He listened to the Corbynite labelled an ‘Economic Commentator’ without interruption, then was not allowed to give his point of view without the other two talking over him. Her astonishment when he walked off says it all, she thinks she should be able to just give her opinion then not listen
The economic commentator has a first in PPE from Oxford; he should listen to her.
Frankly, PPE has a terrible reputation for churning out people with a shallow understanding of all three topics. Grace Blakely’s book made basic errors that showed she didn’t understand how the UK banking system worked. Possibly she’s corrected the worst of them, but the fact that it was published in that state at all speaks volumes.
One of PPE's many dirty secrets is that most undergraduates drop one of its three components after their first year - and the element most frequently dropped is the E!
So Harold Wilson really was quite exceptional.
How on earth does one combine philosophy and politics!
One of the better stores about that is that Chris Huhne, who had 'done" PPE went to start work as a journalist on a provincial paper and the editor 'misread' his degree as PE. consequently insisting he did press-ups.
He listened to the Corbynite labelled an ‘Economic Commentator’ without interruption, then was not allowed to give his point of view without the other two talking over him. Her astonishment when he walked off says it all, she thinks she should be able to just give her opinion then not listen
The economic commentator has a first in PPE from Oxford; he should listen to her.
Frankly, PPE has a terrible reputation for churning out people with a shallow understanding of all three topics. Grace Blakely’s book made basic errors that showed she didn’t understand how the UK banking system worked. Possibly she’s corrected the worst of them, but the fact that it was published in that state at all speaks volumes.
One of PPE's many dirty secrets is that most undergraduates drop one of its three components after their first year - and the element most frequently dropped is the E!
So Harold Wilson really was quite exceptional.
How on earth does one combine philosophy and politics!
One of the better stores about that is that Chris Huhne, who had 'done" PPE went to start work as a journalist on a provincial paper and the editor 'misread' his degree as PE. consequently insisting he did press-ups.
Chris Huhne had to be philosophical after his stint in politics.
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it adopted for self-preservation. And deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their reason. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support it.
OF all the anxiety treatments, the almighty is probably one of the most effective.
He listened to the Corbynite labelled an ‘Economic Commentator’ without interruption, then was not allowed to give his point of view without the other two talking over him. Her astonishment when he walked off says it all, she thinks she should be able to just give her opinion then not listen
Rentagobs will rentagob. Its up to the presenter to ensure both sides get their say.
Dale could have made that point forcefully to the muppets presenting the show.
He made it more forcefully and probably with more lasting effect on the conduct of other interviews by taking the action he did. TBH I wish more would walk out or cease interviews prematurely when they are simply not being given the space to get their point of view across, whether it be due to other guests or the interviewer repeatedly talking over them.
I imagine that, after more than 30 years as a political writer and journalist (and interviewer!), Dale knows where to draw the line - and having a shouty Corbynista on either side of him, not letting him speak more than two words, was a line crossed. Hopefully GMB will be more careful about who they bring on in the future, but I doubt it.
The worlds smallest violin plays for Iain Dale today. It must be so hard to be a sofa pundit.
He listened to the Corbynite labelled an ‘Economic Commentator’ without interruption, then was not allowed to give his point of view without the other two talking over him. Her astonishment when he walked off says it all, she thinks she should be able to just give her opinion then not listen
The economic commentator has a first in PPE from Oxford; he should listen to her.
Frankly, PPE has a terrible reputation for churning out people with a shallow understanding of all three topics. Grace Blakely’s book made basic errors that showed she didn’t understand how the UK banking system worked. Possibly she’s corrected the worst of them, but the fact that it was published in that state at all speaks volumes.
One of PPE's many dirty secrets is that most undergraduates drop one of its three components after their first year - and the element most frequently dropped is the E!
So Harold Wilson really was quite exceptional.
Indeed. He also took a congratulatory First, which are by their nature less subject to grade inflation.
On the other hand, like most politicians he suffered from the defects of his virtues, and the major failings of his periods in government all seem to relate to economic disasters!
Ok, I'm obviously missing something here and I'm bugge...damned if I'm googling it - I had to clear down my browser history the last time Dura Ace cited Afghan dancing. Where does the quote originate from?
Boris Johnson called gay men 'tank-topped bumboys' and black people 'piccaninnies' with 'watermelon smiles'
Boris writing those things in an article years ago = Very Bad.
His critics repeating them thousands of times at every opportunity = Very Good.
Apparently.
Why is the time span a factor? Is it because Boris was awful back then but is simply wonderful now?
Some senior labour people shilled for PIE in the 1970s, but it seems they are allowed a far more complete change of heart - gratis....
Not many, just HH as I recall.
Worth noting that at the time the age of consent for male gays was 21 years old, so that a significant percentage of those being prosecuted would now be perfectly legitimate relationships.
The Seventies were a time of sexual liberation that we seem to struggle with now. Groupies, DJs, John Peel's schoolgirl of the month, jokes about scout masters or choirboys all look a bit sordid now, but were seen in a different light then. We now seem to feel more liberated in some ways, but much more puritanical in others. Times change.
Fair points as long as Boris's comments are given the same context....
A lot depends on whether people have changed their views, certainly I have moved with the times.
A lot of what was seen decades ago as empowering sexual liberation, now seems really quite exploitative. I think this attitude change is part of the background to various scandals including well known celebrities, but also grooming gangs. Old movies show that these things were often in plain sight. Rita, Sue and Bob Too looks rather different now, perhaps especially Sue's relationship with an Asian taxi driver.
He listened to the Corbynite labelled an ‘Economic Commentator’ without interruption, then was not allowed to give his point of view without the other two talking over him. Her astonishment when he walked off says it all, she thinks she should be able to just give her opinion then not listen
The economic commentator has a first in PPE from Oxford; he should listen to her.
Frankly, PPE has a terrible reputation for churning out people with a shallow understanding of all three topics. Grace Blakely’s book made basic errors that showed she didn’t understand how the UK banking system worked. Possibly she’s corrected the worst of them, but the fact that it was published in that state at all speaks volumes.
One of PPE's many dirty secrets is that most undergraduates drop one of its three components after their first year - and the element most frequently dropped is the E!
So Harold Wilson really was quite exceptional.
How on earth does one combine philosophy and politics!
One of the better stores about that is that Chris Huhne, who had 'done" PPE went to start work as a journalist on a provincial paper and the editor 'misread' his degree as PE. consequently insisting he did press-ups.
Chris Huhne had to be philosophical after his stint in politics.
He listened to the Corbynite labelled an ‘Economic Commentator’ without interruption, then was not allowed to give his point of view without the other two talking over him. Her astonishment when he walked off says it all, she thinks she should be able to just give her opinion then not listen
The economic commentator has a first in PPE from Oxford; he should listen to her.
Frankly, PPE has a terrible reputation for churning out people with a shallow understanding of all three topics. Grace Blakely’s book made basic errors that showed she didn’t understand how the UK banking system worked. Possibly she’s corrected the worst of them, but the fact that it was published in that state at all speaks volumes.
One of PPE's many dirty secrets is that most undergraduates drop one of its three components after their first year - and the element most frequently dropped is the E!
So Harold Wilson really was quite exceptional.
How on earth does one combine philosophy and politics!
One of the better stores about that is that Chris Huhne, who had 'done" PPE went to start work as a journalist on a provincial paper and the editor 'misread' his degree as PE. consequently insisting he did press-ups.
Chris Huhne had to be philosophical after his stint in politics.
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
I believe in God, and am a Christian.
Faith requires no evidence. Experience is everything, but you do need to open your mind and heart to get that experience. It is there for everyone, but some never open that door.
When Labour politicians said we need to reflect on what went wrong at the GE, it appears they have concluded our policies weren't bonkers and unworkable enough, what we need is party membership votes on military action, etc.
OF all the anxiety treatments, the almighty is probably one of the most effective.
I would LOVE to believe and if I could, I surely would. But I need a sign. If I get one, I will pay attention. If the angel of the lord comes down and makes me any sort of offer, I'll bite his hand off.
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
I believe in God, and am a Christian.
Faith requires no evidence. Experience is everything, but you do need to open your mind and heart to get that experience. It is there for everyone, but some never open that door.
Indeed - and there are some people who are psychic and mediumistic - able to relate to consciousness beyond the physical dimension.
When Labour politicians said we need to reflect on what went wrong at the GE, it appears they have concluded our policies weren't bonkers and unworkable enough, what we need is party membership votes on military action, etc.
What happens when some Brits get kidnapped abroad, or a bunch of terrorists take hostages in an embassy building in the U.K.? Do we wait for the result of a three month ballot of Party members, before we send in the boys and girls from Hereford?
OF all the anxiety treatments, the almighty is probably one of the most effective.
I would LOVE to believe and if I could, I surely would. But I need a sign. If I get one, I will pay attention. If the angel of the lord comes down and makes me any sort of offer, I'll bite his hand off.
Ok, I'm obviously missing something here and I'm bugge...damned if I'm googling it - I had to clear down my browser history the last time Dura Ace cited Afghan dancing. Where does the quote originate from?
Boris Johnson called gay men 'tank-topped bumboys' and black people 'piccaninnies' with 'watermelon smiles'
Boris writing those things in an article years ago = Very Bad.
His critics repeating them thousands of times at every opportunity = Very Good.
Apparently.
Why is the time span a factor? Is it because Boris was awful back then but is simply wonderful now?
Some senior labour people shilled for PIE in the 1970s, but it seems they are allowed a far more complete change of heart - gratis....
Not many, just HH as I recall.
Worth noting that at the time the age of consent for male gays was 21 years old, so that a significant percentage of those being prosecuted would now be perfectly legitimate relationships.
The Seventies were a time of sexual liberation that we seem to struggle with now. Groupies, DJs, John Peel's schoolgirl of the month, jokes about scout masters or choirboys all look a bit sordid now, but were seen in a different light then. We now seem to feel more liberated in some ways, but much more puritanical in others. Times change.
Fair points as long as Boris's comments are given the same context....
A lot depends on whether people have changed their views, certainly I have moved with the times.
A lot of what was seen decades ago as empowering sexual liberation, now seems really quite exploitative. I think this attitude change is part of the background to various scandals including well known celebrities, but also grooming gangs. Old movies show that these things were often in plain sight. Rita, Sue and Bob Too looks rather different now, perhaps especially Sue's relationship with an Asian taxi driver.
Faith requires no evidence. Experience is everything, but you do need to open your mind and heart to get that experience. It is there for everyone, but some never open that door.
When Labour politicians said we need to reflect on what went wrong at the GE, it appears they have concluded our policies weren't bonkers and unworkable enough, what we need is party membership votes on military action, etc.
What happens when some Brits get kidnapped abroad, or a bunch of terrorists take hostages in an embassy building in the U.K.? Do we wait for the result of a three month ballot of Party members, before we send in the boys and girls from Hereford?
Burgon is so dense he even makes Uncle Thickie look like a genius.
I actually don't know what is worse somebody like McDonnell, who isn't a moron but a dangerous Marxist entryist, or somebody like RLB / Burgon who are as thick as mince and more Socialist than Marxist.
He listened to the Corbynite labelled an ‘Economic Commentator’ without interruption, then was not allowed to give his point of view without the other two talking over him. Her astonishment when he walked off says it all, she thinks she should be able to just give her opinion then not listen
The economic commentator has a first in PPE from Oxford; he should listen to her.
Frankly, PPE has a terrible reputation for churning out people with a shallow understanding of all three topics. Grace Blakely’s book made basic errors that showed she didn’t understand how the UK banking system worked. Possibly she’s corrected the worst of them, but the fact that it was published in that state at all speaks volumes.
One of PPE's many dirty secrets is that most undergraduates drop one of its three components after their first year - and the element most frequently dropped is the E!
So Harold Wilson really was quite exceptional.
How on earth does one combine philosophy and politics!
One of the better stores about that is that Chris Huhne, who had 'done" PPE went to start work as a journalist on a provincial paper and the editor 'misread' his degree as PE. consequently insisting he did press-ups.
Chris Huhne had to be philosophical after his stint in politics.
Chris Huhne had to be philosophical after his stint in prison.
Ok, I'm obviously missing something here and I'm bugge...damned if I'm googling it - I had to clear down my browser history the last time Dura Ace cited Afghan dancing. Where does the quote originate from?
Boris Johnson called gay men 'tank-topped bumboys' and black people 'piccaninnies' with 'watermelon smiles'
Boris writing those things in an article years ago = Very Bad.
His critics repeating them thousands of times at every opportunity = Very Good.
Apparently.
Why is the time span a factor? Is it because Boris was awful back then but is simply wonderful now?
Some senior labour people shilled for PIE in the 1970s, but it seems they are allowed a far more complete change of heart - gratis....
Not many, just HH as I recall.
Worth noting that at the time the age of consent for male gays was 21 years old, so that a significant percentage of those being prosecuted would now be perfectly legitimate relationships.
The Seventies were a time of sexual liberation that we seem to struggle with now. Groupies, DJs, John Peel's schoolgirl of the month, jokes about scout masters or choirboys all look a bit sordid now, but were seen in a different light then. We now seem to feel more liberated in some ways, but much more puritanical in others. Times change.
Fair points as long as Boris's comments are given the same context....
A lot depends on whether people have changed their views, certainly I have moved with the times.
A lot of what was seen decades ago as empowering sexual liberation, now seems really quite exploitative. I think this attitude change is part of the background to various scandals including well known celebrities, but also grooming gangs. Old movies show that these things were often in plain sight. Rita, Sue and Bob Too looks rather different now, perhaps especially Sue's relationship with an Asian taxi driver.
It's a good example of how society does not necessarily move in an ever more liberal direction. A lot of people really did think that sexual liberation, gay liberation, and paedophile liberation were one and the same cause, in the 1970's.
OF all the anxiety treatments, the almighty is probably one of the most effective.
I would LOVE to believe and if I could, I surely would. But I need a sign. If I get one, I will pay attention. If the angel of the lord comes down and makes me any sort of offer, I'll bite his hand off.
I used to believe. Struggled hard to square my beliefs with what I saw on a daily basis. Then decided I didn't 'believe' any more and everything fell into place.
Was the CBBC broom cupboard their 'closet'? ISTR having suspicions about Andy Crane and Andi Peters too..
I don't think it is right or fair to speculate about people's sexuality. Andy Crane is married with kids and Peters is very private about his life away from telly. That is all their own business.
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
Indeed, that's why I wanted to believe, for a long time. However, when I tried to get more into religion (i.e. actually read the bible) I just couldn't believe in it. So I had to face the reality (for me, if I rejected the idea of a God) that all around us the result of billions upon billions of random events. And I came to realise that is more awe-inspiring and wonderful (for me) than God. I look at my son or daughter, or at an animal, or a sunset, or the sea, or the clouds in the sky and think about all the chance events that had to happen make those things just as they are. That, for me, holds more wonder than the idea of a God ever could.
Some people believe in a God. My wife believes there is 'something'. That's fine. They may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm happy and reconciled with my God-free reality.
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
I believe in God, and am a Christian.
Faith requires no evidence. Experience is everything, but you do need to open your mind and heart to get that experience. It is there for everyone, but some never open that door.
"Unlike everything else in the world, on this big topic you should throw out the scrutiny required to adopt any other opinion, even though there are dozens of mutually exclusive religions out there. You should just do mine on a whim."
A vast amount of scientific research shows that humans can be all sorts of irrational when we make decisions on what feels good to us. The only check we have on this is to engage our cerebral cortex with tough scepticism and rigorous logic.
Was the CBBC broom cupboard their 'closet'? ISTR having suspicions about Andy Crane and Andi Peters too..
I don't think it is right or fair to speculate about people's sexuality. Andy Crane is married with kids and Peters is very private about his life away from telly. That is all their own business.
I think anyone who chooses to earn their living from being in the public eye ought to expect some interest in their private life.
As I watched the announcement I was wondering who would be first to say they knew all along on here
At midday it’s going to be Phil’s spit roast!
Without thinking too much about it, I'd actually assumed Schofied was gay all along until I saw some Hello style front page featuring Phil & his lovely wife/kids/home. I literally said to myself 'you never can tell, set aside your prejudices and don't make assumptions'.
Worth noting that at the time the age of consent for male gays was 21 years old, so that a significant percentage of those being prosecuted would now be perfectly legitimate relationships.
The Seventies were a time of sexual liberation that we seem to struggle with now. Groupies, DJs, John Peel's schoolgirl of the month, jokes about scout masters or choirboys all look a bit sordid now, but were seen in a different light then. We now seem to feel more liberated in some ways, but much more puritanical in others. Times change.
It's also why quite a few older women are somewhat dismissive of the MeToo agenda - they adapted to handle sex pests and feel that everyone else should be able to as well. A bit like Mrs T feeling that as she worked her way up, everyone can.
And I'm not sure that most older men (including me) would like everything they believed, did and said a few decades ago re-examined. Many of us have moved with the times and look back with some tinges of discomfort.
A thread on God, Oxford and Gordon the Gopher. How very PB.
All serious topics, apart from Oxford obviously. Its alumni don't 'alf like to talk about it.
Just for you, I'll point out that Balliol was getting quite worried that its record of having its alumni occupy Downing Street for 20% of the last century was in danger of slipping in the 21st.
Fortunately, Boris' landslide has brought the average back up to par in what one might almost call an effortlessly superior way...
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
FWIW Jo Swinson is a Humanist - a pretty vague belief system which has always struck me as odd - veneration of humanity being to my mind a less than optimally well founded idea because of humanity's absolute dependence upon a world it finds but did not create.
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
Was the CBBC broom cupboard their 'closet'? ISTR having suspicions about Andy Crane and Andi Peters too..
I don't think it is right or fair to speculate about people's sexuality. Andy Crane is married with kids and Peters is very private about his life away from telly. That is all their own business.
I think anyone who chooses to earn their living from being in the public eye ought to expect some interest in their private life.
And Schofield is married with kids.
Which clearly implies he is bisexual rather than gay!
Have any bookies declared a result in any of their Iowa markets?
Probably going to be best for everyone to declare a miss and forget that this week ever happened.
There will need to be a result, one imagines, unless Iowa does not send any delegates at all.
The delegates sent won't depend on the State delegates, it'll be 11 each for Sanders and Buttigieg, 5 for Warren and 2 for Biden iirc. The "winner" in terms of 0.05 or whatever of a SDE is inconsequential to that.
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
Indeed, that's why I wanted to believe, for a long time. However, when I tried to get more into religion (i.e. actually read the bible) I just couldn't believe in it. So I had to face the reality (for me, if I rejected the idea of a God) that all around us the result of billions upon billions of random events. And I came to realise that is more awe-inspiring and wonderful (for me) than God. I look at my son or daughter, or at an animal, or a sunset, or the sea, or the clouds in the sky and think about all the chance events that had to happen make those things just as they are. That, for me, holds more wonder than the idea of a God ever could.
Some people believe in a God. My wife believes there is 'something'. That's fine. They may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm happy and reconciled with my God-free reality.
I have no idea if there is a god and no idea how to find out a good answer. But one thing Ive never understood about the god portrayed by organised religion is why the god cares so much about whether we worship correctly. If the god is so powerful that they have created such a complex universe surely they have better things to spend their time on than whether inconsequential humans attend a particular building once a week, or drink alcohol, or even swear. Just maybe the god has a system in place to judge our behaviour but why would it be on such trivial things rather than how we have treated others generally.
Worth noting that at the time the age of consent for male gays was 21 years old, so that a significant percentage of those being prosecuted would now be perfectly legitimate relationships.
The Seventies were a time of sexual liberation that we seem to struggle with now. Groupies, DJs, John Peel's schoolgirl of the month, jokes about scout masters or choirboys all look a bit sordid now, but were seen in a different light then. We now seem to feel more liberated in some ways, but much more puritanical in others. Times change.
It's also why quite a few older women are somewhat dismissive of the MeToo agenda - they adapted to handle sex pests and feel that everyone else should be able to as well. A bit like Mrs T feeling that as she worked her way up, everyone can.
And I'm not sure that most older men (including me) would like everything they believed, did and said a few decades ago re-examined. Many of us have moved with the times and look back with some tinges of discomfort.
Margaret Thatcher was daft not to promote more women. Because what she could have done is moved an ultra-loyal Mrs. T woman into every Ministry to spy on the wets. She should have moved it big on to the agenda after 1987.
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
Indeed, that's why I wanted to believe, for a long time. However, when I tried to get more into religion (i.e. actually read the bible) I just couldn't believe in it. So I had to face the reality (for me, if I rejected the idea of a God) that all around us the result of billions upon billions of random events. And I came to realise that is more awe-inspiring and wonderful (for me) than God. I look at my son or daughter, or at an animal, or a sunset, or the sea, or the clouds in the sky and think about all the chance events that had to happen make those things just as they are. That, for me, holds more wonder than the idea of a God ever could.
Some people believe in a God. My wife believes there is 'something'. That's fine. They may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm happy and reconciled with my God-free reality.
I have no idea if there is a god and no idea how to find out a good answer. But one thing Ive never understood about the god portrayed by organised religion is why the god cares so much about whether we worship correctly. If the god is so powerful that they have created such a complex universe surely they have better things to spend their time on than whether inconsequential humans attend a particular building once a week, or drink alcohol, or even swear. Just maybe the god has a system in place to judge our behaviour but why would it be on such trivial things rather than how we have treated others generally.
You can be religious, believe in God, practice a faith and agree with this point.
Googled that - got Douglas Adams who I have never read. Maybe will one day but I don't think it's quite my bag.
On faith and belief in God, there is probably no appetite for this (and rightly not) but on the "rationality" point -
If a person has the depth of understanding and insight (into themselves and their own view of existence) to realize that the only way in which they can ward off a permanent and paralyzing state of existential ennui and terror is to adopt an irrational belief in God, then could it not be argued that the adoption of that irrational belief is in fact completely rational?
Wera Hobhouse will have my support. I think she's far and away the most impressive person on the rather reduced Lib Dem benches. I'm on the right of the party myself but I have no problem with the fact that the party's centre of gravity is on the centre-left as we're a broad organisation and we all exist happily together (unlike the other parties, I have to say). Also, with her being a former Conservative, she'll understand how to win the votes of moderate Conservatives that we need - a task that will be much easier in the seats that Labour can't win if that party picks a less scary leader.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
FWIW Jo Swinson is a Humanist - a pretty vague belief system which has always struck me as odd - veneration of humanity being to my mind a less than optimally well founded idea because of humanity's absolute dependence upon a world it finds but did not create.
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
Many people believe humanism to be code for less savoury beliefs.
Worth noting that at the time the age of consent for male gays was 21 years old, so that a significant percentage of those being prosecuted would now be perfectly legitimate relationships.
The Seventies were a time of sexual liberation that we seem to struggle with now. Groupies, DJs, John Peel's schoolgirl of the month, jokes about scout masters or choirboys all look a bit sordid now, but were seen in a different light then. We now seem to feel more liberated in some ways, but much more puritanical in others. Times change.
It's also why quite a few older women are somewhat dismissive of the MeToo agenda - they adapted to handle sex pests and feel that everyone else should be able to as well. A bit like Mrs T feeling that as she worked her way up, everyone can.
And I'm not sure that most older men (including me) would like everything they believed, did and said a few decades ago re-examined. Many of us have moved with the times and look back with some tinges of discomfort.
I think its that Spiked guy who argues Feminists frame today's women as simultaneously strong and independent and at the same time in need of more protection from predatory men and contrary opinions than ever before.
Have any bookies declared a result in any of their Iowa markets?
Probably going to be best for everyone to declare a miss and forget that this week ever happened.
There will need to be a result, one imagines, unless Iowa does not send any delegates at all.
The delegates sent won't depend on the State delegates, it'll be 11 each for Sanders and Buttigieg, 5 for Warren and 2 for Biden iirc. The "winner" in terms of 0.05 or whatever of a SDE is inconsequential to that.
Was the CBBC broom cupboard their 'closet'? ISTR having suspicions about Andy Crane and Andi Peters too..
I don't think it is right or fair to speculate about people's sexuality. Andy Crane is married with kids and Peters is very private about his life away from telly. That is all their own business.
I think anyone who chooses to earn their living from being in the public eye ought to expect some interest in their private life.
And Schofield is married with kids.
And Schofield (so, I know, not Crane or Peters) publicly speculated on whether McAlpine and Whittingdale were paedophiles.
Have any bookies declared a result in any of their Iowa markets?
Probably going to be best for everyone to declare a miss and forget that this week ever happened.
There will need to be a result, one imagines, unless Iowa does not send any delegates at all.
Since its not winner takes all and it'll be [from memory] 11 delegates each either way, no there doesn't need to be oddly enough.
That’s a good point, so they could award the delegates without actually having to declare an official result?
What an absolute clusterf*** from the Iowa Democrats though, not a good look when you want to run the country but can’t even organise a survey of your own membership!
Have any bookies declared a result in any of their Iowa markets?
Probably going to be best for everyone to declare a miss and forget that this week ever happened.
There will need to be a result, one imagines, unless Iowa does not send any delegates at all.
The delegates sent won't depend on the State delegates, it'll be 11 each for Sanders and Buttigieg, 5 for Warren and 2 for Biden iirc. The "winner" in terms of 0.05 or whatever of a SDE is inconsequential to that.
I want my money
Will they pay out on this market before alien life is found?
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
I think you're right about the existential void aspect - finding comfort in something whether it is rational or not. I don't share that, but nor do I begrudge them it. I certainly don't buy the hateful nonsense spouted by people who do begrudge it, which tends to ignore the fact that ideologies not involving a God have proven at least as bigoted and destructive.
There's another aspect to it though. Believing in a religious text is irrational. Believing with absolute certainty that there is no Something is also irrational (and no, Occam's Razor doesn't help here). Pseudo-intellectual arguments quickly descend into the kind of "What came before the Big Bang?" - "There was no before the Big Bang because time didn't exist!" rubbish between two groups of people who don't know what they're talking about, but one of whom borrows some scientific jargon to pretend that they do. However some of my scientific colleagues are religious, and I don't find that hard to understand. Any person who is capable of using reason - any child who has decided to annoy their parents by answering each successive statement with the question "Why?" - is capable of understanding that there must be at least one thing that cannot ever be explained using reason. (That something could be a fundamental law of physics, or a set of possible fundamental laws acting in the multiverse, for example, but most likely it's neither of those things.)
Granting that thing a personality and moral authority seems like a huge stretch to me. However, it's no worse than the opposite fault, and it tends to be less associated with a false sense of intellectual superiority.
Worth noting that at the time the age of consent for male gays was 21 years old, so that a significant percentage of those being prosecuted would now be perfectly legitimate relationships.
The Seventies were a time of sexual liberation that we seem to struggle with now. Groupies, DJs, John Peel's schoolgirl of the month, jokes about scout masters or choirboys all look a bit sordid now, but were seen in a different light then. We now seem to feel more liberated in some ways, but much more puritanical in others. Times change.
It's also why quite a few older women are somewhat dismissive of the MeToo agenda - they adapted to handle sex pests and feel that everyone else should be able to as well. A bit like Mrs T feeling that as she worked her way up, everyone can.
And I'm not sure that most older men (including me) would like everything they believed, did and said a few decades ago re-examined. Many of us have moved with the times and look back with some tinges of discomfort.
I simply remember being gay at 16 and was not above pestering older guys at the time. The age of consent is really difficult - of course there must be a line but we should also recognise it's arbitrary. Arguably there has been a push back since the permissive days of the 60s and 70s. Possibly we were wrong in those days but moral relativism is not an easy topic to wretle with and don't get me started on the 'wisdom of today' trumping all the has gone before crap...
As I watched the announcement I was wondering who would be first to say they knew all along on here
At midday it’s going to be Phil’s spit roast!
Without thinking too much about it, I'd actually assumed Schofied was gay all along until I saw some Hello style front page featuring Phil & his lovely wife/kids/home. I literally said to myself 'you never can tell, set aside your prejudices and don't make assumptions'.
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
Indeed, that's why I wanted to believe, for a long time. However, when I tried to get more into religion (i.e. actually read the bible) I just couldn't believe in it. So I had to face the reality (for me, if I rejected the idea of a God) that all around us the result of billions upon billions of random events. And I came to realise that is more awe-inspiring and wonderful (for me) than God. I look at my son or daughter, or at an animal, or a sunset, or the sea, or the clouds in the sky and think about all the chance events that had to happen make those things just as they are. That, for me, holds more wonder than the idea of a God ever could.
Some people believe in a God. My wife believes there is 'something'. That's fine. They may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm happy and reconciled with my God-free reality.
I have no idea if there is a god and no idea how to find out a good answer. But one thing Ive never understood about the god portrayed by organised religion is why the god cares so much about whether we worship correctly. If the god is so powerful that they have created such a complex universe surely they have better things to spend their time on than whether inconsequential humans attend a particular building once a week, or drink alcohol, or even swear. Just maybe the god has a system in place to judge our behaviour but why would it be on such trivial things rather than how we have treated others generally.
You can be religious, believe in God, practice a faith and agree with this point.
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
Have any bookies declared a result in any of their Iowa markets?
Probably going to be best for everyone to declare a miss and forget that this week ever happened.
There will need to be a result, one imagines, unless Iowa does not send any delegates at all.
The delegates sent won't depend on the State delegates, it'll be 11 each for Sanders and Buttigieg, 5 for Warren and 2 for Biden iirc. The "winner" in terms of 0.05 or whatever of a SDE is inconsequential to that.
I want my money
Will they pay on this market before alien life is found?
I don't think they should settle before a recanvas personally.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
FWIW Jo Swinson is a Humanist - a pretty vague belief system which has always struck me as odd - veneration of humanity being to my mind a less than optimally well founded idea because of humanity's absolute dependence upon a world it finds but did not create.
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
Many people believe humanism to be code for less savoury beliefs.
All -isms can be coded forms of bad stuff. It's not fair to attach that thought to Jo Swinson, or to anyone else, without reason.
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
You can be religious, believe in God, practice a faith and agree with this point.
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
-------------------------
100% of people are agnostic about important things. To have faith (or not) is exactly to acknowledge that there are important areas where knowledge or certainty elude us. That's what agnosticism is. Those who don't care for correct minded officialdom (including me) are not excluded by them from these issues. You can only exclude yourself.
Without thinking too much about it, I'd actually assumed Schofied was gay all along until I saw some Hello style front page featuring Phil & his lovely wife/kids/home. I literally said to myself 'you never can tell, set aside your prejudices and don't make assumptions'.
Right, OK, my Phillip Schofield position - I did not know he was gay, or particularly suspect that he might be, so it's a piece of genuine news to me today that he is.
As I watched the announcement I was wondering who would be first to say they knew all along on here
At midday it’s going to be Phil’s spit roast!
Without thinking too much about it, I'd actually assumed Schofied was gay all along until I saw some Hello style front page featuring Phil & his lovely wife/kids/home. I literally said to myself 'you never can tell, set aside your prejudices and don't make assumptions'.
Wondering if the Derek Mackay imbroglio could cause some significant collateral damage in SNP ranks. It seems he was banned from drinking at SNP conferences (of which he was convener) and other people are coming out of the woodwork. Who knew what and when? Scottish media is rather reduced these days so scope for investigatory activity limited but, who knows what a few well judged questions may elicit.
Without thinking too much about it, I'd actually assumed Schofied was gay all along until I saw some Hello style front page featuring Phil & his lovely wife/kids/home. I literally said to myself 'you never can tell, set aside your prejudices and don't make assumptions'.
Right, OK, my Phillip Schofield position - I did not know he was gay, or particularly suspect that he might be, so it's a piece of genuine news to me today that he is.
Googled that - got Douglas Adams who I have never read. Maybe will one day but I don't think it's quite my bag.
On faith and belief in God, there is probably no appetite for this (and rightly not) but on the "rationality" point -
If a person has the depth of understanding and insight (into themselves and their own view of existence) to realize that the only way in which they can ward off a permanent and paralyzing state of existential ennui and terror is to adopt an irrational belief in God, then could it not be argued that the adoption of that irrational belief is in fact completely rational?
Well for someone who doesn't think Douglas Adams is his cup of tea your last paragraph could have been written by him!
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is superb, but is somewhat dated now.
The proof God does not exist is from the first book in the 5 book trilogy:
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
Farron was clearly conflicted over LGBT rights and his voting record on the topic was somewhat erratic, although he seems to have voted more in favour than against.
It isn't inherently illiberal to disapprove of something. The issue comes when you prevent other people doing what they might reasonably want to do.
The Iowa Caucus is a brilliant role model for the Labour Party to employ with its leadership elections. Launch an app (anyone who has been in the party will know how egregiously shit Labour IT is) for voting purposes.
Have everyone vote. Declare RLB and the Burgon winners. Accuse anyone complaining of being Tories.
They will have to do *something*. Having battled successfully to take control of the Labour Party they aren't going to let go because of what the membership thinks. The membership should think what they are told to think - its not like its a democracy. They've rigged so many recent selections they'll rig this one too.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
FWIW Jo Swinson is a Humanist - a pretty vague belief system which has always struck me as odd - veneration of humanity being to my mind a less than optimally well founded idea because of humanity's absolute dependence upon a world it finds but did not create.
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
This is a world we live on but did not create, but what do you expect us to do? Worship cosmic forces? Create a new world to go live on?
I have no idea if there is a god and no idea how to find out a good answer. But one thing Ive never understood about the god portrayed by organised religion is why the god cares so much about whether we worship correctly. If the god is so powerful that they have created such a complex universe surely they have better things to spend their time on than whether inconsequential humans attend a particular building once a week, or drink alcohol, or even swear. Just maybe the god has a system in place to judge our behaviour but why would it be on such trivial things rather than how we have treated others generally.
Of course. But the religious people I know don't think those things are especially important either. If they do care about a ritual, it's usually because they think it serves a useful function, e.g. keeping a community active. There'll always be individuals who love getting bogged down in these things, especially when they delineate boundaries between different communities, but they're very much in the minority.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
FWIW Jo Swinson is a Humanist - a pretty vague belief system which has always struck me as odd - veneration of humanity being to my mind a less than optimally well founded idea because of humanity's absolute dependence upon a world it finds but did not create.
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
This is a world we live on but did not create, but what do you expect us to do? Worship cosmic forces? Create a new world to go live on?
That seems an odd complaint.
Bit of a stumper that one. I have no idea what to do if I find out that I didn't create the universe, that humans are unworthy of veneration because they do such bad things and that I have an impulse towards worship and thanksgiving. The question you raise is entirely novel and has never been thought about before. Perhaps you should write a book about it.
Trump is conflicted because his xenophobia and paranoia make him hate China, but his love of dictatorship and human rights abuses make him like Xi a lot.
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Good point. In a meeting with colleagues. One straight, one gay. The straight colleague is a little effete, the gay colleague has no stereotype characteristics. When a 3rd person presumed the straight person to be gay (and it took him a while before it dawned on him the reference was to him and not the gay colleague), the gay colleague was in fits of laughter.
Shame that we only have 11 years left on the planet... Just as the first wave of non ideologicaly lobotomised graduates step forward into real world, the whole thing will be on fire/underwater. https://t.co/fKDZYpzh1d
Am I the only one who’s surprised to hear that Philip Schofield being gay is news today, rather than 30 years ago?
No. There appear to be vast swathes of straight white men who are sure that the slightest hint of campness, or merest hint of effeteness, means that someone is gay and always has been. Obvious, innit.
Do you know, I kind of give up. I had no idea whether he was straight, gay or bi and to be honest I hadn't thought about it. There is the whole assume-straight-until-proven-otherwise heuristic but so many people have come out as non-straight that these days I just don't bother guessing.
Well for someone who doesn't think Douglas Adams is his cup of tea your last paragraph could have been written by him!
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is superb, but is somewhat dated now.
The proof God does not exist is from the first book in the 5 book trilogy:
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
There you go. A mind as tortured and tortuous as mine. Exactly why I would be ill advised to go anywhere near his stuff.
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
Farron was clearly conflicted over LGBT rights and his voting record on the topic was somewhat erratic, although he seems to have voted more in favour than against.
It isn't inherently illiberal to disapprove of something. The issue comes when you prevent other people doing what they might reasonably want to do.
Lots of ethical issues are exactly on that boundary and there is a complex political issue between what should be permitted, what should be approved and what should be unlawful.
Farron's error, and he is not alone, is thinking that being a liberal must equal appearing to have a particular detailed package of personal beliefs. It is about defending freedom of belief and expression because without such freedom I cannot be taught from the opinions of another that I may be wrong.
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
As an agnostic who is open to religions, I'd point out that the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions have a positive attitude to other religions, even though those other religions have entirely different worship practices.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Just reading her Wikipedia entry, it says she's a Christian. Hopefully she doesn't have the same problems as Tim Farron.
It was surely people that had a problem with Tim Farron.
FWIW Jo Swinson is a Humanist - a pretty vague belief system which has always struck me as odd - veneration of humanity being to my mind a less than optimally well founded idea because of humanity's absolute dependence upon a world it finds but did not create.
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
Many people believe humanism to be code for less savoury beliefs.
Do they? Who? and what?
"Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively. ... Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. It views humans as solely responsible for the promotion and development of individuals and emphasizes a concern for man in relation to the world.["
And yet billions of people worldwide and throughout recorded history believe in a God of some description.
Indeed so. It's intriguing.
I do not believe in God. Furthermore, I cannot understand how anybody of high intelligence can possibly do so. And yet there are plenty of people who are extremely intelligent who DO believe in God. So there you go.
FWIW, with the very bright believers, I sense it is because without the belief they fear (perhaps rightly) that they would tumble mentally into a nauseating existential void whereby all is meaningless. The belief in God is needed to ward this horror off. And the belief is strong because it is adopted for self-preservation. Deep down they know this but their fear is stronger than their rationality. Indeed it is strong enough to construct some quite sophisticated philosophical reasoning to support the (non rational) belief that allays it.
Some people believe in a God. My wife believes there is 'something'. That's fine. They may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm happy and reconciled with my God-free reality.
I have no idea if there is a god and no idea how to find out a good answer. But one thing Ive never understood about the god portrayed by organised religion is why the god cares so much about whether we worship correctly. If the god is so powerful that they have created such a complex universe surely they have better things to spend their time on than whether inconsequential humans attend a particular building once a week, or drink alcohol, or even swear. Just maybe the god has a system in place to judge our behaviour but why would it be on such trivial things rather than how we have treated others generally.
You can be religious, believe in God, practice a faith and agree with this point.
Absolutely but the vast majority of officialdom from organised religions worldwide still place correct worship as a central part of their religion. If they were more relaxed on that some of us agnostics might be far more open to the religions.
In practice, when religions stop taking themselves seriously, it makes it even easier for everyone else to do so too.
Comments
One of the better stores about that is that Chris Huhne, who had 'done" PPE went to start work as a journalist on a provincial paper and the editor 'misread' his degree as PE. consequently insisting he did press-ups.
The worlds smallest violin plays for Iain Dale today. It must be so hard to be a sofa pundit.
On the other hand, like most politicians he suffered from the defects of his virtues, and the major failings of his periods in government all seem to relate to economic disasters!
A lot of what was seen decades ago as empowering sexual liberation, now seems really quite exploitative. I think this attitude change is part of the background to various scandals including well known celebrities, but also grooming gangs. Old movies show that these things were often in plain sight. Rita, Sue and Bob Too looks rather different now, perhaps especially Sue's relationship with an Asian taxi driver.
https://youtu.be/g8Ebm541gSk
Faith requires no evidence. Experience is everything, but you do need to open your mind and heart to get that experience. It is there for everyone, but some never open that door.
PS Philip Thompson - You are doing it again. Another bunch of posts I agree with. It has got to stop.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/feb/07/rebecca-long-bailey-labour-leadership-workers-rights-phones
Looks like she struggling somewhat.
I actually don't know what is worse somebody like McDonnell, who isn't a moron but a dangerous Marxist entryist, or somebody like RLB / Burgon who are as thick as mince and more Socialist than Marxist.
Some people believe in a God. My wife believes there is 'something'. That's fine. They may be right, I may be wrong, but I'm happy and reconciled with my God-free reality.
A vast amount of scientific research shows that humans can be all sorts of irrational when we make decisions on what feels good to us. The only check we have on this is to engage our cerebral cortex with tough scepticism and rigorous logic.
https://www.albany.edu/faculty/miesing/teaching/assess/hell.html
https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/1225562507949068289
CNN is the only media organization that will declare Buttigieg the winner.
And that concludes the fiasco.
All serious topics, apart from Oxford obviously. Its alumni don't 'alf like to talk about it.
Half your recent posts have been insulting me or what I post or tweet, if you don't like the ripostes don't dish it out in the first place
And Schofield is married with kids.
Probably going to be best for everyone to declare a miss and forget that this week ever happened.
And I'm not sure that most older men (including me) would like everything they believed, did and said a few decades ago re-examined. Many of us have moved with the times and look back with some tinges of discomfort.
Fortunately, Boris' landslide has brought the average back up to par in what one might almost call an effortlessly superior way...
But I still think she is a very good person, has a lot to contribute, and notice that she has (rightly) not come under attack because of a belief/values system some would regard as exotic and weird.
The "winner" in terms of 0.05 or whatever of a SDE is inconsequential to that.
On faith and belief in God, there is probably no appetite for this (and rightly not) but on the "rationality" point -
If a person has the depth of understanding and insight (into themselves and their own view of existence) to realize that the only way in which they can ward off a permanent and paralyzing state of existential ennui and terror is to adopt an irrational belief in God, then could it not be argued that the adoption of that irrational belief is in fact completely rational?
Wera Hobhouse will have my support. I think she's far and away the most impressive person on the rather reduced Lib Dem benches. I'm on the right of the party myself but I have no problem with the fact that the party's centre of gravity is on the centre-left as we're a broad organisation and we all exist happily together (unlike the other parties, I have to say). Also, with her being a former Conservative, she'll understand how to win the votes of moderate Conservatives that we need - a task that will be much easier in the seats that Labour can't win if that party picks a less scary leader.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1225728756456808448?s=20
What an absolute clusterf*** from the Iowa Democrats though, not a good look when you want to run the country but can’t even organise a survey of your own membership!
First pref
Final pref
State delegate Equivalents
Pledged delegates.
There's another aspect to it though. Believing in a religious text is irrational. Believing with absolute certainty that there is no Something is also irrational (and no, Occam's Razor doesn't help here). Pseudo-intellectual arguments quickly descend into the kind of "What came before the Big Bang?" - "There was no before the Big Bang because time didn't exist!" rubbish between two groups of people who don't know what they're talking about, but one of whom borrows some scientific jargon to pretend that they do. However some of my scientific colleagues are religious, and I don't find that hard to understand. Any person who is capable of using reason - any child who has decided to annoy their parents by answering each successive statement with the question "Why?" - is capable of understanding that there must be at least one thing that cannot ever be explained using reason. (That something could be a fundamental law of physics, or a set of possible fundamental laws acting in the multiverse, for example, but most likely it's neither of those things.)
Granting that thing a personality and moral authority seems like a huge stretch to me. However, it's no worse than the opposite fault, and it tends to be less associated with a false sense of intellectual superiority.
My Lady Gadar is rubbish.
Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is superb, but is somewhat dated now.
The proof God does not exist is from the first book in the 5 book trilogy:
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
It isn't inherently illiberal to disapprove of something. The issue comes when you prevent other people doing what they might reasonably want to do.
Have everyone vote. Declare RLB and the Burgon winners. Accuse anyone complaining of being Tories.
They will have to do *something*. Having battled successfully to take control of the Labour Party they aren't going to let go because of what the membership thinks. The membership should think what they are told to think - its not like its a democracy. They've rigged so many recent selections they'll rig this one too.
That seems an odd complaint.
Farron's error, and he is not alone, is thinking that being a liberal must equal appearing to have a particular detailed package of personal beliefs. It is about defending freedom of belief and expression because without such freedom I cannot be taught from the opinions of another that I may be wrong.
It's true that the hierarchy in any large organisation will often emphasise what makes them distinctive from other organisations who have a lot in common. Religious organisations tend to do that more respectfully than, for example, Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru
Who?
and what?
"Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively. ... Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. It views humans as solely responsible for the promotion and development of individuals and emphasizes a concern for man in relation to the world.["