As we are now basically a secular country the religion figures did not surprise me, religion is now more influential in the developing world than the western world (outside the USA of course). There are now more Christians as a percentage in Nigeria than the UK for example, a complete reversal from a century ago.
Between yourself and HB you are seriously showing:
# A lack of knowledge, # A lack of comprehension, # An ignorance of history, and # Exposing yourselves as a threat to the Conservative Party.
I am sure that you both feel-at-home-as-Tories - in a 'Tim NbD' way: I respect this (albeit reluctantly). Utterances-of-bolleaux do not, however, endear you to true conservatives (including the deluded republicans): Please desist.
What are you going on about? I myself am a practicing Anglican, as are a higher percentage of Tories that does not change the fact most Britons are not now religious, or if they are they are more likely to be from ethnic minorities.
t'Economist "Double-Edition": Almost half the size it used to be. My views; so far:
# Summary: Zookie does not like DJ Trump.
# Editorials: First one failed.
## Chose the correct tune but failed to reach-the-notes (nothing about sexual-aggression within the LGBTQ mob). ## Cyril R was good; 'Nice one'. ## Safer-smoking showed signs of t'Economist liberalism I pay for. ## Well-done France! South-Korea failed at the start.
# Extras (I)
## The Lift article is a rehash from a few years ago: That said some interesting ideas towards the end. ## Polygamy/Polygany: Disturbing. ## B-train: A snap-shot of Paris. It may be vibrant but it still sounds as depressing as I remember it.
Hopefully the quality will be maintained as-per-standard: Do not like the extra-thick plastic cover (not even blue) and question where this paper is going long-term. For the first time I can remember (thirty-years I have chosen not to buy "The World In..."): Maybe time to spin-off the EIU from the parasites.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
Jeremy Corbyn shares the same initials as Jesus Christ, and his deluded followers think that he is the Messiah. But Corbyn was defeated in this year's general election, and will never be prime minister.
Merry Christmas. I think you forgot your sign off - ‘and i am a labour supporter/have voted Labour all my life etc...’
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
Yes it just looks petty and pathetic, very backward and insular looking. They are most certainly not in control of anything and seem to just pander to the xenophobes, very depressing and does not bode well for future.
Oh, and Independent Scotland wouldn't have wanted a blue passport?
Well, now you've got them.....
Surely an independent Scotland would/will have an EU burgundy one?
Probably, though we could of course choose whatever colour we like.
Just like the UK could have done for the last 30 years.
Well maybe. In my younger days I was a goalkeeper and as you get older so do your reactions. The balls that used to hi the plan of my hands started to go through my fingers. I had three dislocated before I retired and was unable to close the smallest finger on one hand. Two years ago someone asked if they could pray for my finger to be straightened. I said yes and thought the whole thing to be funny. They closed their hands on my affected hand and prayed for my finger to be healed in Jesus name. When they opened their hands I could close (and still can to this day) the finger that I couldn't do before. I was gobsmacked.
Then a year ago I was filling my car with petrol at the local Tesco's when a man, who I didn't know, approached me and said "I know there's a God". Well, I thought, what on earth is this all about? Apparently his wife had just been given the all clear from throat cancer a fortnight after the doctor's had told him there was nothing more they could do for her (it had returned after treatment) and all he could do was pray. He had never prayed before but he said they asked Jesus for a miracle. She felt her throat grow warm and at the subsequent check up there was no sign of the cancer. He wasn't after money or fame, just confused and thankful for what had happened to them and wanting to let others know what had happened.
I share these two tales because I personally experienced them. (I have others but this is a political website so I'll restrict those to my diaries/blog). I have no doubt that there is "there is someone watching" but appreciate that, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus time, some may need a sign to believe and even after that may not!
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
b) getting upset by identified inaccuracies told by political opponents.
This Christmas it seems that irony is flying off the shelves.
Leavers = Skoptsi.
Self-mutilation now. Pauline redemption through eradication of ancestral sin at some unspecified point in the future.
Remainers = failed prophets
"Punish them God, Punish them God, Punish them God. Why don't you punish them God. I am a true believer and told the wicked unbelievers you would smite them with a recession, with tax rises, with pension cuts, with increased unemployment, with falling house prices, with a stock market crash and with crops going unharvested them in the fields. Its not fair God that you haven't punished the unbelieving Leavers"
The change in social attitudes during our lifetimes - as indeed for many generations through history - has been truly dramatic. It is very hard to put ourselves back into the commonly accepted mindset of thirty or forty years ago, even for those of us that lived through it. (Most of) the people wanting to take us back there really don't know what they are wanting.
Yes, I've experienced it in my own thinking. I used to think that civil partnerships were great but gay marriage was provoking people too much (I have gay friends who agreed); gay adoption seemed to me a step too far. I now have no idea what I was worried about - I can't relate to my thinking on this just 20 years ago at all.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
Sorry, not really. I am, however, paying for 'Print/Internet' costs for a publication I barely read. I have other interests that amuse me now (as democracy is dead): The decline of a once-liberal newspaper - the clarion-call of the 'Anti-Corn-Laws' no-less - may become a charity-too-far.
The Lisbon Treaty was rightly rejected by "'t'economist": Now they cry a tear-of repentence and show respect for the folly that is Juncker (over a gin-filled dinner party in Islington...).
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
The change in social attitudes during our lifetimes - as indeed for many generations through history - has been truly dramatic. It is very hard to put ourselves back into the commonly accepted mindset of thirty or forty years ago, even for those of us that lived through it. (Most of) the people wanting to take us back there really don't know what they are wanting.
Yes, I've experienced it in my own thinking. I used to think that civil partnerships were great but gay marriage was provoking people too much (I have gay friends who agreed); gay adoption seemed to me a step too far. I now have no idea what I was worried about - I can't relate to my thinking on this just 20 years ago at all.
I think the prominence of transgenderism has increased tolerance of homosexuality as there is now a different aspect of 'strange' or 'not normal' to comprehend for many people.
That many homosexuals and feminists have strong disagrrements with the trans community is a feature of this.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
This really isn't difficult. The claim is that God a. is omnipotent and b. loves humanity in the same way that a human parent loves his/er children. If that were true, the very first time in history that a child was tortured to death a God fitting those criteria would have said OMFG what have I done and deleted the whole experiment, rather than risk a repeat. It is no use saying yebbut he gives us the choice to be good or evil, because the victims don't get that choice.
Another way to nail the religious: ask them, if they completely lost their belief, would they then be entirely OK with robbing widows and orphans, coveting their neighbour's ass and other naughtiness. If the answer is Yes, you are a c**t; if the answer is No, then this religious flimflam isn't actually fundamental to morality, is it? and if the answer is That could never happen, so the question is meaningless, that is a surrender of the right to argue about it, because you are stipulating in advance that any evidence against you is inadmissible because it's against you.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
You sent me off to Wikipedia to have a look. His theories appear to apply explicitly and specifically to the field of mathematics only. Not being a mathematician I am not qualified to judge, but it seems that you are pushing your luck trying to construct a universal theory of everything out of his mathematical proposition.
In any event, I would imagine that the absence of something would commonly be impossible to prove. The presence of something is possible to prove, depending on the circumstances, but constructing the theory in the absence of any evidence whatsoever is delusion, as I said. That it is so is evidenced by the completely different theories that different civilisations have come up with in different places and times.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
Won't Buddhists be reincarnated, so they'll get another go in their next life?
This really isn't difficult. The claim is that God a. is omnipotent and b. loves humanity in the same way that a human parent loves his/er children. If that were true, the very first time in history that a child was tortured to death a God fitting those criteria would have said OMFG what have I done and deleted the whole experiment, rather than risk a repeat. It is no use saying yebbut he gives us the choice to be good or evil, because the victims don't get that choice.
Another way to nail the religious: ask them, if they completely lost their belief, would they then be entirely OK with robbing widows and orphans, coveting their neighbour's ass and other naughtiness. If the answer is Yes, you are a c**t; if the answer is No, then this religious flimflam isn't actually fundamental to morality, is it? and if the answer is That could never happen, so the question is meaningless, that is a surrender of the right to argue about it, because you are stipulating in advance that any evidence against you is inadmissible because it's against you.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
Won't Buddhists be reincarnated, so they'll get another go in their next life?
Might be a step up, might not be. Daughter-in-law goes to the temple to ‘make merit’.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
Jesus was quite fine praising the faith of a Roman Centurion (who would be Pagan), Samaritans and many others. He was quite harsh on the orthodox Sanhedrin etc.
While some Christian churches would claim that only Christians are in heaven, Jesus does not back that up. Indeed He expressed a very different view. While I wouldn't claim to firsthand knowledge, I cannot conceive a God who is a stickler for paperwork.
My advice would be to stick to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, and you should be fine, whether athiest, pagan, Christian or Buddhist.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
.
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
Jesus was quite fine praising the faith of a Roman Centurion (who would be Pagan), Samaritans and many others. He was quite harsh on the orthodox Sanhedrin etc.
While some Christian churches would claim that only Christians are in heaven, Jesus does not back that up. Indeed He expressed a very different view. While I wouldn't claim to firsthand knowledge, I cannot conceive a God who is a stickler for paperwork.
My advice would be to stick to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, and you should be fine, whether athiest, pagan, Christian or Buddhist.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
Won't Buddhists be reincarnated, so they'll get another go in their next life?
The chances of returning in human form are vanishingly small.
Just seen this on the Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42466312) Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson has said she was prevented from boarding a train after being told "there's no room for her". She said in a tweet: "Merry Christmas to the person on the train who just stopped me getting on. Told member of staff 'there's no room for her’.” Apparently the member of staff was ‘good’.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
Won't Buddhists be reincarnated, so they'll get another go in their next life?
The chances of returning in human form are vanishingly small.
Only the first time. Anyway, why not enjoy life as a bacterium?
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Even if there were, it doesn't follow that all the worshipping and other paraphanalia that goes with whatever flavour of religion you have chosen makes any sense, or has any purpose, other than a human/social one. Pretending there is someone watching just made it easier to force people to follow whatever rules the powerful wanted.
The definition of God (omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent) contains a contradiction. It's the benevolence that is the killer assumption. Why would an all seeing, all powerful God allow the awful evils to happen?
I think it is possible we are living in a simulation created by a vastly more technologically advanced intelligence. A bit like the Truman Show. Nick Bostrom tries to quantify the probability in his famous paper.
If this is so, the intelligence is not benevolent to us. We are part of an experiment or perhaps an alien child's entertainment.
Edit: This year they've been taking the piss with Brexit and Trump.
I quite like the idea of the old Norse / Roman / Greek gods. Their philosophy seems more consistent with their actions than the Christian god (who has a more than a bit of a split personality anyway).
A brief respite from the pre-Christmas hullabaloo and before the afternoon's racing - in the pre-Mrs Stodge days I'd have been at Lingfield where Barry Dennis used to throw mince pies round the betting ring at the last AW fixture before Christmas. After being struck by one said object one year and no doubt in a state of concussion, I decided to have a tenner on a 7/2 shot on his pitch (4/1 elsewhere but the man had hit me with a mince pie!!). He was happy to take the tenner and apologised for the mince pie - less happy 10 minutes later when I relieved him of £45.
So, we're on the heavy stuff this afternoon...
Okay, I'll play.
I'm not sure - belief in God doesn't strike me as all that important. I suppose I've derived my moral code primarily from Christianity but there are messages in a number of other religions around love, tolerance, respect and a whole number of other positive values such as helping others and generally doing good. If you try to live to a code like that I don't think the faith is that important.
Perhaps living a good and positive life transcends one faith or indeed all faiths.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.
Only the first time. Anyway, why not enjoy life as a bacterium?
There is as much philosophical debate about the reality of re-incarnation within Buddhism as there is in Christianity about the existence of heaven. As there is about the mechanisms, practicality, qualificatios required, etc, etc. Similarly, most practitioners don't worry themselves overly about the details.
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Yep - at uni I used to take the Economist and the NS, usually some decent reading in the more tedious lectures. Both have dropped off a quality cliff since though.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
The theorem says that *within any given axiomatic system* there are some things which are true but cannot be proved. And it doesn't help you.
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Even if there were, it doesn't follow that all the worshipping and other paraphanalia that goes with whatever flavour of religion you have chosen makes any sense, or has any purpose, other than a human/social one. Pretending there is someone watching just made it easier to force people to follow whatever rules the powerful wanted.
The definition of God (omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent) contains a contradiction. It's the benevolence that is the killer assumption. Why would an all seeing, all powerful God allow the awful evils to happen?
I think it is possible we are living in a simulation created by a vastly more technologically advanced intelligence. A bit like the Truman Show. Nick Bostrom tries to quantify the probability in his famous paper.
A brief respite from the pre-Christmas hullabaloo and before the afternoon's racing - in the pre-Mrs Stodge days I'd have been at Lingfield where Barry Dennis used to throw mince pies round the betting ring at the last AW fixture before Christmas. After being struck by one said object one year and no doubt in a state of concussion, I decided to have a tenner on a 7/2 shot on his pitch (4/1 elsewhere but the man had hit me with a mince pie!!). He was happy to take the tenner and apologised for the mince pie - less happy 10 minutes later when I relieved him of £45.
So, we're on the heavy stuff this afternoon...
Okay, I'll play.
I'm not sure - belief in God doesn't strike me as all that important. I suppose I've derived my moral code primarily from Christianity but there are messages in a number of other religions around love, tolerance, respect and a whole number of other positive values such as helping others and generally doing good. If you try to live to a code like that I don't think the faith is that important.
Perhaps living a good and positive life transcends one faith or indeed all faiths.
Stopped-reading early: Dulwich-College; pfft! How is the 'doggie'?
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
The theorem says that *within any given axiomatic system* there are some things which are true but cannot be proved. And it doesn't help you.
You are trying to define a logical system, and then demanding that I prove God from it. That is a mathematical* nonsense.
*And everything in the real world depends on mathematics.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
The theorem says that *within any given axiomatic system* there are some things which are true but cannot be proved. And it doesn't help you.
You are trying to define a logical system, and then demanding that I prove God from it. That is a mathematical* nonsense.
*And everything in the real world depends on mathematics.
I, for one, wasn't expecting you to prove anything. I was simply responding in kind to your suggestion that there is 'evidence' for your delusion, which somehow you have powers to perceive that are lost on the rest of us.
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God), (b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute), (c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
The theorem says that *within any given axiomatic system* there are some things which are true but cannot be proved. And it doesn't help you.
You are trying to define a logical system, and then demanding that I prove God from it. That is a mathematical* nonsense.
*And everything in the real world depends on mathematics.
I'm really not, I am just putting you right about Godel.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
In terms of its editorial positions, the economist has been calling everything wrong, over and over again. It is so intrinsically committed to free markets and liberalism that it is unable to analyse the political changes that are taking place around the world, that are essentially rooted in the failings of liberalism and free markets. It is rapidly losing its authority in this regard.
On the plus side, its artwork is great, and its coverage on emerging markets is very detailed.
In general, I don't have any time to read any of these papers, unfortunately.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
In terms of its editorial positions, the economist has been calling everything wrong, over and over again. It is so intrinsically committed to free markets and liberalism that it is unable to analyse the political changes that are taking place around the world, that are essentially rooted in the failings of liberalism and free markets. It is rapidly losing its authority in this regard.
On the plus side, its artwork is great, and its coverage on emerging markets is very detailed.
In general, I don't have any time to read any of these papers, unfortunately.
I take the Economist, but it has always been patchy, perhaps reflecting the different writers and perspectives within.
What I do like is that they concentate on analysis rather than breaking news, and their special reports are very often interesting insights into areas that do not see the light of day in other publications. Their international coverage is very broad. I also like and often buy their book recommendations. The only other paper with such intellectual depth seems to be the Saturday FT, though The Guardian has its moments.
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
I, for one, wasn't expecting you to prove anything. I was simply responding in kind to your suggestion that there is 'evidence' for your delusion, which somehow you have powers to perceive that are lost on the rest of us.
There is more than enough 'evidence' if you are prepared to open your eyes. As long as you choose not to, then nothing will change.
I, for one, wasn't expecting you to prove anything. I was simply responding in kind to your suggestion that there is 'evidence' for your delusion, which somehow you have powers to perceive that are lost on the rest of us.
There is more than enough 'evidence' if you are prepared to open your eyes. As long as you choose not to, then nothing will change.
There you go again. Any adherent of any wacky cult in the world would say exactly the same.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
In terms of its editorial positions, the economist has been calling everything wrong, over and over again. It is so intrinsically committed to free markets and liberalism that it is unable to analyse the political changes that are taking place around the world, that are essentially rooted in the failings of liberalism and free markets. It is rapidly losing its authority in this regard.
On the plus side, its artwork is great, and its coverage on emerging markets is very detailed.
In general, I don't have any time to read any of these papers, unfortunately.
There's nothing wrong with championing free markets and liberalism. The problem is the writers' inability to empathise with their critics.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
No it's about proving statements within such a system - like asking whether N is a prime number or not. Godel shows that even with infinite computing resources there are some questions within any system that are true, but can never be proved.
It's a logical fallacy to argue that because there are true things that cannot be proved it follows that this thing that cannot be proved is true. It might be, or it might not, and there's not any reliable way of distinguishing it from all the other things that cannot be proved that might, or might not, be true.
I, for one, wasn't expecting you to prove anything. I was simply responding in kind to your suggestion that there is 'evidence' for your delusion, which somehow you have powers to perceive that are lost on the rest of us.
There is more than enough 'evidence' if you are prepared to open your eyes. As long as you choose not to, then nothing will change.
There you go again. Any adherent of any wacky cult in the world would say exactly the same.
There are lots of 'wacky cults' in the world. Atheists believe what they want to. Lib Dems believe what they want to. Etc.
On some level, everyone thinks they are right and everyone else is deluded. Look at Remainer vs Leaver fights on here.
However the most powerful tool that anyone has, is to look up for a moment and think: "Am I wrong?" and consider a different point of view. Despite what you might think I do this for my beliefs as much as for anything else.
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
No it's about proving statements within such a system - like asking whether N is a prime number or not. Godel shows that even with infinite computing resources there are some questions within any system that are true, but can never be proved.
Which is what I said. Only I used numbers. And gave an example.
I'm not sure - belief in God doesn't strike me as all that important. I suppose I've derived my moral code primarily from Christianity but there are messages in a number of other religions around love, tolerance, respect and a whole number of other positive values such as helping others and generally doing good. If you try to live to a code like that I don't think the faith is that important.
Perhaps living a good and positive life transcends one faith or indeed all faiths.
I asked a priest about that once and his argument was that I'd live a much more positive life if I added faith and Christian practice to my Atheist moral code. I didn't agree at the time but looking back nearly two decades later and it's possible he would have been right. Not that I can manage to conjure up some faith on command.
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
Does anyone know the square-root of "infinity"? By itself inifinity-squared is inifinty so what is observable?
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
Does anyone know the square-root of "infinity"? By itself inifinity-squared is inifinty so what is observable?
Infinity squared is not infinity since infinity is a concept and not a number. That's like asking what is infinity minus one.
I see the thing about blue passports is falling apart amid dispute and acrimony. What a self-imposed blunder by Theresa, which was completely unnecessary. The woman really is tin eared and devoid of even rudimentary political judgement.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
I’ve certainly found interesting things in both the New Statesman and Prospect from time to time, but to actually buy them? St Margaret of Grantham might strike me down... I’ll have to check out Standpoint again.
PS @NickPalmer notwithstanding my differences with you over Europe, I wish you a very merry Christmas I know you did what you did because you believe it to be best for the nation. I will never agree but I recognise your motivation.
What will you be eating on Christmas Day? I presume you are a vegetarian who has had more than their share of nutroasts
I see the thing about blue passports is falling apart amid dispute and acrimony. What a self-imposed blunder by Theresa, which was completely unnecessary. The woman really is tin eared and devoid of even rudimentary political judgement.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
I’ve certainly found interesting things in both the New Statesman and Prospect from time to time, but to actually buy them? St Margaret of Grantham might strike me down... I’ll have to check out Standpoint again.
PS @NickPalmer notwithstanding my differences with you over Europe, I wish you a very merry Christmas I know you did what you did because you believe it to be best for the nation. I will never agree but I recognise your motivation.
What will you be eating on Christmas Day? I presume you are a vegetarian who has had more than their share of nutroasts
As a veggie, I shall be tucking into Vbites Celebration meat-free roast dinner.
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
Does anyone know the square-root of "infinity"? By itself inifinity-squared is inifinty so what is observable?
Infinity squared is not infinity since infinity is a concept and not a number. That's like asking what is infinity minus one.
Cantor showed that there were many infinities, of varying 'sizes' iirc.
On infinities: David Malone's documentary 'Dangerous Knowledge', from around ten years ago, is one of the greatest and fascinating documentaries ever made imho.
In othewr news a senior GP has given a warning to Santa. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42464803 It’s suggested that he should "give the sherry a miss" and share some of Rudolph's carrots instead.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.
John Harris on Guardian has done more than anyone else on the Left to try and seek out and understand what is happening on the ground, especially in the 'left behind' areas. Outstanding work.
I see the thing about blue passports is falling apart amid dispute and acrimony. What a self-imposed blunder by Theresa, which was completely unnecessary. The woman really is tin eared and devoid of even rudimentary political judgement.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
I’ve certainly found interesting things in both the New Statesman and Prospect from time to time, but to actually buy them? St Margaret of Grantham might strike me down... I’ll have to check out Standpoint again.
PS @NickPalmer notwithstanding my differences with you over Europe, I wish you a very merry Christmas I know you did what you did because you believe it to be best for the nation. I will never agree but I recognise your motivation.
What will you be eating on Christmas Day? I presume you are a vegetarian who has had more than their share of nutroasts
As a veggie, I shall be tucking into Vbites Celebration meat-free roast dinner.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.
John Harris on Guardian has done more than anyone else on the Left to try and seek out and understand what is happening on the ground, especially in the 'left behind' areas. Outstanding work.
Yes - he approaches his subjects as people to be empathised with, not curiosities to snigger over at Islington dinner parties.....
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.
John Harris on Guardian has done more than anyone else on the Left to try and seek out and understand what is happening on the ground, especially in the 'left behind' areas. Outstanding work.
I've always thought that the left was behind but interesting to see that the Grauniad is up front about it and seeking understanding of the phenomenon.
Most people just don't care. The only thing that's aggravated me has been the propagation of nonsense by those claiming changing the colour is costing a fortune by people gullible enough to believe red dye costs half a billion pounds less than blue dye.
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
Nothing to do with EU membership? I disagree. I think it's very symbolic of our membership.
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
Most people just don't care. The only thing that's aggravated me has been the propagation of nonsense by those claiming changing the colour is costing a fortune by people gullible enough to believe red dye costs half a billion pounds less than blue dye.
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.
John Harris on Guardian has done more than anyone else on the Left to try and seek out and understand what is happening on the ground, especially in the 'left behind' areas. Outstanding work.
Yes - he approaches his subjects as people to be empathised with, not curiosities to snigger over at Islington dinner parties.....
I don't go to dinner parties in Islington. Do people really snigger about the less well off at them? I've never come across anyone, left or right, who I have heard doing so or who I can imagine doing so. If these people do exist, I am not sure why their opinions should have any bearing on mine.
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
No it's about proving statements within such a system - like asking whether N is a prime number or not. Godel shows that even with infinite computing resources there are some questions within any system that are true, but can never be proved.
This is true, but irrelevant. Because no statement about the real world is ever proven at all, in the mathematical sense. Instead we make theories based on empirical evidence.
Most people just don't care. The only thing that's aggravated me has been the propagation of nonsense by those claiming changing the colour is costing a fortune by people gullible enough to believe red dye costs half a billion pounds less than blue dye.
Maybe we should have a red, White and blue cover, with "Up Yours, Delors" embossed on it.
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
These are people who lost to a bus......
It's astonishing to think you were one of the most vocal pro-remainers on here during the referendum. The way you've oozed yourself amongst those now seen to be in the ascendancy is fascinating yet creepy to behold.
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
These are people who lost to a bus......
It's astonishing to think you were one of the most vocal pro-remainers on here during the referendum. The way you've oozed yourself amongst those now seen to be in the ascendancy is fascinating yet creepy to behold.
I was an 'on balance' Remainer - and as I've explained before, while I think leaving the EU is a bad idea, trying to 'get around' the referendum result is a very much worse idea.
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
Good question. I suppose the answer is that no-one thought it would need to be thought about.
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
These are people who lost to a bus......
It's astonishing to think you were one of the most vocal pro-remainers on here during the referendum. The way you've oozed yourself amongst those now seen to be in the ascendancy is fascinating yet creepy to behold.
I was an 'on balance' Remainer - and as I've explained before, while I think leaving the EU is a bad idea, trying to 'get around' the referendum result is a very much worse idea.
Just be honest - you sniff out where power lies and align yourself accordingly. If the Tory leadership decided to scrap the Union you'd be on here banging the drum for Scottish independence.
Comments
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
Self-mutilation now. Pauline redemption through eradication of ancestral sin at some unspecified point in the future.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
I think you forgot your sign off - ‘and i am a labour supporter/have voted Labour all my life etc...’
Just like the UK could have done for the last 30 years.
Then a year ago I was filling my car with petrol at the local Tesco's when a man, who I didn't know, approached me and said "I know there's a God". Well, I thought, what on earth is this all about? Apparently his wife had just been given the all clear from throat cancer a fortnight after the doctor's had told him there was nothing more they could do for her (it had returned after treatment) and all he could do was pray. He had never prayed before but he said they asked Jesus for a miracle. She felt her throat grow warm and at the subsequent check up there was no sign of the cancer. He wasn't after money or fame, just confused and thankful for what had happened to them and wanting to let others know what had happened.
I share these two tales because I personally experienced them. (I have others but this is a political website so I'll restrict those to my diaries/blog). I have no doubt that there is "there is someone watching" but appreciate that, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus time, some may need a sign to believe and even after that may not!
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
"Punish them God, Punish them God, Punish them God. Why don't you punish them God. I am a true believer and told the wicked unbelievers you would smite them with a recession, with tax rises, with pension cuts, with increased unemployment, with falling house prices, with a stock market crash and with crops going unharvested them in the fields. Its not fair God that you haven't punished the unbelieving Leavers"
The Lisbon Treaty was rightly rejected by "'t'economist": Now they cry a tear-of repentence and show respect for the folly that is Juncker (over a gin-filled dinner party in Islington...).
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
That many homosexuals and feminists have strong disagrrements with the trans community is a feature of this.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
Another way to nail the religious: ask them, if they completely lost their belief, would they then be entirely OK with robbing widows and orphans, coveting their neighbour's ass and other naughtiness. If the answer is Yes, you are a c**t; if the answer is No, then this religious flimflam isn't actually fundamental to morality, is it? and if the answer is That could never happen, so the question is meaningless, that is a surrender of the right to argue about it, because you are stipulating in advance that any evidence against you is inadmissible because it's against you.
In any event, I would imagine that the absence of something would commonly be impossible to prove. The presence of something is possible to prove, depending on the circumstances, but constructing the theory in the absence of any evidence whatsoever is delusion, as I said. That it is so is evidenced by the completely different theories that different civilisations have come up with in different places and times.
:facepalm:
While some Christian churches would claim that only Christians are in heaven, Jesus does not back that up. Indeed He expressed a very different view. While I wouldn't claim to firsthand knowledge, I cannot conceive a God who is a stickler for paperwork.
My advice would be to stick to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, and you should be fine, whether athiest, pagan, Christian or Buddhist.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson has said she was prevented from boarding a train after being told "there's no room for her".
She said in a tweet: "Merry Christmas to the person on the train who just stopped me getting on. Told member of staff 'there's no room for her’.”
Apparently the member of staff was ‘good’.
A brief respite from the pre-Christmas hullabaloo and before the afternoon's racing - in the pre-Mrs Stodge days I'd have been at Lingfield where Barry Dennis used to throw mince pies round the betting ring at the last AW fixture before Christmas. After being struck by one said object one year and no doubt in a state of concussion, I decided to have a tenner on a 7/2 shot on his pitch (4/1 elsewhere but the man had hit me with a mince pie!!). He was happy to take the tenner and apologised for the mince pie - less happy 10 minutes later when I relieved him of £45.
So, we're on the heavy stuff this afternoon...
Okay, I'll play.
I'm not sure - belief in God doesn't strike me as all that important. I suppose I've derived my moral code primarily from Christianity but there are messages in a number of other religions around love, tolerance, respect and a whole number of other positive values such as helping others and generally doing good. If you try to live to a code like that I don't think the faith is that important.
Perhaps living a good and positive life transcends one faith or indeed all faiths.
Only the first time. Anyway, why not enjoy life as a bacterium?
There is as much philosophical debate about the reality of re-incarnation within Buddhism as there is in Christianity about the existence of heaven.
As there is about the mechanisms, practicality, qualificatios required, etc, etc.
Similarly, most practitioners don't worry themselves overly about the details.
Yep - at uni I used to take the Economist and the NS, usually some decent reading in the more tedious lectures. Both have dropped off a quality cliff since though.
Delusion. Noun. What everyone else suffers from.
Please, talk us through Godel starting from the axioms.
You are trying to define a logical system, and then demanding that I prove God from it. That is a mathematical* nonsense.
*And everything in the real world depends on mathematics.
On the plus side, its artwork is great, and its coverage on emerging markets is very detailed.
In general, I don't have any time to read any of these papers, unfortunately.
What I do like is that they concentate on analysis rather than breaking news, and their special reports are very often interesting insights into areas that do not see the light of day in other publications. Their international coverage is very broad. I also like and often buy their book recommendations. The only other paper with such intellectual depth seems to be the Saturday FT, though The Guardian has its moments.
There is more than enough 'evidence' if you are prepared to open your eyes. As long as you choose not to, then nothing will change.
No it's about proving statements within such a system - like asking whether N is a prime number or not. Godel shows that even with infinite computing resources there are some questions within any system that are true, but can never be proved.
There are lots of 'wacky cults' in the world. Atheists believe what they want to. Lib Dems believe what they want to. Etc.
On some level, everyone thinks they are right and everyone else is deluded. Look at Remainer vs Leaver fights on here.
However the most powerful tool that anyone has, is to look up for a moment and think: "Am I wrong?" and consider a different point of view. Despite what you might think I do this for my beliefs as much as for anything else.
A sad end is accomming for 'tick-boxes' and "lack-standards" at t'Economist. Quality should override 'tokens'.
Does anyone know the square-root of "infinity"? By itself inifinity-squared is inifinty so what is observable?
PS @NickPalmer notwithstanding my differences with you over Europe, I wish you a very merry Christmas
What will you be eating on Christmas Day? I presume you are a vegetarian who has had more than their share of nutroasts
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/944469263661887488
Long time since I approached Calculas: A couple of points:
# -i is an imaginary-number,
# Approaching infinity is a measurement in Newtonian derivation, so
# How does something approach summinck un-achievable?
NOTE: Someone has tried to prove to me every integer can be divisble and reducable. It was over two years ago and I am still questioning the inverse.
It’s suggested that he should "give the sherry a miss" and share some of Rudolph's carrots instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj3_KqkI9Zo
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/23/existence-ufos-proved-beyond-reasonable-doubt-says-former-pentagon/
Most people just don't care. The only thing that's aggravated me has been the propagation of nonsense by those claiming changing the colour is costing a fortune by people gullible enough to believe red dye costs half a billion pounds less than blue dye.
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
The real passport news question is: why on earth does it cost around half-a-billion pounds just to redesign them?
See this thread: https://twitter.com/tinnypriv/status/944204807836983297
Thanks. Very helpful.
So the £500m is mostly the printing costs, which is paid for by us in fees anyway.