"In any discussion of the oil market it is all too easy to ignore the real world consequences of the price fall that has occurred over the last three years. We might appreciate a small cut in the price of petrol or gasoline at the pump, even though its effect is dampened by high levels of taxation. But we do not give much thought to the impact of price changes on the supplying countries. That is short-sighted because the structural shift that has taken place is profoundly destabilising and potentially very dangerous."
Atheists do not 'believe' there is no God, they hold a position that there is no God or gods. It's an important logical and philosophical distinction. I do not need to believe there are no sentient bananas, it's simply the case that there are no sentient bananas. Their non existence is not a matter of belief but of fact. Should the facts change then I should no longer be that thing which I was when I was defined. Atheists know there is no God or Gods.
A position held without evidence is a belief. The absence of evidence to support a contrary conclusion is not of itself remotely close to being evidence from which one can 'know' the position is valid.
Atheists do indeed believe there are no gods (and 'no God or gods' is a tautology: 'no God' is just a specific sub-set of 'no gods').
Poppycock. It is simply not necessary to have evidence of the non existence of something. The default position is that there is no God, the same that the default position is that there is no invisible sky dragon or space monkey string quartet. Anyone deviating from that is taking a position of blind faith based on superstition. Atheism and faith are not opposites. One is a poorly defined term of a base, natural, logical position which covers anything the mind makes up on a whim, the other is a deviation from the observable, experiencable universe. You don't 'believe' something doesn't exist. Otherwise we need terms for the non belief in every childhood fantasy and fevered imagining.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
Then why do High Court enforcers force you to prove that car/T.Vetc doesn't belong to you or Mr.X doesn't live at this address?
I always thought that goes against the "innocent untill proven guilty". They might as well ask me to to prove "I don't own Buckingham palace" or that "I'm not Jesus Christ", how? I can't.
Has anyone challenged the powers of High Court enforcers yet?
They won't be able to get boundary changes through even with DUP support, hard to believe that is an issue in the negotiations (although who knows these days).
It's the only way they can get the changes through. They'd have 326 MPs to 312. With a 3-line whip that should be enough, even allowing for a few awkward sods.
May doesn't have the authority to stand up to the Tory MPs who don't want this. Will not happen.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
I'd be most surprised if boundary changes were a sticking point. Why would the Tories go ahead with boundary changes that don't benefit them?
Well, they do benefit them to some extent, albeit not as great an extent as first hoped/feared. And there is the small matter of the current boundaries now being considerably out of date. If the review is scrapped, there is the question of whether they should just start a new one or change the legislation first.
Suffering today in my winter clothes as I am holding to my grandmothers mantra of cast ne'er a clout till May is out. Come on you old bag, it's boiling!
Suffering today in my winter clothes as I am holding to my grandmothers mantra of cast ne'er a clout till May is out. Come on you old bag, it's boiling!
You do realise that it's been June for three weeks now, right? Clouts may safely be cast.
"till May is our" refers to the Blackthorn flower, not the month.
Blackthorn not yet out round here.
Of course a modern interpretation might be the resignation of the Prime minister.
Sorry David it does not refer to Blackthorn at all but to Hawthorn. Blackthorn flowers well before the Hawthorn (anything from late February to early April) Hawthorn - as its alternative name implies - flowers usually in May. Indeed in spite of all the supposed warming over the last few years in my part of the world it has still first appeared within a day or so of the 1st May. It is well over by now.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that there was a group of people that held that on the planet Kepler-91-b, a world 80% the size of Jupiter, orbiting a red giant in the constellation of Lyra, 3356 light years away, there was a purple octopoid with psychic powers who had an obsession with teapots. Called Theo.
For whatever reason they believe in Theo, it doesn't matter. Regardless of the lack of evidence for Theo, they believe in him. Call them Theo-ists. There may be groups who believe that while there is a Theo, he doesn't like teapots after all, but likes cafetieres instead. Still others shake their heads and insist that Theo is, in fact, luminous orange. All, however, agree that Theo exists as a psychic octopoid on Kepler-91-b
Atheo-ists would not believe in Theo in any of his depictions, at least not without compelling evidence being presented. Their position on Theo would simply be as stated, regardless of whether Theo-ists want to categorise their position as being one of blind faith, or categorise their position as being equivalent to one of the other sects of Theo-ists, or state that no-one can disprove that Theo exists exactly as stated.
But there was a Tory/LD majority in the Lords then.
Well, if the noble Lords wish to act responsibly, they presumably would not make it impossible for any minority government ever to govern, so that would suggest that the convention should apply.
Alternatively, if they wish to act as constitutional wreckers, then I suppose they might at least want to make it impossible for any Conservative minority government ever to govern.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
But there was a Tory/LD majority in the Lords then.
Well, if the noble Lords wish to act responsibly, they presumably would not make it impossible for any minority government ever to govern, so that would suggest that the convention should apply.
Alternatively, if they wish to act as constitutional wreckers, then I suppose they might at least want to make it impossible for any Conservative minority government ever to govern.
You'd have to ask the late Lord Salisbury, wouldn't you?
It clearly does. The government stood on a manifesto and is proposing measures that were drawn from it.
But the government doesn't have a majority, does the convention apply in hung parliaments?
Plus, the Lib Dems weren't party to the convention.
Yes, it does.
The history of the Convention is that it arose to solve an issue where the House of Lords were playing silly buggers with the government of the day's programme. It is to avoid conflict between the elected house and the unelected house. If a majority of elected MPs voting back a measure and it is in their manifestos then that is what matters.
If the House of Lords wants to go full tilt against the elected house they would be acting in a wholly undemocratic manner. They are a revising house, nothing more.
But there was a Tory/LD majority in the Lords then.
Well, if the noble Lords wish to act responsibly, they presumably would not make it impossible for any minority government ever to govern, so that would suggest that the convention should apply.
Alternatively, if they wish to act as constitutional wreckers, then I suppose they might at least want to make it impossible for any Conservative minority government ever to govern.
This is about Brexiting, not governing.
True, so the noble Lords will no doubt not wish to thwart the majority choice in the referendum.
I think we've sorted out the consitutional crisis. Phew.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Only if there's a multiverse in which I am that God, therefore making me the god of all multiverses, except unaware of it in my current state, in this multiverse. Which is more an argument for solipsism than an ontological argument for god.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
But there was a Tory/LD majority in the Lords then.
Well, if the noble Lords wish to act responsibly, they presumably would not make it impossible for any minority government ever to govern, so that would suggest that the convention should apply.
Alternatively, if they wish to act as constitutional wreckers, then I suppose they might at least want to make it impossible for any Conservative minority government ever to govern.
This is about Brexiting, not governing.
True, so the noble Lords will no doubt not wish to thwart the majority choice in the referendum.
I think we've sorted out the consitutional crisis. Phew.
Will the contentious bills even make it through the Commons?
But there was a Tory/LD majority in the Lords then.
Well, if the noble Lords wish to act responsibly, they presumably would not make it impossible for any minority government ever to govern, so that would suggest that the convention should apply.
Alternatively, if they wish to act as constitutional wreckers, then I suppose they might at least want to make it impossible for any Conservative minority government ever to govern.
This is about Brexiting, not governing.
True, so the noble Lords will no doubt not wish to thwart the majority choice in the referendum.
I think we've sorted out the consitutional crisis. Phew.
The Lords will not block Brexit. They may block certain Brexit-related items. Citizens rights might be one area. Parties favouring unilateral UK recognition of EU citizens' rights won most votes on 8th June.
The Lords doesn't vote on the Queen's Speech, does it? It certainly doesn't vote (meaningfully, I guess they could pass a pointless motion) on whether a government survives.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
It can not be proved there is no God.
It cannot be proven that there is. Indeed the whole concept of faith depends upon the inability to prove her existence. It cannot be proven that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist but not believing in it does not mean I am showing any signs of faith. Scepticism is the opposite of faith not another version of it.
It can, surely.
The fish population of Loch Ness is insufficient to support a breeding group of animals any larger than a seal. So whatever animal has been seen in Loch Ness (and it's funny how there have been fewer rather than more sightings since camera phones became ubiquitous), it's not a monster.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
Then why do High Court enforcers force you to prove that car/T.Vetc doesn't belong to you or Mr.X doesn't live at this address?
I always thought that goes against the "innocent untill proven guilty". They might as well ask me to to prove "I don't own Buckingham palace" or that "I'm not Jesus Christ", how? I can't.
Has anyone challenged the powers of High Court enforcers yet?
In those cases, someone has already been proven 'guilty', which is where the Court Order comes from. Presumably, the logic is that it would be impossible to enforce the Order if ownership of property at the person's or business's address had to be proven rather than assumed.
This day of rage appears to be something of a damp squib
I don't know. Patrick seems to have got into the spirit. not only telling us was what he was going to do but how he was going to do it and what implement he was going to use.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
This belief requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
It can not be proved there is no God.
It cannot be proven that there is. Indeed the whole concept of faith depends upon the inability to prove her existence. It cannot be proven that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist but not believing in it does not mean I am showing any signs of faith. Scepticism is the opposite of faith not another version of it.
It can, surely.
The fish population of Loch Ness is insufficient to support a breeding group of animals any larger than a seal. So whatever animal has been seen in Loch Ness (and it's funny how there have been fewer rather than more sightings since camera phones became ubiquitous), it's not a monster.
Maybe it's a hitherto undiscovered creature invisible to camera phones which is vegetarian? It's really quite hard to prove things...
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
This belief requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
The physics of multiverses is reasonably understood. It's science, not faith.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
It can not be proved there is no God.
It cannot be proven that there is. Indeed the whole concept of faith depends upon the inability to prove her existence. It cannot be proven that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist but not believing in it does not mean I am showing any signs of faith. Scepticism is the opposite of faith not another version of it.
It can, surely.
The fish population of Loch Ness is insufficient to support a breeding group of animals any larger than a seal. So whatever animal has been seen in Loch Ness (and it's funny how there have been fewer rather than more sightings since camera phones became ubiquitous), it's not a monster.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
This belief requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
It can not be proved there is no God.
It cannot be proven that there is. Indeed the whole concept of faith depends upon the inability to prove her existence. It cannot be proven that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist but not believing in it does not mean I am showing any signs of faith. Scepticism is the opposite of faith not another version of it.
It can, surely.
The fish population of Loch Ness is insufficient to support a breeding group of animals any larger than a seal. So whatever animal has been seen in Loch Ness (and it's funny how there have been fewer rather than more sightings since camera phones became ubiquitous), it's not a monster.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
This belief requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
Im beging to think you may be in a parallel universe the pair of you!:-)
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
Indeed. Otherwise one could argue that in one of the multiverses the technology to destroy all multiverses instantly must not only have been discovered but used already.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
Indeed. Otherwise one could argue that in one of the multiverses the technology to destroy all multiverses instantly must not only have been discovered but used already.
But how do you know we are not in a new multiverse, hearing an echo of the past?
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
I don't think that necessarily follows. An infinity of universes can still only include possible things.
Indeed. Otherwise one could argue that in one of the multiverses the technology to destroy all multiverses instantly must not only have been discovered but used already.
Our universe seems quite well suited to the development of life, tweak some of the laws of physics only slightly and for example stars wouldn't form. So it would be rubbish to say that everything must exist somewhere in a multiverse. Even in all the subsets of the multiverse (if it exists) where the laws of physics are the same as ours, there won't be any where say the god Thor who could hurl thunderbolts would exist - because hurling thunderbolts is not possible in our laws of physics.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes.
And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million.
And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Neither of those last 2 statements follows from the previous
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
If I were HMG looking to buy DUP support, I'd ask for active support for all the UK Bills in the Queen's Speech at 2nd and 3rd reading up until 2019, but they can do what they will on report and committee stage, and they wouldn't get their money until Budget 2019, once they've shown they can behave themselves.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Why doesn't she just "create" some more Tory MPs in the Commons while she's at it.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
The Queen won't approve it.
Logic dictates that if Mrs May made a net loss in MPs, and lost Dave's majority, the creation of a net new 60 Tory Peers won't fly.
one thing about this parliament is that the crap emanating from opposition MP's (Thornberry and Cooper in particular) has increased exponentially. Until the GE you barely heard a whisper from either of them.
Yes but as others have noted the 1974 election won a majority, it just lost seats afterwards.
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The Salisbury Convention only states that the Lords won't block manifesto pledges. It doesn't state that peers can't vote against them, nor that votes against can't even be carried; just that when push comes to shove, the Lords will back down.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So May should just create 60 Tory peers, and be done with it.
Why doesn't she just "create" some more Tory MPs in the Commons while she's at it.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
See - when political careers are at stake, all things are possible!
Compulsory sale?
Who knows? But weren't we told there were very few unoccupied apartments in that area - let alone 68 in a single block?
No. We were told that there aren't lots of apartments being deliberately kept empty. We know this to be true, because those extreme-right-wingers at the LSE said so in a report commissioned by far-right London mayor Sadiq Khan.
We were also told - by me, for example - that there are plenty of apartments available in London, so there is not the slightest justification for Corbyn's proposed suspension of property rights.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
That's even more unlikely than your previous suggestion.
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
one thing about this parliament is that the crap emanating from opposition MP's (Thornberry and Cooper in particular) has increased exponentially. Until the GE you barely heard a whisper from either of them.
Yvette has asked a lot of biting questions at PMQs. She didn't sit on her hands like the rest of the refuseniks
@Vinny_LBC: Latest: 68 apartments in luxury block near site of #GrenfellTower acquired to house fire survivors. Prices start at £1.5 million
See - when political careers are at stake, all things are possible!
Compulsory sale?
Who knows? But weren't we told there were very few unoccupied apartments in that area - let alone 68 in a single block?
No. We were told that there aren't lots of apartments being deliberately kept empty. We know this to be true, because those extreme-right-wingers at the LSE said so in a report commissioned by far-right London mayor Sadiq Khan.
We were also told - by me, for example - that there are plenty of apartments available in London, so there is not the slightest justification for Corbyn's proposed suspension of property rights.
The development is Kensington Row in Warwick Road. It sounds as if the flats were already built as social housing
'A source close to the deal said the City of London Corporation paid around £10 million for the flats thanks to an “extraordinary gesture” of goodwill by St Edward in selling the properties at their cost price.'
Is there a parallel universe where Theresa May won a stonking majority, and Nick Timothy is lord of all he surveys?
No.
What about one where George Osborne is PM, the most popular since Churchill, and you are not only his Willie, but also his fashion advisor and closest confidant?
That's even more unlikely than your previous suggestion.
What about one where HMG is one of national unity formed of all the politicalbetting.com regulars as a Government-of-all-the-talents, and Sean Thomas is Prime Minister?
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
Do atheists agree on the idea of there being an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses?
Uh... Why would they?
Because it's quite uncontroversial, and not contradicted by any physics, to think that there could be other universes. And if there are others then the logical number of them is an infinite number, since why would there be two or fifteen or a million. And thus there must exist a universe in which God does exist and in which he created all universes.
Nope, incorrect. All multiverses stem from the initial point of as perceived from your own multiverse. There cannot be a creator in one and not in others. All things stem from one point of infinite density and infinite energy.
This belief requires faith in the properties of multiverses, for which there is no direct evidence.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
The physics of multiverses is reasonably understood. It's science, not faith.
So in that case there must either be evidence available that other universes exist, or an acceptance that this is impossible to provide, in which case the "understanding" that they do is based on reasoning and not evidence.
Comments
Plus, the Lib Dems weren't party to the convention.
You don't 'believe' something doesn't exist. Otherwise we need terms for the non belief in every childhood fantasy and fevered imagining.
But presumably there is precedent from 1977-1979
I always thought that goes against the "innocent untill proven guilty". They might as well ask me to to prove "I don't own Buckingham palace" or that "I'm not Jesus Christ", how? I can't.
Has anyone challenged the powers of High Court enforcers yet?
There again, in 2010-2015 there was no majority for either the Tory or LibDem manifesto.
For whatever reason they believe in Theo, it doesn't matter. Regardless of the lack of evidence for Theo, they believe in him. Call them Theo-ists. There may be groups who believe that while there is a Theo, he doesn't like teapots after all, but likes cafetieres instead. Still others shake their heads and insist that Theo is, in fact, luminous orange. All, however, agree that Theo exists as a psychic octopoid on Kepler-91-b
Atheo-ists would not believe in Theo in any of his depictions, at least not without compelling evidence being presented. Their position on Theo would simply be as stated, regardless of whether Theo-ists want to categorise their position as being one of blind faith, or categorise their position as being equivalent to one of the other sects of Theo-ists, or state that no-one can disprove that Theo exists exactly as stated.
Alternatively, if they wish to act as constitutional wreckers, then I suppose they might at least want to make it impossible for any Conservative minority government ever to govern.
Harry Cole
Joint Committee on Conventions in 06: In 1977 the Salisbury Convention applied to a minority QS that passed Commons. https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtconv/265/265.pdf …Harry Cole added,
Harry ColeVerified account @MrHarryCole
Far better to stick to 650 MPs and have the normal Boundary review.
The history of the Convention is that it arose to solve an issue where the House of Lords were playing silly buggers with the government of the day's programme. It is to avoid conflict between the elected house and the unelected house. If a majority of elected MPs voting back a measure and it is in their manifestos then that is what matters.
If the House of Lords wants to go full tilt against the elected house they would be acting in a wholly undemocratic manner. They are a revising house, nothing more.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/queen-cameron-eu-worth-fighting-for
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/queen-asks-guests-to-give-her-3-reasons-why-britain-should-remai/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/brexit-latest-news-queen-said-she-backed-uk-leaving-eu-a7495926.html
#hatgate
I think we've sorted out the consitutional crisis. Phew.
(I think the heat may be getting to me).
This time you can argue it shouldn't apply as no party won a majority.
In 2010, did Labour peers oppose Coalition manifesto agreements? If so, then it would seem the convention does not apply in the event of a hung parliament. If they did not oppose, then the convention could apply now.
The fish population of Loch Ness is insufficient to support a breeding group of animals any larger than a seal. So whatever animal has been seen in Loch Ness (and it's funny how there have been fewer rather than more sightings since camera phones became ubiquitous), it's not a monster.
It sounded excruciating.
Labour knew in 2010 that the Tories and Lib Dems had a majority in the Lords.
So whether you accept or not that there's an infinite number of multiverses, in at least one of which there is a God who is God of all multiverses, you're expressing faith either way.
It's really quite hard to prove things...
Star Wars’ Han Solo spinoff directors just quit in the middle of shooting
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/20/15843800/star-wars-han-solo-spinoff-directors-phil-lord-christopher-miller
Editor went a few weeks ago too.
https://twitter.com/ElectCalculus/status/874226240504332288
Logic dictates that if Mrs May made a net loss in MPs, and lost Dave's majority, the creation of a net new 60 Tory Peers won't fly.
We were also told - by me, for example - that there are plenty of apartments available in London, so there is not the slightest justification for Corbyn's proposed suspension of property rights.
And some of the Tory ones won't play ball.
'A source close to the deal said the City of London Corporation paid around £10 million for the flats thanks to an “extraordinary gesture” of goodwill by St Edward in selling the properties at their cost price.'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sixtyeight-flats-in-2bn-luxury-block-to-be-given-to-families-whose-lives-were-devastated-in-grenfell-a3569876.html
I hope they keep an eye on sub-letting this time.
How is that different from religious faith?