does
Yes and that is a much better argument than any of the ones I quoted in my post from others earlier. You have a distinct advantage over me in that respect because I believe he doesn't exist, but I don't know that, but you actually know he exits and I can't argue with that. I believe you are mistaken, but I have no conclusive argument against that point you make.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Hm - but I'd guess(?) one of the reasons you find religion easy is that you grew up in an idiom in which believing in God was seen as a reasonable way of making sense of the world.
I didn't, really. I grew up in a going-through-the-motions idiom. We had nominally religious assemblies at primary school, but no-one really believed it. You sung a hymn and said a prayer because that's what you were told to. The teachers no more believed than the children. When a teacher who genuinely did believe turned up - and complained that by messing about we were begrudging God 20 minutes of our day - the blank incomprehension of both children and other teachers was palpable. The unspoken consensus - no, we aren't, because he doesn't exist, not really.
(I also went to Sunday school. But that was just a reason for mum and dad to have a bit of alone time. And actual church gave me the willies. Again, the sincerity gap.)
And so while I was never told there's no God, I never grew up around any sort of sincere belief that God was a thing. I'm not trying to be virtuously atheistic: my atheism is in many ways as circumstantial as others' belief. But it's just not a concept which makes any sort of sense to me personally. It's not easy to believe. It doesn't make any sort of sense. Less sense than the absolutely vast scale of the galaxy and the counter-intuitivity of quantum physics, anyway.
I find all this genuinely sad
To deny a child the wonderful gift of Faith is as bad, to me, as forcing on them some grotesque fundamentalist creed: Wahhabism or Wee Free Presbyterianism or whatever
Faith is an enormous solace, and we are hard wired for it. We are MEANT to believe. It helps you cope. There is a reason why NA and AA are the most proven and successful means of quitting major addictions, they both rely on a belief in a Higher Power. You surrender to the God that will save you. And it works. Better than fucking methadone. And I have tried both
And it works because it utilizes an algo-module already in our heads. The God module
My advice, if you are atheist but seek faith, is try ayahuasca. If it is anything like the wild shit I did in Ibiza in December you will emerge a believer
I don't think I was denied faith. My parents are, I think, atheists, though it's not a thing we've ever discussed - but they've certainly never tried to pass on their atheism. I dutifully encountered religion at school. But it was never terribly convincing, and the few people I met who were genuinely and outwardly convinced of God were all rather odd.
Even as far back as the 1970s, religion in mainstream urban Britain was - well, not exactly sidelined, but an anachronism we persisted with but weren't entirely sure why - like soup spoons or ties.
I agree we have a god module in our heads though. There's an evolutionary biologist whose name now escapes me who is quite interesting on that - his view is that tribes which 'did' religion thrived, because they reinforced group identity - and thus outcompeted those tribes which did not, and those without the god module.
I don't really seek faith - it strikes me as an inconvenience and a potential source of unwanted existential terror - but I am interested in it. I am an atheist, but that it is a statement of fact rather than an angry badge of identity, and I am genuinely curious about religious belief.
Could the experience of ayahuasca not equally well make you think 'I have taken a hallucinogenic drug which is having strange effects on my brain'?
That's very similar to my view. And I really think it's important to note that what I have is absence of belief, not belief of absence. I don't go around actively disbelieving in God - which is what so many religious people seem to think atheists do (and I guess in the case of Dawkins, it's true) - I simply don't have any active belief in him.
Do you believe in Truth? I.e. that there is a correct scientific explanation for things, even if our current level of understanding is not able to grasp every detail of it?
That's sounds like a really good description of my views. Even though I have never thought of it in those terms before.
Thankyou. Once again you have given me a new perspective. .
There exist statements in arithemetic which are true, but which it is impossible to prove are true.
More astonishingly, in any possible system of thought or notation you could ever invent, if it is as expressive, or more expressive, than arithmetic, there exist in that system statements which are true but which it is impossible to prove are true.
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
The vast majority of black British of all ages in the UK are religious, including evangelical Christians, as are the vast majority of British Asians whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, as are the majority of Orthodox Jews.
Even evangelical and young Roman Catholic white Christians have more children on average than atheist white Britons.
As for Starmer and the culture wars, most of the MPs voting against Plan B restrictions were Conservatives and LDs very few were Labour. The protestors are not happy with Boris but they are even less happy with Starmer Labour. Not that I condone their actions of course
The strength of my Grandfather's religious convictions were such that he was a conscientious objector during WWII, and joined the Friends Ambulance Unit. He is survived by six grandchildren. Not one of us is religious.
A US study found atheists have an average birthrate of just 1.6 and agnostics a birthrate of only 1.3.
That compared to 1.9 for mainline Protestants, 2.0 for Jews, 2.3 for white evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics, 2.5 for black Protestants and 3.4 for Mormons
If you don't ride out into the field and battle this Trumpesque crap you'll soon realise, just like moderate Republicans did, that your party doesn't exist anymore. Sure it might have the same name. But it's gone. That's what's facing the UK Tories right now. https://twitter.com/LJ_Skipper/status/1490789465467637772
Is there a list of those senior ministers who have essentially continued to propagate the Savile smear?
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Hm - but I'd guess(?) one of the reasons you find religion easy is that you grew up in an idiom in which believing in God was seen as a reasonable way of making sense of the world.
I didn't, really. I grew up in a going-through-the-motions idiom. We had nominally religious assemblies at primary school, but no-one really believed it. You sung a hymn and said a prayer because that's what you were told to. The teachers no more believed than the children. When a teacher who genuinely did believe turned up - and complained that by messing about we were begrudging God 20 minutes of our day - the blank incomprehension of both children and other teachers was palpable. The unspoken consensus - no, we aren't, because he doesn't exist, not really.
(I also went to Sunday school. But that was just a reason for mum and dad to have a bit of alone time. And actual church gave me the willies. Again, the sincerity gap.)
And so while I was never told there's no God, I never grew up around any sort of sincere belief that God was a thing. I'm not trying to be virtuously atheistic: my atheism is in many ways as circumstantial as others' belief. But it's just not a concept which makes any sort of sense to me personally. It's not easy to believe. It doesn't make any sort of sense. Less sense than the absolutely vast scale of the galaxy and the counter-intuitivity of quantum physics, anyway.
I find all this genuinely sad
To deny a child the wonderful gift of Faith is as bad, to me, as forcing on them some grotesque fundamentalist creed: Wahhabism or Wee Free Presbyterianism or whatever
Faith is an enormous solace, and we are hard wired for it. We are MEANT to believe. It helps you cope. There is a reason why NA and AA are the most proven and successful means of quitting major addictions, they both rely on a belief in a Higher Power. You surrender to the God that will save you. And it works. Better than fucking methadone. And I have tried both
And it works because it utilizes an algo-module already in our heads. The God module
My advice, if you are atheist but seek faith, is try ayahuasca. If it is anything like the wild shit I did in Ibiza in December you will emerge a believer
I don't think I was denied faith. My parents are, I think, atheists, though it's not a thing we've ever discussed - but they've certainly never tried to pass on their atheism. I dutifully encountered religion at school. But it was never terribly convincing, and the few people I met who were genuinely and outwardly convinced of God were all rather odd.
Even as far back as the 1970s, religion in mainstream urban Britain was - well, not exactly sidelined, but an anachronism we persisted with but weren't entirely sure why - like soup spoons or ties.
I agree we have a god module in our heads though. There's an evolutionary biologist whose name now escapes me who is quite interesting on that - his view is that tribes which 'did' religion thrived, because they reinforced group identity - and thus outcompeted those tribes which did not, and those without the god module.
I don't really seek faith - it strikes me as an inconvenience and a potential source of unwanted existential terror - but I am interested in it. I am an atheist, but that it is a statement of fact rather than an angry badge of identity, and I am genuinely curious about religious belief.
Could the experience of ayahuasca not equally well make you think 'I have taken a hallucinogenic drug which is having strange effects on my brain'?
That's very similar to my view. And I really think it's important to note that what I have is absence of belief, not belief of absence. I don't go around actively disbelieving in God - which is what so many religious people seem to think atheists do (and I guess in the case of Dawkins, it's true) - I simply don't have any active belief in him.
Do you believe in Truth? I.e. that there is a correct scientific explanation for things, even if our current level of understanding is not able to grasp every detail of it?
That's sounds like a really good description of my views. Even though I have never thought of it in those terms before.
Thankyou. Once again you have given me a new perspective. .
There exist statements in arithemetic which are true, but which it is impossible to prove are true.
More astonishingly, in any possible system of thought or notation you could ever invent, if it is as expressive, or more expressive, than arithmetic, there exist in that system statements which are true but which it is impossible to prove are true.
(Not necessarily a slam-dunk pro-God argument, but I thought some of you might find it eye-opening in relation to the last couple of comments here)
It's not even slightly suggestive of God's existence. An oft-used argument for the existence of god, the teleological argument, relies on the sense of the universe being so ordered, balanced, and rational that it can ONLY be as a result of intelligent design. The Incompleteness Theorem seems to undermine that argument. Not that the teleological argument needs Gödel for it to be sunk, but it's an extra hole in the hull.
If Starmer comes out in a show of grown up magnanimity, reassures everyone he and Lammy are fine, thanks everyone including the many Tory MPs for expressing their support, and makes no mention of Boris or the slur in the commons, I could imagine that spurring on the requisite letters and confidence votes to put this premiership to rest. PMQs on Wed can then be about the economy and cost of living.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
They really should be walking. It's clear that the Conservative party has been too well purged of the sensible element and that they are now in a minority.
Personally I'm past the point of thinking I can forgive the Conservative party for these last few weeks. Anyone who hasn't had their letter in for months owns this. And while I can't know exactly who, I know just on sheer weight of numbers that the vast majority of Tory MPs are rotten for letting this happen. Seriously, if I were one of those MPs I'd cut and run. To hell with even the idea of doing it to save your own skin, this is dangerously close to not getting blood on your hands.
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
The vast majority of black British of all ages in the UK are religious, including evangelical Christians, as are the vast majority of British Asians whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, as are the majority of Orthodox Jews.
Even evangelical and young Roman Catholic white Christians have more children on average than atheist white Britons.
As for Starmer and the culture wars, most of the MPs voting against Plan B restrictions were Conservatives and LDs very few were Labour. The protestors are not happy with Boris but they are even less happy with Starmer Labour. Not that I condone their actions of course
The strength of my Grandfather's religious convictions were such that he was a conscientious objector during WWII, and joined the Friends Ambulance Unit. He is survived by six grandchildren. Not one of us is religious.
A US study found atheists have an average birthrate of just 1.6 and agnostics a birthrate of only 1.3.
That compared to 1.9 for mainline Protestants, 2.0 for Jews, 2.3 for evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics and 3.4 for Mormons
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
Interesting mix though - oldies in safe seats, newbies in safe seats, a Red Waller and some in between.
Smith - MP since 2010, 50 years old, Northern very safe seat, 23k majority Gale - MP since 1983, 78 years old, South East very safe seat, 17k majority Ellwood - MP since 2005, 55 years old, Southern moderately safe seat 8k majority Hammond - MP since 2005, 60 years old, currently marginal southern seat, 600 majority Mangnall, MP since 2019, 32 years old, very safe South West Tory seat, 12k majority Bell - MP since 2019, 41 years old, Red Wall seat so safety uncertain, 7k majority Largan - MP since 2019, 34 years old, bellweather seat in north, 500 majority
Mangnall is interesting as he is young, new to parliament, so no historic axe to grind with Boris, but given the seat may not feel much personal loyality to him for the win either.
Bellwether! Sorry, pet peeve.
I did spot it after I hit post, but I felt I had to leave it up to face appropriate ridicule, else I could never critique peoples' use of 'reign/rein' or 'John Hopkins' ever again.
I think you’re due some rest-bite now.
My favourite is that intriguing dental implement the fine toothcomb.
At least six Tories now publicly expressing horror at the abuse of Starmer using the Savile line from the PM. Julian Smith, Roger Gale, Tobias Ellwood, Stephen Hammond, Anthony Mangnall, Aaron Bell and Rob Largan. https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
Interesting mix though - oldies in safe seats, newbies in safe seats, a Red Waller and some in between.
Smith - MP since 2010, 50 years old, Northern very safe seat, 23k majority Gale - MP since 1983, 78 years old, South East very safe seat, 17k majority Ellwood - MP since 2005, 55 years old, Southern moderately safe seat 8k majority Hammond - MP since 2005, 60 years old, currently marginal southern seat, 600 majority Mangnall, MP since 2019, 32 years old, very safe South West Tory seat, 12k majority Bell - MP since 2019, 41 years old, Red Wall seat so safety uncertain, 7k majority Largan - MP since 2019, 34 years old, bellweather seat in north, 500 majority
Mangnall is interesting as he is young, new to parliament, so no historic axe to grind with Boris, but given the seat may not feel much personal loyality to him for the win either.
Bellwether! Sorry, pet peeve.
I did spot it after I hit post, but I felt I had to leave it up to face appropriate ridicule, else I could never critique peoples' use of 'reign/rein' or 'John Hopkins' ever again.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Hm - but I'd guess(?) one of the reasons you find religion easy is that you grew up in an idiom in which believing in God was seen as a reasonable way of making sense of the world.
I didn't, really. I grew up in a going-through-the-motions idiom. We had nominally religious assemblies at primary school, but no-one really believed it. You sung a hymn and said a prayer because that's what you were told to. The teachers no more believed than the children. When a teacher who genuinely did believe turned up - and complained that by messing about we were begrudging God 20 minutes of our day - the blank incomprehension of both children and other teachers was palpable. The unspoken consensus - no, we aren't, because he doesn't exist, not really.
(I also went to Sunday school. But that was just a reason for mum and dad to have a bit of alone time. And actual church gave me the willies. Again, the sincerity gap.)
And so while I was never told there's no God, I never grew up around any sort of sincere belief that God was a thing. I'm not trying to be virtuously atheistic: my atheism is in many ways as circumstantial as others' belief. But it's just not a concept which makes any sort of sense to me personally. It's not easy to believe. It doesn't make any sort of sense. Less sense than the absolutely vast scale of the galaxy and the counter-intuitivity of quantum physics, anyway.
I find all this genuinely sad
To deny a child the wonderful gift of Faith is as bad, to me, as forcing on them some grotesque fundamentalist creed: Wahhabism or Wee Free Presbyterianism or whatever
Faith is an enormous solace, and we are hard wired for it. We are MEANT to believe. It helps you cope. There is a reason why NA and AA are the most proven and successful means of quitting major addictions, they both rely on a belief in a Higher Power. You surrender to the God that will save you. And it works. Better than fucking methadone. And I have tried both
And it works because it utilizes an algo-module already in our heads. The God module
My advice, if you are atheist but seek faith, is try ayahuasca. If it is anything like the wild shit I did in Ibiza in December you will emerge a believer
I don't think I was denied faith. My parents are, I think, atheists, though it's not a thing we've ever discussed - but they've certainly never tried to pass on their atheism. I dutifully encountered religion at school. But it was never terribly convincing, and the few people I met who were genuinely and outwardly convinced of God were all rather odd.
Even as far back as the 1970s, religion in mainstream urban Britain was - well, not exactly sidelined, but an anachronism we persisted with but weren't entirely sure why - like soup spoons or ties.
I agree we have a god module in our heads though. There's an evolutionary biologist whose name now escapes me who is quite interesting on that - his view is that tribes which 'did' religion thrived, because they reinforced group identity - and thus outcompeted those tribes which did not, and those without the god module.
I don't really seek faith - it strikes me as an inconvenience and a potential source of unwanted existential terror - but I am interested in it. I am an atheist, but that it is a statement of fact rather than an angry badge of identity, and I am genuinely curious about religious belief.
Could the experience of ayahuasca not equally well make you think 'I have taken a hallucinogenic drug which is having strange effects on my brain'?
That's very similar to my view. And I really think it's important to note that what I have is absence of belief, not belief of absence. I don't go around actively disbelieving in God - which is what so many religious people seem to think atheists do (and I guess in the case of Dawkins, it's true) - I simply don't have any active belief in him.
Do you believe in Truth? I.e. that there is a correct scientific explanation for things, even if our current level of understanding is not able to grasp every detail of it?
That's sounds like a really good description of my views. Even though I have never thought of it in those terms before.
Thankyou. Once again you have given me a new perspective. .
There exist statements in arithemetic which are true, but which it is impossible to prove are true.
More astonishingly, in any possible system of thought or notation you could ever invent, if it is as expressive, or more expressive, than arithmetic, there exist in that system statements which are true but which it is impossible to prove are true.
(Not necessarily a slam-dunk pro-God argument, but I thought some of you might find it eye-opening in relation to the last couple of comments here)
It's not even slightly suggestive of God's existence. An oft-used argument for the existence of god, the teleological argument, relies on the sense of the universe being so ordered, balanced, and rational that it can ONLY be as a result of intelligent design. The Incompleteness Theorem seems to undermine that argument. Not that the teleological argument needs Gödel for it to be sunk, but it's an extra hole in the hull.
It goes against the argument “If God exists, why can’t you prove it?”.
Intelligent design always seemed bunk to me. Who is to say what is “ordered”?
If you don't ride out into the field and battle this Trumpesque crap you'll soon realise, just like moderate Republicans did, that your party doesn't exist anymore. Sure it might have the same name. But it's gone. That's what's facing the UK Tories right now. https://twitter.com/LJ_Skipper/status/1490789465467637772
In fairness, Big G, I don't think Hyufd has the power to remove Boris.
Maybe he could recall his tanks from Scotland or wherever they are this week and send them against Downing Street, but otherwise - nah.
The only Tory MP we definitely know listens to us has already sent in his letter anyway.
Not sure. When it comes to the point that he loses Epping, he’ll surely realise the game’s up.
The Tories did not even lose Epping in 1997 and the polls now are still better for the than they were before 1997 and the Tories got over 60% of the vote here in 2019
Labour is probably unlikely to gain any seats in Essex unless they get a small overall majority and even then they'd probably only gain three: Thurrock, Colchester and Rochford and Southend E.
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
The vast majority of black British of all ages in the UK are religious, including evangelical Christians, as are the vast majority of British Asians whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, as are the majority of Orthodox Jews.
Even evangelical and young Roman Catholic white Christians have more children on average than atheist white Britons.
As for Starmer and the culture wars, most of the MPs voting against Plan B restrictions were Conservatives and LDs very few were Labour. The protestors are not happy with Boris but they are even less happy with Starmer Labour. Not that I condone their actions of course
The strength of my Grandfather's religious convictions were such that he was a conscientious objector during WWII, and joined the Friends Ambulance Unit. He is survived by six grandchildren. Not one of us is religious.
A US study found atheists have an average birthrate of just 1.6 and agnostics a birthrate of only 1.3.
That compared to 1.9 for mainline Protestants, 2.0 for Jews, 2.3 for evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics and 3.4 for Mormons
I think that misses the point that @LostPassword makes. If all/most/some of those religious offspring generated are atheist the higher birth rate of religious people will in fact generate some more atheist (as per Lostpassword's example). I know I am being silly now but in Lostpassword's case we don't have to rely on any atheist giving birth; we can rely on the religious to do our breeding for us.
I would encourage Aaron Bell *not* to walk, why should he surrender the Conservative party to the smearers, liars and nutters?
Better to seize control of the party, but how's that going? Not well. Sometimes the best you can do is to say "not in my name". That's sad situation if so, but the Conservative party is without any doubt in some kind of bleak place right now.
People rarely walk away from a party. The Brexit and Corbyn defections were remarkable (and even then not all that many), and without those you get a bare handful. People may fight, they may give up and retire or move on, but they rarely walk away. We've had one recently, I doubt we'll be lucky enough for more excitement.
John Woodcock was the funniest of someone not walking away (at the time at any rate), in that he was honest enough to say he would not support Corbyn as PM whilst seeking election as a Labour MP.
It was then that Marvin got religion. Not the quiet, personal kind, that involves doing good deeds and living a better life; not even the kind that involves putting on a suit and ringing people's doorbells; but the kind that involves having your own TV network and getting people to send you money.
Douglas.
A proper Englishman.
Good Omens by Gaiman and Pratchett, surely? Not Douglas Adams?
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
The vast majority of black British of all ages in the UK are religious, including evangelical Christians, as are the vast majority of British Asians whether Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, as are the majority of Orthodox Jews.
Even evangelical and young Roman Catholic white Christians have more children on average than atheist white Britons.
As for Starmer and the culture wars, most of the MPs voting against Plan B restrictions were Conservatives and LDs very few were Labour. The protestors are not happy with Boris but they are even less happy with Starmer Labour. Not that I condone their actions of course
The strength of my Grandfather's religious convictions were such that he was a conscientious objector during WWII, and joined the Friends Ambulance Unit. He is survived by six grandchildren. Not one of us is religious.
A US study found atheists have an average birthrate of just 1.6 and agnostics a birthrate of only 1.3.
That compared to 1.9 for mainline Protestants, 2.0 for Jews, 2.3 for white evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics, 2.5 for black Protestants and 3.4 for Mormons
He should have been treated differently because of who his grandfather was?
He was a Conservative.
The clown that expelled him is not
He had the whip restored. I don't defend Boris's tactics in that matter, such ruthlessness might work in the short term but could be problematic later on, but he was willing to return to the fold under Boris, even if he knew his days as MP were numbered.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
TO put it in physical terms there are more stars out there than grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches!
Yes.
Unlike Leon I don't see the vastness of the universe as a reason for believing in God but I think we've had this kind of discussion on here before.
I look up at the stars above and I'm filled with wonder. I find it comforting to think I am nothing and I will return to nothing. The universe will go on through timespans that make us seem even smaller than one of those grains of sand you mention.
Only Zaphod Beeblebrox managed to out-ego the universe. And Boris Johnson, obvs.
It isn't really that interesting. There's lots of things, some very big and far away. Wooo.
Well I agree.
I wrote my 'Yawn' before reading this.
You literally wrote: “the universe: YAWN”
Consider which approach might be the more diseased
Atheism is a tragic cul de sac of the frightened middlebrow mind
Atheism and disinterested agnosticism is also a symptom of the decline of self confidence in the West.
Atheism combined with contempt for your nation's history. If you look at growing economies and growing nations, Nigeria, Brazil, India etc they are all religious. The least religious parts of the US however are also generally the most Woke and least patriotic.
Even Putin recognises the strength of the Orthodox Church in entrenching pride in Russia (not that he is really a Christian of much devotion). China is atheist but then it has its own alternative religion ie devotion to the Communist Party as the backbone of China
On the other hand, religion can really screw people up.
My paternal grandfather was Plymouth Brethren. My paternal grandmother was not. When they got married, both sides of the family disowned them - and the marriage 'that would not last' lasted 60+ years, and produced four great kids, many grandchldren, and many, many superb great-grandchilren.
The pain this religious rift caused that side of the family was intense, and the effects still reverberate to this day. Fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been, thanks to granddad volunteering from a reserved occupation in WW2.
It was a pain caused by people seeing religion - or 'their' sort of religion - as the most important attribute a person could hold.
It's bullshit.
I would call that pure restrictive, and social dogma, rather than anything to do with the spiritual possibilities of thing , myself.
Religion is the restrictive and dogmatic aspects of spirituality. which is why religions try to say 'we are right, you are wrong' when they come against other forms of spirituality.
Religion is power. People crave power over others. Spirituality is personal.
Although I partially agree with aspects here, too, the other problem with it is that in our now very aggressively atheist society, religion has become a widely understood shorthand for anything vaguely spiritual at all. Anything spiritual is tainted by the same concepts of power.
"aggressively atheist society"
Given the harms caused by organised religions over the last few thousands years, I wouldn't call our current somewhat atheistic society 'aggressive'.
I also disagree with your underlying comment. People are fine with spirituality. They are very dubious when they say that another person's spirituality and beliefs should impact their lives. Spirituality is becoming more personal and less public. Which, with a country containing many different beliefs, is a good thing IMV.
I would question "aggressively atheist society" in general. Most people are considerate, whatever their views.
Certainly there are atheist organisation around that behave aggressively. On one occasion I noted the National Secular Society were encouraging their members to go into hospitals and abuse Chaplains as being a waste of NHS money. One of their members did (in a Lincoln Hospital), then they were acting proud in their newsletter.
Of course the silly oaf had gone in and abused a volunteer chaplain who cost the NHS nothing.
I wouldn't share that view. Among people under around 40 in UK, the trend I observe most commonly against anything even remotely spiritual is actually something like open contempt, or fashionable mockery. Something marking you out as soft-headed.
I think I would ask for a definition of 'spirituality', and I think that the generation you choose are likely to have something in their lives which meets that definition but are perhaps calling it something else.
I agree with that in many ways, but I think the increasing taboo that I've noticed among younger people at naming anything not just religious, but actually also spiritual, has some quite fundamental implications.
I hope God and heaven and hell exist. For I should like Fred West and Idi Amin and Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot to pay for the misery and pain they caused other people.
It would be a real shame if they just ceased to be.
That's very Old Testament 'eye for an eye' thinking though!
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Agree although it is also a factor that people need to denigrate the beliefs of others "something something of a middlebrow mind..." to try to justify their own beliefs.
Good luck to everyone, frankly. We'll all find our soon enough although given that this is a betting site I can understand why people take the Pascal route...
Yes, you are right. the “middlebrow” remark was me cheerfully spoiling for a fight, and that is unseemly in this regard. I apologise to the forum
What I was trying to say (before my testosterone got in the way) was that there really is a kind of atheism which just does not grasp WHY people believe, because the atheist mind lacks….. something. It’s not brains. Some of the smartest people in the world are atheist. Hell, possibly a majority.
But trying to explain faith to an atheist is like trying to explain “red” to a blind person. They just lack the faculty. It is no one’s fault.
speaking of colours I always find it fascinating that we have no way of knowing or experimenting to show that the "red" I see when I see say a tomato is the same "red" as somebody else is seeing. For all anyone knows somebody else could be seeing my "blue" when they see a tomato . They just call it red like I do because thats the colour of a tomato or a fire when in reality humans maybe see all sorts of different colours for the same thing. How do we ever know?
What if we don't have enough different words for types of blue in our particular language? Would we even see the difference between cyan and aquamarine and periwinkle?
I am back from the ban someone placed on my account. I have managed to log in today for the first time in weeks.
And the first thing I would like to comment on is this post here, rather than being profound is the most superficial post ever posted. To any social media. Ever. Pineapple works just fine as a pizza topping, in fact indispensable partnered with squid.
Secondly - the reply to your post that got me the ban, I did over step the mark. In the bin of sin, imagining I was one of the “disappeared” for ever as Stodge put it, I reflected on my whole relationship with PB. I think I came to a fair conclusion: I have posted some pretty cute political analysis and made some good political and horsey betting calls at times - but, having had a saucy mind my entire life I have also posted far too much immature, over excited and irrelevant filth - for my second and final coming I intend to get the balance right.
Everyone makes mistakes, it’s how we learn - and how we learn to grow up.
So I don’t blame you at all, TSE, in fact, for the first time in weeks I can now properly apologise to you. Whatever your next pizza is, I hope you enjoy it 👍🏻
(After removing all the fruit bringing the necessary balance to the flavour)
Re: religion - the big lie (among others) in the US in particular is that a significant part of the country claiming that their "religious beliefs" are being violated is that they have seriously held religious beliefs guiding their actions. Essentially many of them are just people who hold political views and/or beliefs and have tailored their "religion" to match. Delve at all deeply and you find that the phrase "religious belief" does not have any link to religion. Beyond basically amounting to a proclaimed right to hold personal views and right to act in accordance with these, based on nothing more than a proclaimed right to freedom of action regardless of laws or the rights of others which might be impacted by them.
One might call such people ultra libertarians, except that many arguing for the right to their own personal freedom don't actually extend this right to others.
I'm glad I was out doing something useful while the God argument was on. Well done @rcs1000 for holding the fort for those of us lucky enough not to get sucked in (which I would have been).
I have seen some pretty good argument for the existence of God, but not today. We seem to have:
@MrEd - 'The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that atheist believe "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence'. What? We don't start from God can not exist at all. More than happy to be proved wrong and find my end is not being eaten by worms. At no point do I start from that assumption.
@Leon - On a brand new (2 hydrogen atom) start to the Universe and an application of the classical physics conservation of matter where none of that applies.
@hyufd - Arguing for religion on the basis that it is needed to hold the West together. Ignoring whether that is true or not, how about whether God exists rather than it is better if he does. The belief in a God to hold a society together is as old as the hills and usually turns out badly.
I have faith God exists, I don't need proof he does
Yes and that is a much better argument than any of the ones I quoted in my post from others earlier. You have a distinct advantage over me in that respect because I believe he doesn't exist, but I don't know that, but you actually know he exits and I can't argue with that. I believe you are mistaken, but I have no conclusive argument against that point you make.
My church has a fairly lackadaisical attitude to evangelism, in that it believes that there is no words or arguments that will convince anyone to believe. Only the direct experience of God's presence does so, and that is not something that any person can summon at will. Certain practices help prepare for the experience, but that transcendental experience comes when God thinks it right.
I attended for several years, groping around in the dark before it happened, and when it did it was life changing. No point in telling how or the circumstances, as it is a different route as every individual seeking it.
In fairness, Big G, I don't think Hyufd has the power to remove Boris.
Maybe he could recall his tanks from Scotland or wherever they are this week and send them against Downing Street, but otherwise - nah.
The only Tory MP we definitely know listens to us has already sent in his letter anyway.
Not sure. When it comes to the point that he loses Epping, he’ll surely realise the game’s up.
In 2009 I flippantly suggested to an annoying Guardian poster that we would know the Tories had a problem in London when they lost Kensington.
And they did.
I wonder if your prediction will go the same way...
Kensington is now a marginal, Labour could win it as they did in 2017 and still not have enough seats to form a government
Labour won Kensington in 2017 because the Lib Dem candidate went rogue and threw too many resources into the seat. It split the wealthy vote between them and the Tories. Emma Dent-Coad actually thanked the Lib Dem in her acceptance speech if I recall.
In fairness, Big G, I don't think Hyufd has the power to remove Boris.
Maybe he could recall his tanks from Scotland or wherever they are this week and send them against Downing Street, but otherwise - nah.
The only Tory MP we definitely know listens to us has already sent in his letter anyway.
Not sure. When it comes to the point that he loses Epping, he’ll surely realise the game’s up.
In 2009 I flippantly suggested to an annoying Guardian poster that we would know the Tories had a problem in London when they lost Kensington.
And they did.
I wonder if your prediction will go the same way...
Kensington is now a marginal, Labour could win it as they did in 2017 and still not have enough seats to form a government
Labour won Kensington in 2017 because the Lib Dem candidate went rogue and threw too many resources into the seat. It split the wealthy vote between them and the Tories. Emma Dent-Coad actually thanked the Lib Dem in her acceptance speech if I recall.
Somewhat ironic then that the favour was reversed in 2019!
Comments
Beth Rigby
@BethRigby
·
2m
.
@Mollie_Malone1
& I have done TV report tonight on PM's attempt at reset
BUT today a real life example of policy fall-out of partygate with NHS plan not ready (stuck btwn DoH/No 11/No 10/NHS)
And concerns over PM conduct back to fore again following harassment of Starmer
Even evangelical and young Roman Catholic white Christians have more children on average than atheist white Britons.
As for Starmer and the culture wars, most of the MPs voting against Plan B restrictions were Conservatives and LDs very few were Labour. The protestors are not happy with Boris but they are even less happy with Starmer Labour. Not that I condone their actions of course
Labour need to to fight dirty. Go on go for the fucking jugular. It’s the Conservative party who will come out worse.
And not in a good way...
James Oh Brien
@mrjamesob
·
12m
This is what a Conservative MP doing the right thing looks like. You could be forgiven for having forgotten.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1490781721238851585
What is the flag that looks like a St George's cross but has some blue writing on it (possibly "England" or "English") together with a small blue symbol?
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts."
What is it that you doubt?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/oxford-jab-smears-probably-killed-hundreds-of-thousands-says-scientist-rbflxfkzx
"Oxford jab smears probably killed hundreds of thousands, says scientist
An Oxford scientist who worked on the AstraZeneca vaccine has said that critics of the jab “probably killed hundreds of thousands of people” by damaging its reputation. Speaking to the BBC, Professor Sir John Bell said: “They have damaged the reputation of the vaccine in a way that echoes around the rest of the world. I think bad behaviour from scientists and from politicians has probably killed hundreds of thousands of people — and that they cannot be proud of.”"
Are you listening conservative mps and @HYUFD
You can end this now
Do the right thing and remove Boris
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1490785862308839426
Intimidation, harassment and lies have no place in our democracy. And they won’t ever stop me doing my job.
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1490761739759194117
https://twitter.com/marclister3k/status/1490744573928382466/video/1
In Italy Salvini stands on a similar platform, as do Zemmour and Le Pen on a populist Nationalist ticket anti restrictions and vaccine mandates.
Indeed Boris is somewhat more moderate than them, he introduced Plan B when almost a third of his MPs voted against it and he pushed the vaccine. Indeed even Trump is moderate compared to the anti vaxxers, given he too backs the vaccine
We claim to be the Mother of all Parliaments.
Let’s stop this drift towards a Trumpian style of politics from becoming the norm.
We are better than this.
https://twitter.com/Tobias_Ellwood/status/1490785849461460992
https://twitter.com/juliansmithuk/status/1490754037708435460
The problem with the approach is that Johnson's comment is a classic case of the best lies contain a grain of truth.
Starmer wasn't responsible for the decision. But he was DPP when the decision was made. And while there is absolutely no evidence to back Johnson's claim, there will be a body of people who say "well, he was DPP, are you telling me a high profile case such as Savile would not have been passed upwards?". The fact that the papers relating to the case have also apparently been destroyed also doesn't help Starmer's case because it can't be proved one way or other what was exactly said or done.
Labour would be better keeping quiet and letting the Conservative MPs attack Johnson
https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1490754883724713987?s=20&t=aQHVBwvw4zbTn115KY6G8w
Tory MPs blame Boris Johnson for fuelling mob ambush of Keir Starmer outside parliament – but PM fails to apologise for Jimmy Savile slur. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-mobbed-anti-vaccine-protestors_uk_62015b95e4b050042430d2c7
I agree with Ping that Labour should go hard on the Trumpite politics angle of this, because in fact it can help illuminate the workings, and undermine a large part of entire modus operandi of, the Johnson administration, from the beginning till now.
https://twitter.com/LJ_Skipper/status/1490789465467637772
Maybe he could recall his tanks from Scotland or wherever they are this week and send them against Downing Street, but otherwise - nah.
The only Tory MP we definitely know listens to us has already sent in his letter anyway.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1490789620258422787
This is why right and left are inadequate terms. There’s a belief system out there that believes the deep state / forces of globalism are in a grand conspiracy to control the world through nefarious means. Some of them are on the far left. Others on the far right. All seem to have a soft spot for the likes of Putin, Assad, and characters like Assange, Piers Corbyn, Galloway, Bannon.
As pointed out above the trouble is often these conspiracy theories are founded on a grain of truth. That’s what makes them all the more dangerous.
And they did.
I wonder if your prediction will go the same way...
I have seen some pretty good argument for the existence of God, but not today. We seem to have:
@MrEd - 'The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that atheist believe "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence'. What? We don't start from God can not exist at all. More than happy to be proved wrong and find my end is not being eaten by worms. At no point do I start from that assumption.
@Leon - On a brand new (2 hydrogen atom) start to the Universe and an application of the classical physics conservation of matter where none of that applies.
@hyufd - Arguing for religion on the basis that it is needed to hold the West together. Ignoring whether that is true or not, how about whether God exists rather than it is better if he does. The belief in a God to hold a society together is as old as the hills and usually turns out badly.
Personally I'm past the point of thinking I can forgive the Conservative party for these last few weeks. Anyone who hasn't had their letter in for months owns this. And while I can't know exactly who, I know just on sheer weight of numbers that the vast majority of Tory MPs are rotten for letting this happen. Seriously, if I were one of those MPs I'd cut and run. To hell with even the idea of doing it to save your own skin, this is dangerously close to not getting blood on your hands.
Source?
Smith - MP since 2010, 50 years old, Northern very safe seat, 23k majority
Gale - MP since 1983, 78 years old, South East very safe seat, 17k majority
Ellwood - MP since 2005, 55 years old, Southern moderately safe seat 8k majority
Hammond - MP since 2005, 60 years old, currently marginal southern seat, 600 majority
Mangnall, MP since 2019, 32 years old, very safe South West Tory seat, 12k majority
Bell - MP since 2019, 41 years old, Red Wall seat so safety uncertain, 7k majority
Largan - MP since 2019, 34 years old, bellweather seat in north, 500 majority
Mangnall is interesting as he is young, new to parliament, so no historic axe to grind with Boris, but given the seat may not feel much personal loyality to him for the win either.
Perhaps that Oxford Scientist ought to have a chat with the vaccines minister before going ant further.
Sorry, pet peeve.
More astonishingly, in any possible system of thought or notation you could ever invent, if it is as expressive, or more expressive, than arithmetic, there exist in that system statements which are true but which it is impossible to prove are true.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
(Not necessarily a slam-dunk pro-God argument, but I thought some of you might find it eye-opening in relation to the last couple of comments here)
A proper Englishman.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Godels-Proof-Routledge-Classics-Ernest/dp/0415355281
That compared to 1.9 for mainline Protestants, 2.0 for Jews, 2.3 for white evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics, 2.5 for black Protestants and 3.4 for Mormons
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/12/charted-the-religions-that-make-the-most-babies/
From memory-
Doubled-down:
Kwarteng
Raab
Javid
Dorries (obvs)
Failed to back:
Rishi
An oft-used argument for the existence of god, the teleological argument, relies on the sense of the universe being so ordered, balanced, and rational that it can ONLY be as a result of intelligent design. The Incompleteness Theorem seems to undermine that argument.
Not that the teleological argument needs Gödel for it to be sunk, but it's an extra hole in the hull.
My favourite is that intriguing dental implement the fine toothcomb.
Intelligent design always seemed bunk to me. Who is to say what is “ordered”?
Sometimes the best you can do is to say "not in my name". That's sad situation if so, but the Conservative party is without any doubt in some kind of bleak place right now.
John Woodcock was the funniest of someone not walking away (at the time at any rate), in that he was honest enough to say he would not support Corbyn as PM whilst seeking election as a Labour MP.
The clown that expelled him is not
https://twitter.com/JayMitchinson/status/1490790829375512583
And he cares as much for Churchill's descendants as he does for his own.
Sajid Javid has called for people to "draw a line under" Boris Johnson's use of a Jimmy Savile slur last week https://trib.al/Rks8Sqv
This evening
I’m disgusted by the threatening and abusive behaviour experienced by @Keir_Starmer and @DavidLammy this evening.
There’s no place for intimidation or harassment in our democracy. I’m grateful to the police for their swift intervention.
https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1490795533862158348
Weasel
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1490798705376649223
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1490773801096953862
I am back from the ban someone placed on my account. I have managed to log in today for the first time in weeks.
And the first thing I would like to comment on is this post here, rather than being profound is the most superficial post ever posted. To any social media. Ever. Pineapple works just fine as a pizza topping, in fact indispensable partnered with squid.
Secondly - the reply to your post that got me the ban, I did over step the mark. In the bin of sin, imagining I was one of the “disappeared” for ever as Stodge put it, I reflected on my whole relationship with PB. I think I came to a fair conclusion: I have posted some pretty cute political analysis and made some good political and horsey betting calls at times - but, having had a saucy mind my entire life I have also posted far too much immature, over excited and irrelevant filth - for my second and final coming I intend to get the balance right.
Everyone makes mistakes, it’s how we learn - and how we learn to grow up.
So I don’t blame you at all, TSE, in fact, for the first time in weeks I can now properly apologise to you. Whatever your next pizza is, I hope you enjoy it 👍🏻
(After removing all the fruit bringing the necessary balance to the flavour)
One might call such people ultra libertarians, except that many arguing for the right to their own personal freedom don't actually extend this right to others.
I attended for several years, groping around in the dark before it happened, and when it did it was life changing. No point in telling how or the circumstances, as it is a different route as every individual seeking it.