Blackburn63, that seems rather odd on the part of your friend. Libertarians favour a minimal State. In such a society, you'd actually need strong non-governmental institutions, such as churches, charities, friendly societies etc., to perform a lot of the functions that governments have acquired over the past 100 years.
Blackburn63, that seems rather odd on the part of your friend. Libertarians favour a minimal State. In such a society, you'd actually need strong non-governmental institutions, such as churches, charities, friendly societies etc., to perform a lot of the functions that governments have acquired over the past 100 years.
I think that's absolutely right. And I think one of the reasons civil society has diminished in the last 70 years has been that the state has trodden all over the functions previously provided by religious and voluntary societies.
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
Blackburn63, that seems rather odd on the part of your friend. Libertarians favour a minimal State. In such a society, you'd actually need strong non-governmental institutions, such as churches, charities, friendly societies etc., to perform a lot of the functions that governments have acquired over the past 100 years.
Yes that was my point. Thousands attend church every week and draw great strength from it, why deprive them? I regularly donate to the Salvation Army, wonderful, caring people.
The state causes far more problems than it solves.
Blackburn63, that seems rather odd on the part of your friend. Libertarians favour a minimal State. In such a society, you'd actually need strong non-governmental institutions, such as churches, charities, friendly societies etc., to perform a lot of the functions that governments have acquired over the past 100 years.
I think that's absolutely right. And I think one of the reasons civil society has diminished in the last 70 years has been that the state has trodden all over the functions previously provided by religious and voluntary societies.
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
Then you know little about the strength of the Syrian government. It's Russian airpower (still), and Lebanese and Iranian troops on the ground who are winning the battles. The Syrian army itself is apparently in very poor state.
Oh, and the work of the Iraqis is helping: IS are being squeezed.
But I'm afraid they'll just pop up elsewhere.
On a side issue: it looks like the formative long-term peace plan may be remarkably similar to the one I've been proposing on here for a while.
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
Then you know little about the strength of the Syrian government. It's Russian airpower (still), and Lebanese and Iranian troops on the ground who are winning the battles. The Syrian army itself is apparently in very poor state.
Oh, and the work of the Iraqis is helping: IS are being squeezed.
But I'm afraid they'll just pop up elsewhere.
On a side issue: it looks like the formative long-term peace plan may be remarkably similar to the one I've been proposing on here for a while.
Don't forget the Kurds have taken most of the Northern border too. ISIS only have a small corridor now in the North where they can get in new recruits and supplies.
Some of you may recall my early disdain for Boris: when he was making his mind up I wanted him in LEAVE, on the grounds that I'd rather lose without him than win with him. So I find myself oddly at the head of the curve when it comes to Boris-loathing: for a congenital late-adopter who still had a Nokia phone until 2013/4, it's an odd experience. But enough about me, let's talk about the Conservative Russell Brand.
Look at his life story: whether it's jobs or relationships, he starts something, gets bored, engineers a reason to leave, b*****s off, start's something new, rinse and repeat. He's let down everybody in his life, personal and professional, and bolted from every commitment. This is not somebody you would trust with the Premiership: frankly he's too irresponsible to be a junior minister.
But don't just take my word for it. For those of you who wish to read the non-paywalled text of Parris's attack piece, see here. For the 2013 documentary on Boris, see here
That's clearly why Parris launched a massive salvo at him and Leave are neck and in the polls.
[EDIT: fix tags]
At last I get to read Parris's article so thanks. Though it paints a picture of a pretty grim human being I doubt it'll put off many of the Tory faithful who I doubt have much more affection for gays than Boris has.
For a real character assassination that hit's the parts Matthew Parris doesn't reach try this morning's effort by Nick Cohen.
"Affection for gays". Mmmmmh.
How about taking everybody at face value and not making preferences based on who they go to bed with?
Parris is a tosser, so are lots of heterosexuals, blacks, muslims and Mormons.
I appreciate its easier to lump together groups of people but try treating everyone individually and deal with the message not the messenger.
Except Arsenal fans of course.
Parris's attack in part was based on Boris's homophobia and and his past attitudes to section 28. I think it's fair to say that those likely to be Boris supporters in the forthcoming leadership race have similar past attitudes to him. Don't you think so?
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
Genuine question as I haven't read 'The God Delusion'. Is Dawkins really trying to convert people or just asking those who believe in supernatural beings to justify such belief.
Some of you may recall my early disdain for Boris: when he was making his mind up I wanted him in LEAVE, on the grounds that I'd rather lose without him than win with him. So I find myself oddly at the head of the curve when it comes to Boris-loathing: for a congenital late-adopter who still had a Nokia phone until 2013/4, it's an odd experience. But enough about me, let's talk about the Conservative Russell Brand.
Look at his life story: whether it's jobs or relationships, he starts something, gets bored, engineers a reason to leave, b*****s off, start's something new, rinse and repeat. He's let down everybody in his life, personal and professional, and bolted from every commitment. This is not somebody you would trust with the Premiership: frankly he's too irresponsible to be a junior minister.
But don't just take my word for it. For those of you who wish to read the non-paywalled text of Parris's attack piece, see here. For the 2013 documentary on Boris, see here
That's clearly why Parris launched a massive salvo at him and Leave are neck and in the polls.
[EDIT: fix tags]
At last I get to read Parris's article so thanks. Though it paints a picture of a pretty grim human being I doubt it'll put off many of the Tory faithful who I doubt have much more affection for gays than Boris has.
For a real character assassination that hit's the parts Matthew Parris doesn't reach try this morning's effort by Nick Cohen.
"Affection for gays". Mmmmmh.
How about taking everybody at face value and not making preferences based on who they go to bed with?
Parris is a tosser, so are lots of heterosexuals, blacks, muslims and Mormons.
I appreciate its easier to lump together groups of people but try treating everyone individually and deal with the message not the messenger.
Except Arsenal fans of course.
Parris's attack in part was based on Boris's homophobia and and his past attitudes to section 28. I think it's fair to say that those likely to be Boris supporters in the forthcoming leadership race have similar past attitudes to him. Don't you think so?
I've no idea and even less interest. Is Boris homophobic? Are some tories? Couldn't care less mate.
You don't want a details person as PM but someone with leadership qualities.
Reagan for example was not a details person but showed leadership
Blair was short on detail (and accuracy) but convincing as a leader (at the time)
Cameron also is short on detail but good with words.
Thatcher was both a strong lader and strong on detail and follow up.
Boris Johnson is no good on detail but he is inspirational, a good leadership quality.
Cameron is very impressive in front of the Liaison Committee, covering all government departments. He appears to be well briefed on many details and speaks convincingly. Try to see him on iPlayer, it it's available, or the next session.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
Genuine question as I haven't read 'The God Delusion'. Is Dawkins really trying to convert people or just asking those who believe in supernatural beings to justify such belief.
He refers to Darwin a lot, pointing out that Darwinism ie science and religion are incompatible.
I'd say he has a point but I'm not fussed if people say the odd prayer.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
Genuine question as I haven't read 'The God Delusion'. Is Dawkins really trying to convert people or just asking those who believe in supernatural beings to justify such belief.
I think he was trying to sway those who are undecided into his camp.
It's not a very good book imo. There are far better arguments against Theism than the ones he deploys.
On the other hand I think some of his science writing is fantastic. The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are absolutely fascinating and intensely thought-provoking. Well, I thought so.
I've never thought of Boris Johnson as being especially anti-gay.
Parris was really pointing to his opportunism which in the instance that he cites involves rather nasty homophobia. It seems pretty ill considered but that's MP's point
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
Genuine question as I haven't read 'The God Delusion'. Is Dawkins really trying to convert people or just asking those who believe in supernatural beings to justify such belief.
He refers to Darwin a lot, pointing out that Darwinism ie science and religion are incompatible.
I'd say he has a point but I'm not fussed if people say the odd prayer.
Try God is not Great by Hitchens.
Piqued my interest now. I've just looked up The God Delusion on wikipedia and that mentions the Hitchens book. It also quotes Dawkins:
Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:
"Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled. Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis"—the illusion of intelligent design—in explaining the living world and the cosmos. Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people cringe. Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind."
Seems reasonable. Also agree about not being concerned over the odd prayer, plus I like old churches and other religious buildings. Not too keen on religious extremists of any sort or those that try to stop scientific theories being taught in schools.
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
Then you know little about the strength of the Syrian government. It's Russian airpower (still), and Lebanese and Iranian troops on the ground who are winning the battles. The Syrian army itself is apparently in very poor state.
Oh, and the work of the Iraqis is helping: IS are being squeezed.
But I'm afraid they'll just pop up elsewhere.
On a side issue: it looks like the formative long-term peace plan may be remarkably similar to the one I've been proposing on here for a while.
Don't forget the Kurds have taken most of the Northern border too. ISIS only have a small corridor now in the North where they can get in new recruits and supplies.
Indeed. But it should be remembered that, allegedly, IS are paying Kurds to cross the border, just as they were/are Turks on the other side. And Iraqis to the east, or Jordan to the south via IS-aligned Muthanna Movement and others. Though the latter is apparently getting quite hard for them as well.
(Note: this is individuals being paid, not the states).
It's a real mess. But the more pressure IS is under, the better.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
Genuine question as I haven't read 'The God Delusion'. Is Dawkins really trying to convert people or just asking those who believe in supernatural beings to justify such belief.
He refers to Darwin a lot, pointing out that Darwinism ie science and religion are incompatible.
I'd say he has a point but I'm not fussed if people say the odd prayer.
Try God is not Great by Hitchens.
Piqued my interest now. I've just looked up The God Delusion on wikipedia and that mentions the Hitchens book. It also quotes Dawkins:
Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:
"Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled. Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis"—the illusion of intelligent design—in explaining the living world and the cosmos. Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people cringe. Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind."
Seems reasonable. Also agree about not being concerned over the odd prayer, plus I like old churches and other religious buildings. Not too keen on religious extremists of any sort or those that try to stop scientific theories being taught in schools.
Yes, that's where I part from Dawkins and Hitchens (try Sam Harris), they are disparaging, I think whatever floats your boat. Religious extremists are no better or worse than any extremists imo - nutters.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
Genuine question as I haven't read 'The God Delusion'. Is Dawkins really trying to convert people or just asking those who believe in supernatural beings to justify such belief.
He refers to Darwin a lot, pointing out that Darwinism ie science and religion are incompatible.
I'd say he has a point but I'm not fussed if people say the odd prayer.
Try God is not Great by Hitchens.
Piqued my interest now. I've just looked up The God Delusion on wikipedia and that mentions the Hitchens book. It also quotes Dawkins:
Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:
"Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled. Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis"—the illusion of intelligent design—in explaining the living world and the cosmos. Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people cringe. Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind."
Seems reasonable. Also agree about not being concerned over the odd prayer, plus I like old churches and other religious buildings. Not too keen on religious extremists of any sort or those that try to stop scientific theories being taught in schools.
Cameron is very impressive in front of the Liaison Committee, covering all government departments. He appears to be well briefed on many details and speaks convincingly. Try to see him on iPlayer, it it's available, or the next session.
The Liaison Committee is always much better value than PMQs in showing depth of Prime Ministerial knowledge and eliciting some real information - Brown and especially Blair were also good in that context. PMQs, where Blair and Cameron have mostly been good, is a showman's stunt by comparison.
The idea of a Boris Johnson PM in front of the Liaison Committee is the stuff of nightmares.
Just partaking in a Populus online poll, about the EU Ref, here's one of the questions
Has this week’s terrorist attack in Brussels made you more likely to vote for the UK to remain in the EU, or more likely to vote to leave the EU, or made no difference to your vote?
Cameron is very impressive in front of the Liaison Committee, covering all government departments. He appears to be well briefed on many details and speaks convincingly. Try to see him on iPlayer, it it's available, or the next session.
The Liaison Committee is always much better value than PMQs in showing depth of Prime Ministerial knowledge and eliciting some real information - Brown and especially Blair were also good in that context. PMQs, where Blair and Cameron have mostly been good, is a showman's stunt by comparison.
The idea of a Boris Johnson PM in front of the Liaison Committee is the stuff of nightmares.
How about Boris leading the Brexit negotiations?
He is not a serious politician. Self-deprecation gets you a long way in the UK - and that's a good thing; but having Boris in charge of everything is a joke that would very quickly stop being funny.
Cameron is very impressive in front of the Liaison Committee, covering all government departments. He appears to be well briefed on many details and speaks convincingly. Try to see him on iPlayer, it it's available, or the next session.
The Liaison Committee is always much better value than PMQs in showing depth of Prime Ministerial knowledge and eliciting some real information - Brown and especially Blair were also good in that context. PMQs, where Blair and Cameron have mostly been good, is a showman's stunt by comparison.
The idea of a Boris Johnson PM in front of the Liaison Committee is the stuff of nightmares.
Cameron is very impressive in front of the Liaison Committee, covering all government departments. He appears to be well briefed on many details and speaks convincingly. Try to see him on iPlayer, it it's available, or the next session.
The Liaison Committee is always much better value than PMQs in showing depth of Prime Ministerial knowledge and eliciting some real information - Brown and especially Blair were also good in that context. PMQs, where Blair and Cameron have mostly been good, is a showman's stunt by comparison.
The idea of a Boris Johnson PM in front of the Liaison Committee is the stuff of nightmares.
I like the idea of a Liaison Committee, although a Liaisons *cough* Committee might be much more fun.
Good to see the BBC has no qualms about calling protesters in Brussels "far-right thugs". No doubt a good number of them can be described as thugs but if my city was overrun with terrorists then I'd be tempted to show my displeasure at what the authorities have allowed to fester.
Good to see the BBC has no qualms about calling protesters in Brussels "far-right thugs". No doubt a good number of them can be described as thugs but if my city was overrun with terrorists then I'd be tempted to show my displeasure at what the authorities have allowed to fester.
There is also a growing violent far left in Europe.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
Good to see the BBC has no qualms about calling protesters in Brussels "far-right thugs". No doubt a good number of them can be described as thugs but if my city was overrun with terrorists then I'd be tempted to show my displeasure at what the authorities have allowed to fester.
I was wondering if I'd ever heard the term 'far left thug' on the beeb, but then I remembered the proper term is anti-facism protestors.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
I've just outlined precisely the contradiction, so I'm unsure what you mean. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no moral imperative to spread atheism.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
Stupidest statement of the thread. Blind unprovable faith vs evidenced fact.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
Stupidest statement of the thread. Blind unprovable faith vs evidenced fact.
If the former refers to Dawkins and his disciples, I quite agree. Did you know there's a website where he publishes pictures of himself that his fans have drawn?
On topic, I agree with every word of the thread, and it's also if I may say, very readable in style. I said before and when Boris signed up that he was a tricky one and could prove not to be an unalloyed benefit, and so it is proving.
I don't know what Boris' game is; I suspect it has been to position himself on the Brexit side to ensure his candidature in the Tory leadership race, but to actually do very little for the cause - certainly not to actually inspire the masses to Leave. As I said when I proposed this, it's a dodgy strategy, because it leaves him looking like a loser in what is essentially an audition for the top job.
A few God-bashers on here as usual. I'm sure you're happy but I do worry about the militant atheists. They find it an affront that anyone is a believer. Very odd.
Agnosticism seems a far more logical thought process than atheism, though.
I remember answering some scientific questions from the general public before I retired. The heart-sink questions were from people who only wanted confirmation of their prejudices. I remember one from a few years ago ... "Can you guarantee 100% that substance X at a level of Y% will have no effect whatsoever " The scientific answer is something along the lines of "I can't 100% guarantee that in one hours time, the world won't end and we'll all discover we've been living on a giant pineapple." But they will then go off and say ... "the expert says there could be a toxic effect."
Many scientists are believers, but some think it's a cop-out and leaves science as pointless.
Dawkins goes big on evolution. for example. Yup, seems sensible, and the Vatican agrees. Big Bang theory, the same. Time still remains a problem, though. What happened before? "Ah, well, time didn't exist," And you thinks theists are strange.
The multiverse theory will explain the Goldilocks enigma, so some are keen, but it's unprovable at the moment. The same with M-theory - a nice idea but unprovable and untestable. Is it science then? It is, if you change the old-age definitions of science.
As for quantum mechanics, probably the most certain theory ever. "If you understand it, you won't believe it. If you believe it, you don't understand it."
A few God-bashers on here as usual. I'm sure you're happy but I do worry about the militant atheists. They find it an affront that anyone is a believer. Very odd.
Agnosticism seems a far more logical thought process than atheism, though.
I remember answering some scientific questions from the general public before I retired. The heart-sink questions were from people who only wanted confirmation of their prejudices. I remember one from a few years ago ... "Can you guarantee 100% that substance X at a level of Y% will have no effect whatsoever " The scientific answer is something along the lines of "I can't 100% guarantee that in one hours time, the world won't end and we'll all discover we've been living on a giant pineapple." But they will then go off and say ... "the expert says there could be a toxic effect."
Many scientists are believers, but some think it's a cop-out and leaves science as pointless.
Dawkins goes big on evolution. for example. Yup, seems sensible, and the Vatican agrees. Big Bang theory, the same. Time still remains a problem, though. What happened before? "Ah, well, time didn't exist," And you thinks theists are strange.
The multiverse theory will explain the Goldilocks enigma, so some are keen, but it's unprovable at the moment. The same with M-theory - a nice idea but unprovable and untestable. Is it science then? It is, if you change the old-age definitions of science.
As for quantum mechanics, probably the most certain theory ever. "If you understand it, you won't believe it. If you believe it, you don't understand it."
So God (whichever one your tribe favours) is in the gaps. Problem is, the gaps get smaller.
"So God (whichever one your tribe favours) is in the gaps. Problem is, the gaps get smaller."
A common misconception. Science describes the universe, it does not explain it. When science has explained everything, you'll be able to say "Why did God do it?"
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
I've just outlined precisely the contradiction, so I'm unsure what you mean. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no moral imperative to spread atheism.
There is a desire of all humans to make others think and be the same way they are. That motivates the Christian preacher, the Muslim imam and the atheist firebrand.
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
I have been saying this for months. Is Assad really that bad compared to the other shitesters ? Al Sisi, Saudis, Bahrainis... Sorry ! I forgot he probably does not buy our arms.
Putin did not miss the opportunity presented to him.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
I've just outlined precisely the contradiction, so I'm unsure what you mean. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no moral imperative to spread atheism.
There is a desire of all humans to make others think and be the same way they are. That motivates the Christian preacher, the Muslim imam and the atheist firebrand.
Only because there are no EU migrants undercutting them!
If true, going to be interesting to see how his lawyer is going to explain all this. Your suggestion is going to be about as believable as most of the things he will be able to come up with...Better Call Saul...
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
I have been saying this for months. Is Assad really that bad compared to the other shitesters ? Al Sisi, Saudis, Bahrainis... Sorry ! I forgot he probably does not buy our arms.
Putin did not miss the opportunity presented to him.
Scientists attempt to describe the universe. Fortunately, for us, it seems to be logical, so mathematics is useful.
IT didn't have to be. Ask a militant atheist a question such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The answer will be "Because there just is." If he has more knowledge, it may say "It is fine-tuned to be suitable for life because there an infinite number of possibilities" - or possibly 10 to the power of 500 if he knows some physics.
The guiding light will be that he KNOWS the mind of God and what options God had, and how God would have done this, but he didn't because ...
To say ... "the fact, is we don't know for sure." is honest. The Atheist does know for sure - he can prove a negative - a fact no real scientist would ever say. I have more respect for those who say something along the lines of "On the balance of probabilities, I prefer to think there probably isn't." That's a reasonable answer, at least.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Except others having such erroneous beliefs is not without impact on myself and other atheists. For those who practice their faith without impact on me, I say as you do - live and let live. But there are many in all the major faiths who do not practice the Golden Rule.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
I've just outlined precisely the contradiction, so I'm unsure what you mean. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no moral imperative to spread atheism.
There is a desire of all humans to make others think and be the same way they are. That motivates the Christian preacher, the Muslim imam and the atheist firebrand.
To my knowledge there is little desire on the part of Hindus or observant Jews to proselytise because they have no mission to bring others within the fold of their religion in order to fulfil a higher moral aim. On the other hand, environmental campaigners would be a secular group who would and obviously do want to further their own agenda in order to save the planet. Atheism doesn't fit into that bracket. Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality.
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
I have been saying this for months. Is Assad really that bad compared to the other shitesters ? Al Sisi, Saudis, Bahrainis... Sorry ! I forgot he probably does not buy our arms.
Putin did not miss the opportunity presented to him.
etc, etc. Not excusing those regimes, but Assad's premier league.
Probably, but Bahrainis and Egyptians sitting in the Square in front of the Mosque did not require barrel bombs. If it was needed I am sure our friend Al Sisi the murderer would oblige.
Have you been keeping a tab at what the Saudis are doing in Yemen. Dropping cluster bombs made in Britain.
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
I have been saying this for months. Is Assad really that bad compared to the other shitesters ? Al Sisi, Saudis, Bahrainis... Sorry ! I forgot he probably does not buy our arms.
Putin did not miss the opportunity presented to him.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
I've just outlined precisely the contradiction, so I'm unsure what you mean. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no moral imperative to spread atheism.
There is a desire of all humans to make others think and be the same way they are. That motivates the Christian preacher, the Muslim imam and the atheist firebrand.
To my knowledge there is little desire on the part of Hindus or observant Jews to proselytise because they have no mission to bring others within the fold of their religion in order to fulfil a higher moral aim. On the other hand, environmental campaigners would be a secular group who would and obviously do want to further their own agenda in order to save the planet. Atheism doesn't fit into that bracket. Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality.
Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality.
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
I have been saying this for months. Is Assad really that bad compared to the other shitesters ? Al Sisi, Saudis, Bahrainis... Sorry ! I forgot he probably does not buy our arms.
Putin did not miss the opportunity presented to him.
etc, etc. Not excusing those regimes, but Assad's premier league.
Probably, but Bahrainis and Egyptians sitting in the Square in front of the Mosque did not require barrel bombs. If it was needed I am sure our friend Al Sisi the murderer would oblige.
Have you been keeping a tab at what the Saudis are doing in Yemen. Dropping cluster bombs made in Britain.
I suggest you read those links. There are others I could send you, or you could Google.
You seem to be excusing the horrid excesses of Assad's foul regime because 'others are the same'. Even when they are not.
And yes, I've been keeping tabs on what's going on. Perhaps you should too, at least with an open mind.
"Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality."
I would defend them.
It is merely pride in their own infallibility compared to the silly and ignorant people who lack their brain power and need to be told once and for all.
I was back in Vilnius central today (aka Boston). Of the five masses, four were in Polish, one in Lithuanian, and one in English. A triumph for diversity.
Edit: Ooops! Of the five masses, three were in Polish. Fortunately, arithmetic remains consistent. It's a miracle, I tell you.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Surely Dawkins atheism is just another belief system. All any preacher is trying to do is to convert people to their own belief system. I see no contradiction.
I've just outlined precisely the contradiction, so I'm unsure what you mean. At the risk of repeating myself, there is no moral imperative to spread atheism.
There is a desire of all humans to make others think and be the same way they are. That motivates the Christian preacher, the Muslim imam and the atheist firebrand.
To my knowledge there is little desire on the part of Hindus or observant Jews to proselytise because they have no mission to bring others within the fold of their religion in order to fulfil a higher moral aim. On the other hand, environmental campaigners would be a secular group who would and obviously do want to further their own agenda in order to save the planet. Atheism doesn't fit into that bracket. Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality.
"To my knowledge there is little desire on the part of Hindus or observant Jews to proselytise "
AIUI if you want to marry a Jew, you will / may need to convert (I can say the same for Eastern Orthodox, as a friend went through it).
OT. Very significant victory for the Syrian army against ISIS at Palmyra. I somehow doubt kids from Bradford and Molenbeek will be so keen to go to Syria if their heroes look like a bunch of losers. It really is time that our leaders start getting behind the Syrian government who are the only authority with any chance of crushing these barbarians
I have been saying this for months. Is Assad really that bad compared to the other shitesters ? Al Sisi, Saudis, Bahrainis... Sorry ! I forgot he probably does not buy our arms.
Putin did not miss the opportunity presented to him.
It always amazes me that there is a sizable Christian community in Pakistan. I think it is around 2%, which would be 4 million Christians.
It used to be much more as a percentage. But gradually they have emigrated to Canada, the US , Australia etc.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
I believe they are the ONLY 4 to play for Pakistan. And i think 2 of those were actually Indian by birth.
Indian, by birth ? If you take that logic every Pakistani adult at that time [ late 50s ] were "Indian by birth".
Well one was born in Goa, which was Portuguese at the time and the other is described as Anglo-Indian, but yes was born in what is now Paksitan.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
In the piece I alluded to earlier, about being Sajid Javid as PM, I pointed out that a recent captain of the England cricket team was an Indian born Muslim, and most of the country didn't give a feck, all they were concerned about was, was he a good player/captain.
A few God-bashers on here as usual. I'm sure you're happy but I do worry about the militant atheists. They find it an affront that anyone is a believer. Very odd.
Agnosticism seems a far more logical thought process than atheism, though.
I remember answering some scientific questions from the general public before I retired. The heart-sink questions were from people who only wanted confirmation of their prejudices. I remember one from a few years ago ... "Can you guarantee 100% that substance X at a level of Y% will have no effect whatsoever " The scientific answer is something along the lines of "I can't 100% guarantee that in one hours time, the world won't end and we'll all discover we've been living on a giant pineapple." But they will then go off and say ... "the expert says there could be a toxic effect."
Many scientists are believers, but some think it's a cop-out and leaves science as pointless.
Dawkins goes big on evolution. for example. Yup, seems sensible, and the Vatican agrees. Big Bang theory, the same. Time still remains a problem, though. What happened before? "Ah, well, time didn't exist," And you thinks theists are strange.
The multiverse theory will explain the Goldilocks enigma, so some are keen, but it's unprovable at the moment. The same with M-theory - a nice idea but unprovable and untestable. Is it science then? It is, if you change the old-age definitions of science.
As for quantum mechanics, probably the most certain theory ever. "If you understand it, you won't believe it. If you believe it, you don't understand it."
So God (whichever one your tribe favours) is in the gaps. Problem is, the gaps get smaller.
Why would that be a problem? As a believer in truth, I subscribe to the Hobbesian belief that whatever is true on the basis of evidence must also be true in the light of revelation, and vice versa. So any rational scientific explanation isn't going to disprove the existence of God, merely reveal more facets of his creation.
Your implication that science will 'one day' reveal the meaning of life (which you hope when it comes will agree with you and Dawkins) is of course in the abstract sense 'true', in that if we knew everything, absolutely everything, there was ever to know about science, we would understand the nature of God. But the converse is also true. And the same can be said of any field of expertise. If we were omniscient on the subject of oak trees, or knitting machines, or interior design, we would also find the meaning of life. And in terms of a theory its about as useful and relevant to our lives as knowing that the sun will burn out one day. For now, we have science to record and explain 'what' as best as it can, and Religion to explain 'why'.
It always amazes me that there is a sizable Christian community in Pakistan. I think it is around 2%, which would be 4 million Christians.
It used to be much more as a percentage. But gradually they have emigrated to Canada, the US , Australia etc.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
I believe they are the ONLY 4 to play for Pakistan. And i think 2 of those were actually Indian by birth.
Indian, by birth ? If you take that logic every Pakistani adult at that time [ late 50s ] were "Indian by birth".
Well one was born in Goa, which was Portuguese at the time and the other is described as Anglo-Indian, but yes was born in what is now Paksitan.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
In the piece I alluded to earlier, about being Sajid Javid as PM, I pointed out that a recent captain of the England cricket team was an Indian born Muslim, and most of the country didn't give a feck, all they were concerned about was, was he a good player/captain.
I mean I don't care but isn't nassar always said he is none practising? I was more concerned with his captaincy tbh...
It always amazes me that there is a sizable Christian community in Pakistan. I think it is around 2%, which would be 4 million Christians.
It used to be much more as a percentage. But gradually they have emigrated to Canada, the US , Australia etc.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
I believe they are the ONLY 4 to play for Pakistan. And i think 2 of those were actually Indian by birth.
Indian, by birth ? If you take that logic every Pakistani adult at that time [ late 50s ] were "Indian by birth".
Well one was born in Goa, which was Portuguese at the time and the other is described as Anglo-Indian, but yes was born in what is now Paksitan.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
In the piece I alluded to earlier, about being Sajid Javid as PM, I pointed out that a recent captain of the England cricket team was an Indian born Muslim, and most of the country didn't give a feck, all they were concerned about was, was he a good player/captain.
I love the Chinese Community Party and their relationship with television and films. They really are very paranoid about its influence. I'd read that there is a big increase in historical war epics in China as it's the only way they allow violent action movies to be made, so they can fit a narrative about the heroic chinese culture (how very communist). I don't know if that is true, but given the above story it sounds plausible, along with the supposed ban on things like time travel stories, as time travel is not real.
It always amazes me that there is a sizable Christian community in Pakistan. I think it is around 2%, which would be 4 million Christians.
It used to be much more as a percentage. But gradually they have emigrated to Canada, the US , Australia etc.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
I believe they are the ONLY 4 to play for Pakistan. And i think 2 of those were actually Indian by birth.
Indian, by birth ? If you take that logic every Pakistani adult at that time [ late 50s ] were "Indian by birth".
Well one was born in Goa, which was Portuguese at the time and the other is described as Anglo-Indian, but yes was born in what is now Paksitan.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
In the piece I alluded to earlier, about being Sajid Javid as PM, I pointed out that a recent captain of the England cricket team was an Indian born Muslim, and most of the country didn't give a feck, all they were concerned about was, was he a good player/captain.
I mean I don't care but isn't nassar always said he is none practising? I was more concerned with his captaincy tbh...
I know what you mean, but I meant in the context of how a few years earlier, people were questioning in Wisden non white England cricketers were less committed to England.
It always amazes me that there is a sizable Christian community in Pakistan. I think it is around 2%, which would be 4 million Christians.
It used to be much more as a percentage. But gradually they have emigrated to Canada, the US , Australia etc.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
I believe they are the ONLY 4 to play for Pakistan. And i think 2 of those were actually Indian by birth.
Indian, by birth ? If you take that logic every Pakistani adult at that time [ late 50s ] were "Indian by birth".
Well one was born in Goa, which was Portuguese at the time and the other is described as Anglo-Indian, but yes was born in what is now Paksitan.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
In the piece I alluded to earlier, about being Sajid Javid as PM, I pointed out that a recent captain of the England cricket team was an Indian born Muslim, and most of the country didn't give a feck, all they were concerned about was, was he a good player/captain.
He isn't a good cricket commentator.
What are you saying, he is the Gary Neville of cricket commentary...as in Gary Neville the footballer manager not the analyst.
Something to cheer up PB, - I’ve spent the entire day repairing fencing and have only just realised the clocks went forward.
Roast lamb and all the trimmings will be served rather late this evening.
Simon , a well deserved dinner , hope you enjoy it.
Thanks Mr G. – I shall, twas a long hard day wielding a sledgehammer, pickaxe and paintbrush, however the familiar aromas have started to fill the kitchen and we’ve started on the plonk.
@surbiton – you learn something new every day on PB
I love the Chinese Community Party and their relationship with television and films. They really are very paranoid about its influence. I'd read that there is a big increase in historical war epics in China as it's the only way they allow violent action movies to be made, so they can fit a narrative about the heroic chinese culture (how very communist). I don't know if that is true, but given the above story it sounds plausible, along with the supposed ban on things like time travel stories, as time travel is not real.
Films is really interesting. Hollywood movie are such big money in China, that the films either have alteratives to meet with the China censors or in fact increasingly adjust the stories to ensure they will work for China.
Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality.
Unspoofable.
Yes, they are.
To use Dawkins' favourite theme of the existence of Father Christmas, Fairies, Unicorns etc., - I don't believe in the existence of these things (though I retain an open mind). But the fact I don't believe in them doesn't make me give a flying crap that other people do. I don't write furious emails or take to the streets to protest at the child abuse of parents duping their kids into believing in Santa.
So why does the militant atheist do this against Religion? In terms of their leadership, I would propose it has nothing to do with disbelief in God, and everything to do with anger and resentment toward Him, resulting it what is effectively a campaign against God. It's not the agenda of hinged individuals.
Greetings from Punta Arenas. Is this the southernmost post on PB?. Weather remarkably calm at the moment - hope it stays Ok for the Horn. Spent Friday in Falklands visiting some of the battlefields - Fitzroy ( where the Welsh Guards died), Mts Harriet, Tumbledown, and Williams. I must report that I took a photograph of Mrs T's statue with the sign for Thatcher Drive in the background. It is impossible to overstate her reputation there. On to Ushaia tomorrow so must not mention Jeremy Clarkson.
@JJ, I regard Dawkins much as I would any preacher. His goal is to convert others to his cause. Why am evangelical atheist should be any more obnoxious than an evangelical Christian is unclear to me. It seems, perhaps, that atheists are expected to be apologetic.
I object to it because it is fundamentally without point. Evangelical Christians are out to save souls. What's the point of spreading the creed of God-denial? If there's no God, who gives a shit? Just get on with doing whatever atheists do with their earthly lifespan and if people find comfort in what you regard to be erroneous beliefs, let them get on with it.
Except others having such erroneous beliefs is not without impact on myself and other atheists. For those who practice their faith without impact on me, I say as you do - live and let live. But there are many in all the major faiths who do not practice the Golden Rule.
Yes, I can see that some people embrace an atheistic agenda in the US as a response to overbearing evangelistic Christians.
Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality.
Unspoofable.
Yes, they are.
To use Dawkins' favourite theme of the existence of Father Christmas, Fairies, Unicorns etc., - I don't believe in the existence of these things (though I retain an open mind). But the fact I don't believe in them doesn't make me give a flying crap that other people do. I don't write furious emails or take to the streets to protest at the child abuse of parents duping their kids into believing in Santa.
So why does the militant atheist do this against Religion? In terms of their leadership, I would propose it has nothing to do with disbelief in God, and everything to do with anger and resentment toward Him, resulting it what is effectively a campaign against God. It's not the agenda of hinged individuals.
Bull.
One is fairy stories to entertain children. The other is fairy stories believed by adults and taught to be the divine truth that must not be questioned and is the cause of much suffering and injustice.
If you can't tell the difference between entertainment and religion then I pity you.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
It always amazes me that there is a sizable Christian community in Pakistan. I think it is around 2%, which would be 4 million Christians.
It used to be much more as a percentage. But gradually they have emigrated to Canada, the US , Australia etc.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
I believe they are the ONLY 4 to play for Pakistan. And i think 2 of those were actually Indian by birth.
Indian, by birth ? If you take that logic every Pakistani adult at that time [ late 50s ] were "Indian by birth".
Well one was born in Goa, which was Portuguese at the time and the other is described as Anglo-Indian, but yes was born in what is now Paksitan.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
In the piece I alluded to earlier, about being Sajid Javid as PM, I pointed out that a recent captain of the England cricket team was an Indian born Muslim, and most of the country didn't give a feck, all they were concerned about was, was he a good player/captain.
Lib Dem voting accountant, who I entirely and honestly expected to be the most REMAINIAN of all, was the most vociferous for LEAVE.
I seem to remember polling in the past that show a surprising number of Lib Dem voters were actually rather anti-EU. They voted Lib Dem for other reasons.
Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality.
Unspoofable.
Yes, they are.
To use Dawkins' favourite theme of the existence of Father Christmas, Fairies, Unicorns etc., - I don't believe in the existence of these things (though I retain an open mind). But the fact I don't believe in them doesn't make me give a flying crap that other people do. I don't write furious emails or take to the streets to protest at the child abuse of parents duping their kids into believing in Santa.
So why does the militant atheist do this against Religion? In terms of their leadership, I would propose it has nothing to do with disbelief in God, and everything to do with anger and resentment toward Him, resulting it what is effectively a campaign against God. It's not the agenda of hinged individuals.
Bull.
One is fairy stories to entertain children. The other is fairy stories believed by adults and taught to be the divine truth that must not be questioned and is the cause of much suffering and injustice.
If you can't tell the difference between entertainment and religion then I pity you.
I'm afraid it's your point about suffering and injustice that's bull - you may wish to have a look at what happens when God is deliberately removed from society; the results are not exactly rainbows and flowers.
It always amazes me that there is a sizable Christian community in Pakistan. I think it is around 2%, which would be 4 million Christians.
It used to be much more as a percentage. But gradually they have emigrated to Canada, the US , Australia etc.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
I believe they are the ONLY 4 to play for Pakistan. And i think 2 of those were actually Indian by birth.
Indian, by birth ? If you take that logic every Pakistani adult at that time [ late 50s ] were "Indian by birth".
Well one was born in Goa, which was Portuguese at the time and the other is described as Anglo-Indian, but yes was born in what is now Paksitan.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
In the piece I alluded to earlier, about being Sajid Javid as PM, I pointed out that a recent captain of the England cricket team was an Indian born Muslim, and most of the country didn't give a feck, all they were concerned about was, was he a good player/captain.
Lib Dem voting accountant, who I entirely and honestly expected to be the most REMAINIAN of all, was the most vociferous for LEAVE.
I seem to remember polling in the past that show a surprising number of Lib Dem voters were actually rather anti-EU. They voted Lib Dem for other reasons.
Liberals, even though part of the LibDems but especially as Liberal Party members are for universal free trade. There' a difficult dichotomy for us; is the EU a start or the end?
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
The establishment has been seen to soft-pedal and ignore real problems, and has created an enhanced backlash.
I used to think such talk could only be a spoof, then I spoke with a relative who was lamenting we don't handle immigration the same way the anglo-saxons did (as they saw it) - showing it was not wanted by slaughtering the immigrants.
I have heard exactly this sentiment - expel the Muslims - unprompted - from half a dozen different people (not my immediate family) in the last three days. I have heard it expressed with quite ferocious anger.
Something is happening. And it isn't pretty.
The establishment has been seen to soft-pedal and ignore real problems, and has created an enhanced backlash.
Comments
The state causes far more problems than it solves.
I thought you were against state execution.
Oh, and the work of the Iraqis is helping: IS are being squeezed.
But I'm afraid they'll just pop up elsewhere.
On a side issue: it looks like the formative long-term peace plan may be remarkably similar to the one I've been proposing on here for a while.
Unsurprised Labour not triumphing with non-voters, in terms of positions non-voters don't differ much from voters https://t.co/ETf1EqQXvf
http://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Steele-Syria-MAP-120315.jpg
Try to see him on iPlayer, it it's available, or the next session.
I'd say he has a point but I'm not fussed if people say the odd prayer.
Try God is not Great by Hitchens.
If May's likely to be in the final two, I wonder who her opponent would be.
It's not a very good book imo. There are far better arguments against Theism than the ones he deploys.
On the other hand I think some of his science writing is fantastic. The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are absolutely fascinating and intensely thought-provoking. Well, I thought so.
Have a read of that, best book I've read in years
Dawkins writes that The God Delusion contains four "consciousness-raising" messages:
"Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled.
Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis"—the illusion of intelligent design—in explaining the living world and the cosmos.
Children should not be labelled by their parents' religion. Terms like "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" should make people cringe.
Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind."
Seems reasonable.
Also agree about not being concerned over the odd prayer, plus I like old churches and other religious buildings. Not too keen on religious extremists of any sort or those that try to stop scientific theories being taught in schools.
(Note: this is individuals being paid, not the states).
It's a real mess. But the more pressure IS is under, the better.
I'd recommend it nevertheless.
The idea of a Boris Johnson PM in front of the Liaison Committee is the stuff of nightmares.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/27/ukip-backed-leave-eu-brexit-campaign-employs-eu-migrants-arron-banks
Has this week’s terrorist attack in Brussels made you more likely to vote for the UK to remain in the EU, or more likely to vote to leave the EU, or made no difference to your vote?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35908512
He is not a serious politician. Self-deprecation gets you a long way in the UK - and that's a good thing; but having Boris in charge of everything is a joke that would very quickly stop being funny.
A list of upcoming council by elections and vacant seats
11 before 5th May
60 to be held with main cycle 5th May
https://t.co/jCSTnyZMA6 …
http://www.vice.com/video/the-rise-of-swedens-far-left-militants
Both supposedly fighting for the working man....
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/26/queensland-tradesman-has-more-than-590m-in-bank-account-court-hears
Bricklaying pays well these days...
I don't know what Boris' game is; I suspect it has been to position himself on the Brexit side to ensure his candidature in the Tory leadership race, but to actually do very little for the cause - certainly not to actually inspire the masses to Leave. As I said when I proposed this, it's a dodgy strategy, because it leaves him looking like a loser in what is essentially an audition for the top job.
Agnosticism seems a far more logical thought process than atheism, though.
I remember answering some scientific questions from the general public before I retired. The heart-sink questions were from people who only wanted confirmation of their prejudices. I remember one from a few years ago ... "Can you guarantee 100% that substance X at a level of Y% will have no effect whatsoever " The scientific answer is something along the lines of "I can't 100% guarantee that in one hours time, the world won't end and we'll all discover we've been living on a giant pineapple." But they will then go off and say ... "the expert says there could be a toxic effect."
Many scientists are believers, but some think it's a cop-out and leaves science as pointless.
Dawkins goes big on evolution. for example. Yup, seems sensible, and the Vatican agrees. Big Bang theory, the same. Time still remains a problem, though. What happened before? "Ah, well, time didn't exist," And you thinks theists are strange.
The multiverse theory will explain the Goldilocks enigma, so some are keen, but it's unprovable at the moment. The same with M-theory - a nice idea but unprovable and untestable. Is it science then? It is, if you change the old-age definitions of science.
As for quantum mechanics, probably the most certain theory ever. "If you understand it, you won't believe it. If you believe it, you don't understand it."
Boris is popular because he is seen as a joker. And that is what he, sadly, is.
Roast lamb and all the trimmings will be served rather late this evening.
"So God (whichever one your tribe favours) is in the gaps. Problem is, the gaps get smaller."
A common misconception. Science describes the universe, it does not explain it. When science has explained everything, you'll be able to say "Why did God do it?"
Putin did not miss the opportunity presented to him.
The practice first started in parts of Canada.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/assad-war-crimes-syria-torture-caesar-hospital
etc, etc. Not excusing those regimes, but Assad's premier league.
Cricketers like D'Souza, Mathias, Sharpe were Pakistani test players. Youhana, of course, converted to Islam.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35888537
I'll expand on this, if I may.
Scientists attempt to describe the universe. Fortunately, for us, it seems to be logical, so mathematics is useful.
IT didn't have to be. Ask a militant atheist a question such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The answer will be "Because there just is." If he has more knowledge, it may say "It is fine-tuned to be suitable for life because there an infinite number of possibilities" - or possibly 10 to the power of 500 if he knows some physics.
The guiding light will be that he KNOWS the mind of God and what options God had, and how God would have done this, but he didn't because ...
To say ... "the fact, is we don't know for sure." is honest. The Atheist does know for sure - he can prove a negative - a fact no real scientist would ever say. I have more respect for those who say something along the lines of "On the balance of probabilities, I prefer to think there probably isn't." That's a reasonable answer, at least.
Have you been keeping a tab at what the Saudis are doing in Yemen. Dropping cluster bombs made in Britain.
Edit: 7 Non-muslims in total.
http://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/7-non-muslim-cricketers-who-played-for-pakistan-117618
Unspoofable.
You seem to be excusing the horrid excesses of Assad's foul regime because 'others are the same'. Even when they are not.
And yes, I've been keeping tabs on what's going on. Perhaps you should too, at least with an open mind.
For 4 Christians, 3 Hindus in total have played for Pakistan I believe.
"Today's breed of militant atheist is on a moral crusade to undermine (among other things) the concept of morality."
I would defend them.
It is merely pride in their own infallibility compared to the silly and ignorant people who lack their brain power and need to be told once and for all.
I was back in Vilnius central today (aka Boston). Of the five masses, four were in Polish, one in Lithuanian, and one in English. A triumph for diversity.
Edit: Ooops! Of the five masses, three were in Polish. Fortunately, arithmetic remains consistent. It's a miracle, I tell you.
AIUI if you want to marry a Jew, you will / may need to convert (I can say the same for Eastern Orthodox, as a friend went through it).
Your implication that science will 'one day' reveal the meaning of life (which you hope when it comes will agree with you and Dawkins) is of course in the abstract sense 'true', in that if we knew everything, absolutely everything, there was ever to know about science, we would understand the nature of God. But the converse is also true. And the same can be said of any field of expertise. If we were omniscient on the subject of oak trees, or knitting machines, or interior design, we would also find the meaning of life. And in terms of a theory its about as useful and relevant to our lives as knowing that the sun will burn out one day. For now, we have science to record and explain 'what' as best as it can, and Religion to explain 'why'.
@surbiton – you learn something new every day on PB
To use Dawkins' favourite theme of the existence of Father Christmas, Fairies, Unicorns etc., - I don't believe in the existence of these things (though I retain an open mind). But the fact I don't believe in them doesn't make me give a flying crap that other people do. I don't write furious emails or take to the streets to protest at the child abuse of parents duping their kids into believing in Santa.
So why does the militant atheist do this against Religion? In terms of their leadership, I would propose it has nothing to do with disbelief in God, and everything to do with anger and resentment toward Him, resulting it what is effectively a campaign against God. It's not the agenda of hinged individuals.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/07/16/boris-johnson-s-water-cannon-farce-reveals-why-he-will-never
One is fairy stories to entertain children. The other is fairy stories believed by adults and taught to be the divine truth that must not be questioned and is the cause of much suffering and injustice.
If you can't tell the difference between entertainment and religion then I pity you.
The establishment has been seen to soft-pedal and ignore real problems, and has created an enhanced backlash.