I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
1) Jenrick supporters voting Cleverly in round 3 in order to lull Cleverly into a false sense of security (I can’t see how this would help Jenrick, unless it resulted in option 2). 2) Cleverly supporters thinking Cleverly was definitely through round 4, and voting for Jenrick because he was seen as a more beatable opponent in round 5 – but too many of them doing so. 3) Badenoch supporters voting for other candidates all through the contest in order that other candidates focus on other opponents, possibly to the extent of options 1 and 2 above happening. 4) All of the above.
Brilliant, Tories. If only you’d put this much strategic thought into running the country these last five years.
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Quotation is full text of the "Corwin Amendment" proposed by US Rep. Thomas Corwin (R-Ohio) and referred to states via passage by 2/3 of US House and Senate.
In February 1861, following secession of South Carolina and other Deep South states, as part of effort to arrive at a formula that would both maintain the Union AND prevent Civil War. Note that "all other persons" = slaves.
NOTE absence of time limit for ratification, meaning that the Corwin amendent is still legally alive and pending. However, only 5 states actually ratified it (during the Civil War) though 3 subsequently rescinded ratification
Kentucky April 4, 1861 Ohio May 13, 1861(rescinded March 31, 1864) Rhode Island May 31, 1861 Maryland January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014) Illinois June 2, 1863 (rescinded ratification April 4, 2022)
SSI - Am rather shocked (if NOT appalled) that Donald Trump is not urging states to ratify the Corwin amendment; almost certainly reason being that neither he OR his MAGA-maggot comrades have ever heard of it.
Jenrick for me, has ideas on new homes and reducing immigration and practical things voters care about more than the war on woke and civil service attacks Kemi wants. Anyway could be close between them but Kemi starts as favourite.
Cleverly's shock exit also means yet another Remainer v Leaver post Brexit battle. Jenrick backed Remain while Cleverly backed Leave in 2016 as in 2022 with Remainer Liz v Leaver Rishi or 2019 with Remainer Hunt v Leaver Boris or 2016 with Remainer May v Leaver Leadsom
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Quotation is full text of the "Corwin Amendment" proposed by US Rep. Thomas Corwin (R-Ohio) and referred to states via passage by 2/3 of US House and Senate.
In February 1861, following secession of South Carolina and other Deep South states, as part of effort to arrive at a formula that would both maintain the Union AND prevent Civil War. Note that "all other persons" = slaves.
NOTE absence of time limit for ratification, meaning that the Corwin amendent is still legally alive and pending. However, only 5 states actually ratified it (during the Civil War) though 3 subsequently rescinded ratification
Kentucky April 4, 1861 Ohio May 13, 1861(rescinded March 31, 1864) Rhode Island May 31, 1861 Maryland January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014) Illinois June 2, 1863 (rescinded ratification April 4, 2022)
SSI - Am rather shocked (if NOT appalled) that Donald Trump is not urging states to ratify the Corwin amendment; almost certainly reason being that neither he OR his MAGA-maggot comrades have ever heard of it.
Is it still live ? The same has been argued of the ERA, but its opponents argue it would have to go through Congress again.
I don’t think either proposition has been tested before the SC ?
1) Jenrick supporters voting Cleverly in round 3 in order to lull Cleverly into a false sense of security (I can’t see how this would help Jenrick, unless it resulted in option 2). 2) Cleverly supporters thinking Cleverly was definitely through round 4, and voting for Jenrick because he was seen as a more beatable opponent in round 5 – but too many of them doing so. 3) Badenoch supporters voting for other candidates all through the contest in order that other candidates focus on other opponents, possibly to the extent of options 1 and 2 above happening. 4) All of the above.
Brilliant, Tories. If only you’d put this much strategic thought into running the country these last five years.
What’s undeniable is someone lent Cleverly at least two votes - even if it was only those two MPs who abandoned him in this round who did it off their own bat. It could have been either of the other two camps - and it might also have been more than two lent to him, in order to get him to lend a couple of votes to Jenrick in this round. Otherwise you’re assuming he got no switchers at all from Tommy Tug.
Clearly we don’t know. But the vote was extremely close to a third each, and some shenanigans has gone on, as the wild swings in the betting odds also suggests.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
1) Jenrick supporters voting Cleverly in round 3 in order to lull Cleverly into a false sense of security (I can’t see how this would help Jenrick, unless it resulted in option 2). 2) Cleverly supporters thinking Cleverly was definitely through round 4, and voting for Jenrick because he was seen as a more beatable opponent in round 5 – but too many of them doing so. 3) Badenoch supporters voting for other candidates all through the contest in order that other candidates focus on other opponents, possibly to the extent of options 1 and 2 above happening. 4) All of the above.
Brilliant, Tories. If only you’d put this much strategic thought into running the country these last five years.
What’s undeniable is someone lent Cleverly at least two votes - even if it was only those two MPs who abandoned him in this round who did it off their own bat. It could have been either of the other two camps - and it might also have been more than two lent to him, in order to get him to lend a couple of votes to Jenrick in this round. Otherwise you’re assuming he got no switchers at all from Tommy Tug.
Clearly we don’t know. But the vote was extremely close to a third each, and some shenanigans has gone on, as the wild swings in the betting odds also suggests.
OK, option 5: it was Tory MPs playing the betting markets!
Jenrick for me, has ideas on new homes and reducing immigration and practical things voters care about more than the war on woke and civil service attacks Kemi wants. Anyway could be close between them but Kemi starts as favourite.
Cleverly's shock exit also means yet another Remainer v Leaver post Brexit battle. Jenrick backed Remain while Cleverly backed Leave in 2016 as in 2022 with Remainer Liz v Leaver Rishi or 2019 with Remainer Hunt v Leaver Boris or 2016 with Remainer May v Leaver Leadsom
Jenrick surely can't win if he was Remain. That's original sin for the membership, isn't it.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Even I am losing my faith with the quasi-AV system the Tory party uses.
Actual AV would prevent the second-guessing between rounds.
But where would the fun in that be? Leadership elections only happen once every two years - you have to squeeze all the fun out of them that you can. Otherwise its just back to the grind of MPing.
Counterpoint to whatever it is that just happened: some think that Cleverly now has more chance of leading the Tories into the next election. If it all goes pear shaped for the winner he is the obvious replacement (if a certain Blond doesn’t have a seat)
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
That's a modernist (and out of date) set of categories to me - placing an overwhelming priority on intellectual belief (or lack of it) rather than lived out praxis.
Jenrick for me, has ideas on new homes and reducing immigration and practical things voters care about more than the war on woke and civil service attacks Kemi wants. Anyway could be close between them but Kemi starts as favourite.
Cleverly's shock exit also means yet another Remainer v Leaver post Brexit battle. Jenrick backed Remain while Cleverly backed Leave in 2016 as in 2022 with Remainer Liz v Leaver Rishi or 2019 with Remainer Hunt v Leaver Boris or 2016 with Remainer May v Leaver Leadsom
Jenrick surely can't win if he was Remain. That's original sin for the membership, isn't it.
Remainer Liz did beating Leaver Rishi, like BobbyJ she had to do a Damascene conversion of repentence to hardcore Brexiteer first though. For the foreseeable future even soft Brexiteer former Remainers are otherwise not getting a shot at Tory leadership
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
Haha - thank you. I certainly don't unbelieve for the life outcomes - I accept that believers have certain advantages. Belief is down to what seems most likely, rather than what you would most prefer. But never say never. I've changed my mind on things in the past.
1) Jenrick supporters voting Cleverly in round 3 in order to lull Cleverly into a false sense of security (I can’t see how this would help Jenrick, unless it resulted in option 2). 2) Cleverly supporters thinking Cleverly was definitely through round 4, and voting for Jenrick because he was seen as a more beatable opponent in round 5 – but too many of them doing so. 3) Badenoch supporters voting for other candidates all through the contest in order that other candidates focus on other opponents, possibly to the extent of options 1 and 2 above happening. 4) All of the above.
Brilliant, Tories. If only you’d put this much strategic thought into running the country these last five years.
What’s undeniable is someone lent Cleverly at least two votes - even if it was only those two MPs who abandoned him in this round who did it off their own bat. It could have been either of the other two camps - and it might also have been more than two lent to him, in order to get him to lend a couple of votes to Jenrick in this round. Otherwise you’re assuming he got no switchers at all from Tommy Tug.
Clearly we don’t know. But the vote was extremely close to a third each, and some shenanigans has gone on, as the wild swings in the betting odds also suggests.
OK, option 5: it was Tory MPs playing the betting markets!
According to Pippa Crerar, my surmise was correct. Audible gasps in room at result - James Cleverly was 18 points ahead y'day.
I've spoken to Tory MPs today who were voting for their preferred *second* candidate in final two - all were working on basis Cleverly was safe…
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
Haha - thank you. I certainly don't unbelieve for the life outcomes - I accept that believers have certain advantages. Belief is down to what seems most likely, rather than what you would most prefer. But never say never. I've changed my mind on things in the past.
Belief is often a coup de foudre. Like a sudden unexpected falling in love, and love is where it falls
Like true and sudden love it often brings great and even traumatic changes, upending your life, and there can be a painful cost
OT: The Tory Party had an opportunity to have a leader that would look attractive and normal to compare with Sir Keir Freebie-Boring. They have blown it. A choice of two swiveleyed nutters who will take the Conservative Party further to the right and further into the wilderness. Sir Keir must be pissing his very expensive underpants with laughter.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's not identical to a lack of belief in a god.
Can I just say, as the only alt.right Centrist Dad on PB, that I love my Garmin Venu 3
A whole 26 hours after my purchase, I love almost everything about it (except for the lack of maps!)
It nudges me with news like I have an eager but polite assistant, it monitors my health 24/7, it gives me genuinely good advice on multiple things, and it watches over me in my sleep, and it tells me my OX2 and BPM on demand
I can make it play sudden music on any Bluetooth device which is a hoot
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
OT: The Tory Party had an opportunity to have a leader that would look attractive and normal to compare with Sir Keir Freebie-Boring. They have blown it. A choice of two swiveleyed nutters who will take the Conservative Party further to the right and further into the wilderness. Sir Keir must be pissing his very expensive underpants with laughter.
Given that the Tories spent the last 14 years governing on the left, I'm not sure where "further" comes from.
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Quotation is full text of the "Corwin Amendment" proposed by US Rep. Thomas Corwin (R-Ohio) and referred to states via passage by 2/3 of US House and Senate.
In February 1861, following secession of South Carolina and other Deep South states, as part of effort to arrive at a formula that would both maintain the Union AND prevent Civil War. Note that "all other persons" = slaves.
NOTE absence of time limit for ratification, meaning that the Corwin amendent is still legally alive and pending. However, only 5 states actually ratified it (during the Civil War) though 3 subsequently rescinded ratification
Kentucky April 4, 1861 Ohio May 13, 1861(rescinded March 31, 1864) Rhode Island May 31, 1861 Maryland January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014) Illinois June 2, 1863 (rescinded ratification April 4, 2022)
SSI - Am rather shocked (if NOT appalled) that Donald Trump is not urging states to ratify the Corwin amendment; almost certainly reason being that neither he OR his MAGA-maggot comrades have ever heard of it.
Is it still live ? The same has been argued of the ERA, but its opponents argue it would have to go through Congress again.
I don’t think either proposition has been tested before the SC ?
US Constitution Amendment XVII - from wiki:
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII, also known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789 to the United States Constitution states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress may take effect only after the next election of the House of Representatives has occurred. It is the most recently adopted amendment but was one of the first proposed.
The 1st Congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments (Articles I–XII). The last ten Articles were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, but the first two, the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment, were not ratified by enough states to come into force with them.
The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification. The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days, beating the previous record set by the Twenty-second Amendment of 3 years and 343 days.
Lefties celebrating this need to remember that if Labour implode before the Tories get themselves sorted out, Farage is next in line.
I'm not celebrating one iota. I can tell you for a fact that Labour want Badenoch but that's based mainly on her short, unconvincing career thus far. It's perfectly possible she won't be as catastrophic as everyone expects. Plus she might not beat Jenrick. He's very much still in there, Rob is.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
If God exists, how come the Tories are only on 121 MPs?
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's not identical to a lack of belief in a god.
Do you believe there is no Tooth Fairy? Or is it a lack of belief in a Tooth Fairy?
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
If God exists, how come the Tories are only on 121 MPs?
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
If God exists, how come the Tories are only on 121 MPs?
If God exists, how come there are still as many as 121 Tory MPs?
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's not identical to a lack of belief in a god.
It is also not related to the amount of belief. There are people who passionately believe that there is, and that there isn't. There are some, a few perhaps but some, who are unsure whether there is a god or not but are certain that it matters.
Then, at the other end of the scale, are people who do believe, or believe there isn't, or don't know - but also don't care.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
If God exists, how come the Tories are only on 121 MPs?
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's not identical to a lack of belief in a god.
It's the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
If God exists, how come the Tories are only on 121 MPs?
Because (parts of) the Church of England have been the Liberal Democrat Party at prayer since about 1985 (see Mrs Thatcher passim) !
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
OT: The Tory Party had an opportunity to have a leader that would look attractive and normal to compare with Sir Keir Freebie-Boring. They have blown it. A choice of two swiveleyed nutters who will take the Conservative Party further to the right and further into the wilderness. Sir Keir must be pissing his very expensive underpants with laughter.
Given that the Tories spent the last 14 years governing on the left, I'm not sure where "further" comes from.
Oh sure, Austerity followed by Brexit, the two big policy themes of their time in office, this was them "governing from the left".
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
I am always amused how evangelical atheists are about their belief system without them noticing the obvious irony. This has always been particularly so of Dawkins.
As you say atheism (like socialism) is the belief system of the adolescent.
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Quotation is full text of the "Corwin Amendment" proposed by US Rep. Thomas Corwin (R-Ohio) and referred to states via passage by 2/3 of US House and Senate.
In February 1861, following secession of South Carolina and other Deep South states, as part of effort to arrive at a formula that would both maintain the Union AND prevent Civil War. Note that "all other persons" = slaves.
NOTE absence of time limit for ratification, meaning that the Corwin amendent is still legally alive and pending. However, only 5 states actually ratified it (during the Civil War) though 3 subsequently rescinded ratification
Kentucky April 4, 1861 Ohio May 13, 1861(rescinded March 31, 1864) Rhode Island May 31, 1861 Maryland January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014) Illinois June 2, 1863 (rescinded ratification April 4, 2022)
SSI - Am rather shocked (if NOT appalled) that Donald Trump is not urging states to ratify the Corwin amendment; almost certainly reason being that neither he OR his MAGA-maggot comrades have ever heard of it.
Is it still live ? The same has been argued of the ERA, but its opponents argue it would have to go through Congress again.
I don’t think either proposition has been tested before the SC ?
US Constitution Amendment XVII - from wiki:
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII, also known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789 to the United States Constitution states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress may take effect only after the next election of the House of Representatives has occurred. It is the most recently adopted amendment but was one of the first proposed.
The 1st Congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments (Articles I–XII). The last ten Articles were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, but the first two, the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment, were not ratified by enough states to come into force with them.
The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification. The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days, beating the previous record set by the Twenty-second Amendment of 3 years and 343 days.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
I am always amused how evangelical atheists are about their belief system without them noticing the obvious irony. This has always been particularly so of Dawkins.
As you say atheism (like socialism) is the belief system of the adolescent.
Can I just say, as the only alt.right Centrist Dad on PB, that I love my Garmin Venu 3
A whole 26 hours after my purchase, I love almost everything about it (except for the lack of maps!)
It nudges me with news like I have an eager but polite assistant, it monitors my health 24/7, it gives me genuinely good advice on multiple things, and it watches over me in my sleep, and it tells me my OX2 and BPM on demand
I can make it play sudden music on any Bluetooth device which is a hoot
Hey you're ripping off my "hard left social democrat" shtick.
The biggest problem with this result for the Tories I think is that, rather like Ed Miliband beating David in a weird way, whoever wins will be the one who won after the Tory MPs managed to cock things up and exclude the one candidate who'd genuinely impressed in the campaign, who represented the moderate wing, and was apparently a shoo-in before game playing.
It's a problem for whoever wins in a way it wouldn't be if they'd say beaten Cleverly having had this last bit of a campaign to argue why their more right-wing approach had more merit.
Unless the winner performs miracles they'll always be a case of "ah, but they only picked them after that huge cock up".
Doesn't really matter though. If the winner isn't performing miracles (or at least appearing somewhat competent) they don't deserve to be PM.
I mean perhaps. But I think the point is that they will need the space and authority to set out their stall and make the changes they think the Tories need to make to win.
That's going to be a lot more difficult when, if the public don't immediately take to you, or have some tricky polling - either because Labour get a run of good news or Farage is making hay, the constant hum is that you're leader because of an almighty cock up.
You can say look at Starmer's time as LotO. Even his biggest fans would admit is not a miracle worker. His personal ratings were always middling. But had the space to get Labour to an electorally beneficial place where could take advantage of Tory woes as won fairly decisively. And it allowed him to ride out tricky times and win internal fights.
Now let's say Jenrick or Badenoch don't immediately pull up trees or piss off those from the more moderate wing. Immediately talk will turn to how you only won because Tory MPs cocked up royally.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Five Guys is WAY over-rated. Tasteless crap EXCEPT for the MASSIVE amount of salt (mis)used.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's not identical to a lack of belief in a god.
Do you believe there is no Tooth Fairy? Or is it a lack of belief in a Tooth Fairy?
To steal @Leon's phrase, that is the analogy of the adolescent.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
Silly. Most atheists reject the existence of god(s) usually (but not exclusively) because there's sod all reason to believe it. Guff about the meaning of life doesn't come into it.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
If God exists, how come the Tories are only on 121 MPs?
Because (parts of) the Church of England have been the Liberal Democrat Party at prayer since about 1985 (see Mrs Thatcher passim) !
Ed Davey is a practising Anglican I believe so that is largely true, certainly for Bishops and clergy although the C of E congregations tend to be more Tory.
The Tories got a higher percentage of Jews voting for them at the last general election than Anglicans but did do well with conservative Protestant evangelicals and Rishi also made gains with Hindus. Labour got its biggest vote from Muslims and atheists.
Roman Catholics voted for Boris in 2019 but Starmer this time
OT: The Tory Party had an opportunity to have a leader that would look attractive and normal to compare with Sir Keir Freebie-Boring. They have blown it. A choice of two swiveleyed nutters who will take the Conservative Party further to the right and further into the wilderness. Sir Keir must be pissing his very expensive underpants with laughter.
Given that the Tories spent the last 14 years governing on the left, I'm not sure where "further" comes from.
Oh sure, Austerity followed by Brexit, the two big policy themes of their time in office, this was them "governing from the left".
Austerity was overblown and they had to be dragged unwillingly to Brexit by the electorate.
Below the headlines they were continuity Blairite except for six weeks where they were utterly incompetent.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
Haha - thank you. I certainly don't unbelieve for the life outcomes - I accept that believers have certain advantages. Belief is down to what seems most likely, rather than what you would most prefer. But never say never. I've changed my mind on things in the past.
I used to feel a little bit sad about my lack of religious belief. A feeling that I was missing out on something. Since I realised that there are fundamental things that I believe in - as in, I can't explain why I believe them, they don't follow any logical rational chain of thought, they're simply beliefs that I have - I feel a lot better about not having a specifically religious belief.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Five Guys is WAY over-rated. Tasteless crap EXCEPT for the MASSIVE amount of salt (mis)used.
My take, is like a lot of brands, the massive expansive has come at the cost of quality.
Many years ago in 1984 Jerry Adams was gunned down by Margaret Thatcher - he survived . The idea that the Irish would someday kick the British the fuck out of Ireland would have been thought impossible . Untill it wasn’t .
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
Are you certain there is no Tooth Fairy?
If there is, she needs to go on the "things that don't work in this blooming country", because I have to keep covering up for her absenteeism and/or incompetence.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
I am always amused how evangelical atheists are about their belief system without them noticing the obvious irony. This has always been particularly so of Dawkins.
As you say atheism (like socialism) is the belief system of the adolescent.
Not always, there are religious atheists too.
In many religions atheism is perfectly compatible.
Many years ago in 1984 Jerry Adams was gunned down by Margaret Thatcher - he survived . The idea that the Irish would someday kick the British the fuck out of Ireland would have been thought impossible . Untill it wasn’t .
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
I am always amused how evangelical atheists are about their belief system without them noticing the obvious irony. This has always been particularly so of Dawkins.
As you say atheism (like socialism) is the belief system of the adolescent.
Not always, there are religious atheists too.
In many religions atheism is perfectly compatible.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
It's Kemi's to lose now. She'll be encouraged to learn that she's a swiveleyed nutter according to some commentators. No doubt they'll nail her on identity politics ... can't wait
Many years ago in 1984 Jerry Adams was gunned down by Margaret Thatcher - he survived . The idea that the Irish would someday kick the British the fuck out of Ireland would have been thought impossible . Untill it wasn’t .
With respect to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to US Constitution, unlike the proposed Corwin amendment, the ERA was referred by Congres to the states with an expiration date (which was extended) which Corwin amendment does NOT have any expiration; thus per precedent set by Amendment XXVII it is still pending.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Five Guys is WAY over-rated. Tasteless crap EXCEPT for the MASSIVE amount of salt (mis)used.
My take, is like a lot of brands, the massive expansive has come at the cost of quality.
I tried a Five Guys a few months ago, and even though it was not a ginormous, I still thought comparing it to a Cheese Burger was like Clarkson comparing an American to a European.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?
I refer you to my other answer to your other puerile and failed attempt at humour. I do definitely believe that there are some people who have very limited intellect when it comes to comprehending the depth of possibilities about the universe. You are clearly within that group. I hope that one day you might grow up, and formulate a more robust and compelling argumentative style that doesn't involve insulting millions of people who are clearly more thoughtful and intelligent than you are, but I definitely believe that it might be a forlorn hope.
Comments
A couple of weeks ago, did anybody else spot Kemi channelling the "Master Control Program" in the movie "Tron" (original and best):
"Somebody pushes me, I push back!"
Like one of them.
I'm all green now - +£5.76 whoever wins.
Update: Bugger - dritte (iirc)?
https://x.com/PippaCrerar/status/1844024791759749594
And my attempt to put Cleverly ended up fourth.
I think that sums it up more neatly than I even intended.
Labour must do the decent thing and make sure they declare this gift
The great thing about this result is that it unites the party in a clear direction which creates no animosity or uncertainty about the future
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god.
Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
https://x.com/DavidGauke/status/1844039550886461792
— Robert Peston (@Peston) October 9, 2024"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/oct/09/conservatives-leadership-james-cleverly-robert-jenrick-kemi-badenoch-pmqs-keir-starmer-uk-politics-latest-news
No amendment of this Constitution, having for its object any interference within the States with the relations between their citizens and those described in second section of the first article of the Constitution as "all other persons", shall originate with any State that does not recognize that relation within its own limits, or shall be valid without the assent of every one of the States composing the Union.
Quotation is full text of the "Corwin Amendment" proposed by US Rep. Thomas Corwin (R-Ohio) and referred to states via passage by 2/3 of US House and Senate.
In February 1861, following secession of South Carolina and other Deep South states, as part of effort to arrive at a formula that would both maintain the Union AND prevent Civil War. Note that "all other persons" = slaves.
NOTE absence of time limit for ratification, meaning that the Corwin amendent is still legally alive and pending. However, only 5 states actually ratified it (during the Civil War) though 3 subsequently rescinded ratification
Kentucky April 4, 1861
Ohio May 13, 1861(rescinded March 31, 1864)
Rhode Island May 31, 1861
Maryland January 10, 1862 (rescinded April 7, 2014)
Illinois June 2, 1863 (rescinded ratification April 4, 2022)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
Map of US House rollcall vote on final passage of Corwin amendment
https://voteview.com/rollcall/RH0360412
Map of US Senate rollcall vote on final passage
https://voteview.com/rollcall/RS0360598
SSI - Am rather shocked (if NOT appalled) that Donald Trump is not urging states to ratify the Corwin amendment; almost certainly reason being that neither he OR his MAGA-maggot comrades have ever heard of it.
Cleverly's shock exit also means yet another Remainer v Leaver post Brexit battle. Jenrick backed Remain while Cleverly backed Leave in 2016 as in 2022 with Remainer Liz v Leaver Rishi or 2019 with Remainer Hunt v Leaver Boris or 2016 with Remainer May v Leaver Leadsom
The same has been argued of the ERA, but its opponents argue it would have to go through Congress again.
I don’t think either proposition has been tested before the SC ?
It could have been either of the other two camps - and it might also have been more than two lent to him, in order to get him to lend a couple of votes to Jenrick in this round. Otherwise you’re assuming he got no switchers at all from Tommy Tug.
Clearly we don’t know. But the vote was extremely close to a third each, and some shenanigans has gone on, as the wild swings in the betting odds also suggests.
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1.
If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist
2. You are an atheist
"Exhaustive ballot, an iterated voting system where rounds of voting are held sequentially (rather than simultaneously, as in IRV [aka. AV])."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustive_ballot
Counterpoint to whatever it is that just happened: some think that Cleverly now has more chance of leading the Tories into the next election. If it all goes pear shaped for the winner he is the obvious replacement (if a certain Blond doesn’t have a seat)
@robfordmancs
One thing Tory MPs have ensured is that there will be not one, but two, obvious rallying points for discontent with the new leader from day 1.
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
(No, I'm not going down the rabbit hole.)
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
Audible gasps in room at result - James Cleverly was 18 points ahead y'day.
I've spoken to Tory MPs today who were voting for their preferred *second* candidate in final two - all were working on basis Cleverly was safe…
Someone - probably Jenrick - punked him.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Like true and sudden love it often brings great and even traumatic changes, upending your life, and there can be a painful cost
Nonetheless, like love, it is always worth it
in that respect, it’s a bit like having a baby
A whole 26 hours after my purchase, I love almost everything about it (except for the lack of maps!)
It nudges me with news like I have an eager but polite assistant, it monitors my health 24/7, it gives me genuinely good advice on multiple things, and it watches over me in my sleep, and it tells me my OX2 and BPM on demand
I can make it play sudden music on any Bluetooth device which is a hoot
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII, also known as the Congressional Compensation Act of 1789 to the United States Constitution states that any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress may take effect only after the next election of the House of Representatives has occurred. It is the most recently adopted amendment but was one of the first proposed.
The 1st Congress submitted the amendment to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, along with 11 other proposed amendments (Articles I–XII). The last ten Articles were ratified in 1791 to become the Bill of Rights, but the first two, the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the proposed Congressional Apportionment Amendment, were not ratified by enough states to come into force with them.
The proposed congressional pay amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a 19-year-old student at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a paper for a government class in which he claimed that the amendment could still be ratified. He later launched a nationwide campaign to complete its ratification. The amendment eventually became part of the United States Constitution, effective May 5, 1992, completing a record-setting ratification period of 202 years, 7 months, and 10 days, beating the previous record set by the Twenty-second Amendment of 3 years and 343 days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
Then, at the other end of the scale, are people who do believe, or believe there isn't, or don't know - but also don't care.
The two points exist on different axes.
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Any scientist knows those aren't the same thing.
As you say atheism (like socialism) is the belief system of the adolescent.
Get your own shtick!
That's going to be a lot more difficult when, if the public don't immediately take to you, or have some tricky polling - either because Labour get a run of good news or Farage is making hay, the constant hum is that you're leader because of an almighty cock up.
You can say look at Starmer's time as LotO. Even his biggest fans would admit is not a miracle worker. His personal ratings were always middling. But had the space to get Labour to an electorally beneficial place where could take advantage of Tory woes as won fairly decisively. And it allowed him to ride out tricky times and win internal fights.
Now let's say Jenrick or Badenoch don't immediately pull up trees or piss off those from the more moderate wing. Immediately talk will turn to how you only won because Tory MPs cocked up royally.
The Tories got a higher percentage of Jews voting for them at the last general election than Anglicans but did do well with conservative Protestant evangelicals and Rishi also made gains with Hindus. Labour got its biggest vote from Muslims and atheists.
Roman Catholics voted for Boris in 2019 but Starmer this time
Below the headlines they were continuity Blairite except for six weeks where they were utterly incompetent.
https://x.com/johncusack/status/1843502906882044158
Many years ago in 1984 Jerry Adams was gunned down by Margaret Thatcher - he survived . The idea that the Irish would someday kick the British the fuck out of Ireland would have been thought impossible .
Untill it wasn’t .
Justice will come for Palestine
https://www.londontoolkit.com/briefing/prices_fast_food.html
Are you feeling left out yet?
In many religions atheism is perfectly compatible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
Further note that SCOTUS has upheld right of Congress to set expirations dates for ratification of constitutional amendments.
https://youtu.be/JsMVncOU1K4?t=226