Specially for TSE, here is the best Suez container ship story to date, care of the New York Post:
"As the operation to free the leviathan reaches a climax, a ship bearing about 20 containers of dildos, vibrators and male masturbators may finally continue its voyage and get the adult toys into the eager hands of frustrated customers, the UK’s Metro reported.
"EDC Retail — a Dutch company that runs the biggest online sex toys shop in the Netherlands and Belgium — predicts it is losing millions because it has been unable to replenish its stocks after huge sales during the coronavirus lockdown and Valentine’s Day, according to the outlet."
Hmm, didn't know the NYP had a British tabloid line in double entendres!
I does create a gap in the market for our humble flint knapper, though. If he's able to navigate the EU import bureaucracy.
The police know no such thing. Very little of this stuff ever comes before the police. This has come out because girls have been speaking up about what has happened to them in schools - both state and private - and how this has been largely ignored, glossed over, described as banter etc.
Clearly all those "respecting women" classes that people on here assured me were happening when I raised this issue in the wake of the Everard case have not worked out as hoped.
The point is rather that the police have been forced to acknowledge it (as we've seen on previous occasions in other contexts), surely ?
Yes - the cynic in me says that they will do the same half-arsed investigations into these as they do with many of the others.
The police know no such thing. Very little of this stuff ever comes before the police. This has come out because girls have been speaking up about what has happened to them in schools - both state and private - and how this has been largely ignored, glossed over, described as banter etc.
Clearly all those "respecting women" classes that people on here assured me were happening when I raised this issue in the wake of the Everard case have not worked out as hoped.
The classes is question rather remind me of the numerous multiple choice "courses" you get to sit through in finance......
"Someone comes up to you and suggested committing financial crime."
Do you
1) Enthusiastically commit the crime 2) Suggest he talks to Dave as well, since Dave is always up for a bit of fraud 3) Call compliance.
😀
I tended to meet those who thought 1 and 2 were correct, sometimes even after doing 3.
Do you get a chance to see what they wrote in their exams?
On a serious note - given my observations of children, they will rapidly adapt to score 100% on their Respec' The Ladies courses/tests.
And I am quite sure that Constable Savage gets 100% on his Racial Sensitivity Training courses. Probably arrests people at BLM protests for being in possession of Black Coffee, now...
Yes. But by then it was far too late. The UK's biggest fraudster, for instance, failed his Ethics course and his Derivatives exam. Not that it stopped anyone giving him the job of course. The idiot managers and idiot HR people also got to be interviewed by me.
These courses, especially the online ones, are easy to game.
Someone *failed* an ethics exam. Why wasn't this written in the sky with search lights? How? WTF?
Did he really answer the questions honestly?
Falling the derivatives exam is all too likely. Did he think that risk didn't move with underlying interest rates, by any chance?
Oh there's much worse than this I promise you! Why wasn't it in searchlights? Because people collected information, ticked the boxes but never bothered to read it or understand it or act on it. Once the box was ticked the job was done - or so people thought.
The only person who ever read this stuff - and the CVs - and the lies contained in them - and the appraisals and the lies contained in them - and the emails and chats etc was me - and when people like me are reading this stuff you already have a problem.
I would really like to see the ethics exam in question.
That’s not too bad at all. In fact, really quite good for a Monday (Sunday)?
I was worried our vax numbers would plunge as we head into April. Let’s hope they keep this up. If we can average half a million a day that would be dandy
Better than the last 2 weeks. They are clearly messaging now that April is almost entirely about 2nd doses. Those of us in our 40s are out of luck for the time being I think.
Luckily for the French their pharma firms failed to come up with a covid vaccine. You'd think if Macron and the government are saying AZ is useless it should be enough to convince people the opposite is true.
The police know no such thing. Very little of this stuff ever comes before the police. This has come out because girls have been speaking up about what has happened to them in schools - both state and private - and how this has been largely ignored, glossed over, described as banter etc.
Clearly all those "respecting women" classes that people on here assured me were happening when I raised this issue in the wake of the Everard case have not worked out as hoped.
In fact that was an all-time legendary PB thread.
You did your potent header (on misogyny) and within one hour the main point of discussion BTL was on the best pickup techniques and how many "notches on the belt" people had.
I found the number of older men recognised (as I interpreted it) that they had been abused, or borderline abused (depending on the definition, which is on wheels), to be the most interesting part of that conversation.
Still ruminating on whether the whole thing needs a response from a different viewpoint.
The police know no such thing. Very little of this stuff ever comes before the police. This has come out because girls have been speaking up about what has happened to them in schools - both state and private - and how this has been largely ignored, glossed over, described as banter etc.
Clearly all those "respecting women" classes that people on here assured me were happening when I raised this issue in the wake of the Everard case have not worked out as hoped.
In fact that was an all-time legendary PB thread.
You did your potent header (on misogyny) and within one hour the main point of discussion BTL was on the best pickup techniques and how many "notches on the belt" people had.
Yes I remember. It ended with @Leon boasting about his friend's conquest of a gazillion call girls.
Still I can retire now, having created an "all-time legendary PB thread". I mean, what is left...?
Luckily for the French their pharma firms failed to come up with a covid vaccine. You'd think if Macron and the government are saying AZ is useless it should be enough to convince people the opposite is true.
Aren't we making a French COVID vaccine? Due in a few months
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
+1 - sorry we aren't signing a contract until we are 10,000% confident we can meet your delivery dates...
I would ask for the entire order price, plus a penalty amount to be placed in escrow, up front. Probably in Switzerland.
Given that the EU are trying to pay the lowest price possible and then only on delivery I really would be operating on the basis that any other customer would be better than the EU..
Specially for TSE, here is the best Suez container ship story to date, care of the New York Post:
"As the operation to free the leviathan reaches a climax, a ship bearing about 20 containers of dildos, vibrators and male masturbators may finally continue its voyage and get the adult toys into the eager hands of frustrated customers, the UK’s Metro reported.
"EDC Retail — a Dutch company that runs the biggest online sex toys shop in the Netherlands and Belgium — predicts it is losing millions because it has been unable to replenish its stocks after huge sales during the coronavirus lockdown and Valentine’s Day, according to the outlet."
Hmm, didn't know the NYP had a British tabloid line in double entendres!
I can sympathise. I was at one time seriously wondering if I would have to make provision in my will for my tortoise (had since I was 4). In the event, he predeceased me, but ...
One wonders if they should be given extra allowance for hibernation, too (like dog years vs humans, only in the other direction).
Someone really should do this. The only problem is that the (large) profits are 150 years distant. And the outlay on tortoises happens now.
Imagine if you had a tortoise for sale today which, as a young tortoise, was placed just to the left of Lenin in this famous photo?
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I'd say that was the situation pre 2015 and we show every sign of returning to it. I certainly self-censor myself these days. I carry out no end of contortions - some of them quite taxing and painful - to avoid the "S" word.
Lol - I take it I've made my point. Now imagine that every time you failed to self-censor those offensive words and concepts - a casual reference to the need to nationalize Eton, for example - an angry mob turned up outside your door and you were lucky to get away with a grovelling apology for your wrongthink.
It's very easy to sneer at absolute principles when you don't think the unpleasant consequences of their being compromised will happen to you.
It's similar to the discussion on racism the other day. Universal concepts are great but in the real world need to be flexed and tempered for best understanding and results. If I was doing a philosophy exam paper, I'd probably roll out a lot of this "first principles" stuff that you are attracted to (when it suits you), I can do it, but it just feels like a waste of time. Maybe I'm getting old.
More likely you can sense that the foundations of so much of the postmodern moral edifice you've invested yourself in are so rotten that you'd rather not inspect them for fear of what you might find...
If you refer to Woke, absolutely not. The more I go into it, and in particular clock the shallowness and special pleading of the objections, the more I buy in, both intellectually and emotionally. I am not a Woke person, far from it. I'm a Yorkshireman of late middle age, with all that that entails. But the movement, I am four square behind. It's a reckoning with two of the forces that have moulded the western world - white supremacy racism and misogyny. They've had their own way for a long time. Time to reappraise and reset. It's bound to be a rocky ride.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I'd say that was the situation pre 2015 and we show every sign of returning to it. I certainly self-censor myself these days. I carry out no end of contortions - some of them quite taxing and painful - to avoid the "S" word.
Lol - I take it I've made my point. Now imagine that every time you failed to self-censor those offensive words and concepts - a casual reference to the need to nationalize Eton, for example - an angry mob turned up outside your door and you were lucky to get away with a grovelling apology for your wrongthink.
It's very easy to sneer at absolute principles when you don't think the unpleasant consequences of their being compromised will happen to you.
It's similar to the discussion on racism the other day. Universal concepts are great but in the real world need to be flexed and tempered for best understanding and results. If I was doing a philosophy exam paper, I'd probably roll out a lot of this "first principles" stuff that you are attracted to (when it suits you), I can do it, but it just feels like a waste of time. Maybe I'm getting old.
More likely you can sense that the foundations of so much of the postmodern moral edifice you've invested yourself in are so rotten that you'd rather not inspect them for fear of what you might find...
If you refer to Woke, absolutely not. The more I go into it, and in particular clock the shallowness and special pleading of the objections, the more I buy in, both intellectually and emotionally. I am not a Woke person, far from it. I'm a Yorkshireman of late middle age, with all that that entails. But the movement, I am four square behind. It's a reckoning with two of the forces that have moulded the western world - white supremacy racism and misogyny. They've had their own way for a long time. Time to reappraise and reset. It's bound to be a rocky ride.
People who have their life-long world view horribly challenged, as is clearly happening to you (“OMG maybe wokeness can be bad after all?!”) often react, at first, by investing even more in their faith-system, as it simultaneously totters. It’s a known phenomenon in cult members when they initially experience doubts.
The vast majority of those being challenged to their core, and reacting by clinging ever tighter to old shibboleths, are people like you.
Awww. Bless. If it’s any help I actually feel slightly sorry for you. I’m kind like that
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Spot on. Always found it amusing how performative atheists think believing the Universe spontaneously popped in to existance from a prior zero dimensional nothingness beyond comprehension is any less insane than the idea of a Deity creating it - they're equally bonkers, there is no common sense option available.
They're not equally bonkers.
The idea that the Universe was created by a specific deity mankind has invented is equivalent to the belief that the sun rotates around the earth pushed by a scarab beetle.
As for the origins of the Universe the correct scientific thing to do is to postulate theories and look for evidence and to acknowledge what we don't know or understand yet, not to insert in a deity invented by people thousands of years ago to explain the unknown.
But there's no 'yet' to it. If you don't see that science can't possibly give a complete final answer to that question, you haven't yet understood the question. It's perfectly reasonable to think a specific deity is laughable, or that a diety in general is an unnecessary middle step, but there's no getting away from existance itself being utterly fucking crazy.
Even if you never get a complete and final answer the myths humanity invented thousands of years ago are not an equivalent answer.
It's like the old riddle of what was the tallest mountain before Everest was discovered?
Just because there are some questions humanity doesn't know the answer to, just because we might never know the answer, doesn't make myths that were invented an accurate answer.
I don't disagree - people have to make their own judgement on what they believe to be true.
But trying to apply scientitific rigour to a subject that is explicity forever outside the possibility of a scientific explanation does rather induce the same sort of groan you clearly make when you see a religious fool.
It's indisputable that something exists, and science can never explain why the alternative default of no matter, no dimensions, not even no nothing isn't the case. You're free to simply say we can never know to my satisfaction, so we shouldn't speculate, but either way we're left with the discombobulatingly odd fact of existance.
We may not know why the Big Bang happened, but we have plenty of evidence now that it did.
What we do not have any evidence for is that the heaven and earth was created on one day and then five days later humanity was created.
Myths were invented in the past. Those myths were products of man, not deities. Believing in these myths today are not the same as not believing in them.
This is the root of my agnosticism. Much of the mythology of religions can be falsified. Sure, there is always that last 'why' in the scientific approach - why did the big bang happen? And if that why is solved, there will be another why beyond it. That why can be answered with "we don't know" or "purely by chance" or by $deity, but $deity is as undefined and, to me, as unsatisfactory an answer as "we don't know". If I want to answer whether there is a god, I first want to know what we mean by 'god'. If we can't answer that, then to me the question of whether there is a god is somewhat meaningless.
There are more relevant, defineable questions such as whether there is a life after death. I do not believe that there is, but - annoyingly - I'll only ever find out if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'll never know. So perhaps it's better to believe that there is so that if you're wrong, you'll never know
My general question to people who find the big bang theory unsatisfactory and believe in God is to ask who created God? It's as impossible a question as what came before the big bang (there was, as we understand it, no 'before' the big bang, being the start of time, which is as good an answer as there being no 'before' God).
But, each to their own. My creation version has unexplained and likely unknowable questions. Yours (anyone who believes in God, not you - I think - PT) can too, I've no problem with that.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Spot on. Always found it amusing how performative atheists think believing the Universe spontaneously popped in to existance from a prior zero dimensional nothingness beyond comprehension is any less insane than the idea of a Deity creating it - they're equally bonkers, there is no common sense option available.
They're not equally bonkers.
The idea that the Universe was created by a specific deity mankind has invented is equivalent to the belief that the sun rotates around the earth pushed by a scarab beetle.
As for the origins of the Universe the correct scientific thing to do is to postulate theories and look for evidence and to acknowledge what we don't know or understand yet, not to insert in a deity invented by people thousands of years ago to explain the unknown.
But there's no 'yet' to it. If you don't see that science can't possibly give a complete final answer to that question, you haven't yet understood the question. It's perfectly reasonable to think a specific deity is laughable, or that a diety in general is an unnecessary middle step, but there's no getting away from existance itself being utterly fucking crazy.
Even if you never get a complete and final answer the myths humanity invented thousands of years ago are not an equivalent answer.
It's like the old riddle of what was the tallest mountain before Everest was discovered?
Just because there are some questions humanity doesn't know the answer to, just because we might never know the answer, doesn't make myths that were invented an accurate answer.
I don't disagree - people have to make their own judgement on what they believe to be true.
But trying to apply scientitific rigour to a subject that is explicity forever outside the possibility of a scientific explanation does rather induce the same sort of groan you clearly make when you see a religious fool.
It's indisputable that something exists, and science can never explain why the alternative default of no matter, no dimensions, not even no nothing isn't the case. You're free to simply say we can never know to my satisfaction, so we shouldn't speculate, but either way we're left with the discombobulatingly odd fact of existance.
We may not know why the Big Bang happened, but we have plenty of evidence now that it did.
What we do not have any evidence for is that the heaven and earth was created on one day and then five days later humanity was created.
Myths were invented in the past. Those myths were products of man, not deities. Believing in these myths today are not the same as not believing in them.
The big bang is neither here nor there - it's not a theory that remotely touches the question I'm trying to point out.
I'm sorry but it is relevant, since the discussion began as to whether belief in a specific deities existence is equivalent to not believing in any specific deity.
Because the myths mankind invented detailed not just who created the universe but how too and the how was wrong; because it was invented by men to explain what they didn't know, not dictated to man by the deity that created the universe.
At this point we're just talking past each other - I only posted to note the repeated habit of enthusiastic atheists to have failed to grasp the wonder/insanity of existance under any explanation or none. You clearly find your arguments persuasive, and I certainly feel reinforced in the point I was making.
The universe existing is not insane, it clearly does. Just because we don't know why, does not make it insane. I grasp the wonder, but that's not what you wrote or I replied to. What you wrote, which sparked this conversation was "Always found it amusing how performative atheists think believing the Universe spontaneously popped in to existance from a prior zero dimensional nothingness beyond comprehension is any less insane than the idea of a Deity creating it - they're equally bonkers, there is no common sense option available."
They're not equally bonkers, one is bonkers and that is the latter.
It is rather conceited and arrogant to think the universe is only sane if humanity can understand its mysteries in full today. That is the false premise which has underpinned the invention of false religions for millenia now.
It is enlightened, not amusing, to acknowledge there are things that you don't understand.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
So - its fine to buy a post card in Iran with a picture of their prophet on it - but it must be banned in the UK because of the risk of violence?
Feck that
Did I say anything should be banned?
Things can be not banned but nevertheless have a default of "avoid". There are plenty of examples of that.
There seems to be something increasingly banned on here however when it comes to these matters - any semblance of insight or nuance.
Good, because there is no nuance here. Beliefs must face rigorous scrutiny, nothing is off limits, nothing should be avoided.
There is no belief it is wrong to scrutinise.
Yep. And what I'm scrutinizing here is the belief that if the Hebdo cartoons are avoided it means that Islam is getting a free pass and we're on the slippery slope to a theocracy in which free speech is a thing of a past.
Right now the Batley teacher is in hiding after unsubtle threats against his life. It is conceivable he and his family might have to move and adopt new names. Because he showed some children a cartoon about a religious figure.
Free speech already is a thing of the past. All we are doing is discussing the shape of the post-Enlightenment future
To say that free speech is "a thing of the past" in this country is ludicrous. It's such a precious and dim thing to say. Borderline offensive too. I wonder what the billions of people who live in the many parts of the world where free speech IS forbidden would make of it? I think you might get the raspberry.
We have a de facto blasphemy law. It is simply the case. Everyone self censors out of fear, the odd person who crosses the line - like the teacher - gets threatened with death and runs into hiding. No one repeats the mistake. The unspoken blasphemy laws are enforced and hardened.
It’s not just blasphemy of course. On any number of issues - race, sexuality, transgender - there are many things you can no longer publicly say, even though they are scientifically true. Saying them gets you cancelled - which is a real and painful thing, involving total loss of career, status, income.
Perhaps we never had absolute free speech; there is no doubt the free speech we once had (however imperfect) is now in headlong retreat. Sadly, this is also true of America, which enshrined the right to free speech in its constitution, yet now eagerly surrenders the same.
It's the lurid and ridiculous hyperbole I object to. It adds nothing. It gets in the way. Also the ignoring of the other side of the coin. People, previously marginalized, who now have a voice. The erosion not of free speech but of default white and male entitlement. People in erstwhile comfortable groups can screech all they like but this is a great part of what is going on.
Also this thing "I love free speech", is often just a facile, virtue-signalling applause line for people running from serious thought. Untramelled free speech is NOT an unalloyed treasure to be defended to the death. We have free speech under the law. The law rightly recognizes that words can be as violent as swords.
What would you rather be on the end of, a relentless torrent of dehumanizing abuse or a punch in the nose?
These things are not "no brainers". They're only no brainers to those lacking one.
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it.
Do you possess the slightest sense of irony? This whole furore is itself the lesson - namely that a de facto blasphemy law now exists in this country, enforced not by democratic consent or Act of Parliament, but by fear.
But apparently that's 'not a major free speech issue' on your planet.
My planet is the same as yours (I hope). The point is that teachers are forever making decisions about teaching materials - is the violence in this history video too graphic; are the materials for this sex education lesson too salacious - and so on. This is no different. Similar decisions have to be made on teaching about blasphemy, and most teachers manage it just fine most of the time.
If you want to look at seriously curtailed education and free speech, you're looking in the wrong place. The real problem is in many faith schools (C of E, Islamic, RC, Jewish) where controversial issues are jettisoned or rarely discussed, with students being fed a diet of beliefs in line with their faiths. Not in most, I accept, but in a large minority.
I have no truck with faith schools of any description, so they can all have that element of their character removed as far as I'm concerned. About 50 years ago, a former headmaster of my old school, in the teeth of the governing body's opposition, lifted the requirement that scholars had to profess the Christian faith, making the rather obvious point that several of the best candidates would otherwise be excluded from election.
Regardless, the analogies you apply to this case are entirely inapposite. Teachers who make particular educational decisions in most areas of the curriculum in most schools are not subjected to intimidation or forced to go into hiding. But in this one, they are. Why exactly is that, if an undemocratic - and very selective - blasphemy law is not now in force?
CofE schools rarely have faith as anything beyond a slight prioritising factor - unlike Catholic schools where I've seen numerous conversions as the question of where will little Johnny go to school in 3 years start to be asked.
The best CofE schools ie those rated outstanding by OFSTED and with excellent exam results and wideranging extracurricular activities, prioritise admissions on the rate of church attendance of the parents as signed off by the vicar, given that the demand for places in them greatly exceeds the supply of places they have available
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it.
Do you possess the slightest sense of irony? This whole furore is itself the lesson - namely that a de facto blasphemy law now exists in this country, enforced not by democratic consent or Act of Parliament, but by fear.
But apparently that's 'not a major free speech issue' on your planet.
My planet is the same as yours (I hope). The point is that teachers are forever making decisions about teaching materials - is the violence in this history video too graphic; are the materials for this sex education lesson too salacious - and so on. This is no different. Similar decisions have to be made on teaching about blasphemy, and most teachers manage it just fine most of the time.
If you want to look at seriously curtailed education and free speech, you're looking in the wrong place. The real problem is in many faith schools (C of E, Islamic, RC, Jewish) where controversial issues are jettisoned or rarely discussed, with students being fed a diet of beliefs in line with their faiths. Not in most, I accept, but in a large minority.
I have no truck with faith schools of any description, so they can all have that element of their character removed as far as I'm concerned. About 50 years ago, a former headmaster of my old school, in the teeth of the governing body's opposition, lifted the requirement that scholars had to profess the Christian faith, making the rather obvious point that several of the best candidates would otherwise be excluded from election.
Regardless, the analogies you apply to this case are entirely inapposite. Teachers who make particular educational decisions in most areas of the curriculum in most schools are not subjected to intimidation or forced to go into hiding. But in this one, they are. Why exactly is that, if an undemocratic - and very selective - blasphemy law is not now in force?
CofE schools rarely have faith as anything beyond a slight prioritising factor - unlike Catholic schools where I've seen numerous conversions as the question of where will little Johnny go to school in 3 years start to be asked.
The best CofE schools ie those rated outstanding by OFSTED and with excellent exam results, prioritise on the rate of church attendance of the parents, as signed off by the vicar, given that the demand for places in them greatly exceeds the supply of places they have available
Evidence - I'm going from the local diocese where I signed off the - we no longer select on faith policy - as requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Militant atheists are not particularly good at being objective when it comes to themselves .
Specially for TSE, here is the best Suez container ship story to date, care of the New York Post:
"As the operation to free the leviathan reaches a climax, a ship bearing about 20 containers of dildos, vibrators and male masturbators may finally continue its voyage and get the adult toys into the eager hands of frustrated customers, the UK’s Metro reported.
"EDC Retail — a Dutch company that runs the biggest online sex toys shop in the Netherlands and Belgium — predicts it is losing millions because it has been unable to replenish its stocks after huge sales during the coronavirus lockdown and Valentine’s Day, according to the outlet."
Luckily for the French their pharma firms failed to come up with a covid vaccine. You'd think if Macron and the government are saying AZ is useless it should be enough to convince people the opposite is true.
Aren't we making a French COVID vaccine? Due in a few months
That's true I forgot about Valneva. Hopefully there's enough UK input to avoid it becoming another Sanofi.
Luckily for the French their pharma firms failed to come up with a covid vaccine. You'd think if Macron and the government are saying AZ is useless it should be enough to convince people the opposite is true.
Aren't we making a French COVID vaccine? Due in a few months
They were snubbed by the French government while Kate Bingham was signing them up. The president of the local region said, "There is a massive sense of incomprehension about this French and European failure."
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
All my uni and school friends (I'm 47) appear to be being done, including my wife 3 weeks ago 2 days before her 46th birthday (although she has mild asthma which prob pushed her up) while I patiently await the text...
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
What an interesting perspective! Bearing all that in mind, I'm sure you'll have no objection if all discussion of socialism and its adjuncts is 'avoided' in the public sphere under penalty of force - after all, socialism is pretty damned offensive to those who don't believe in in, who in this case actually form a majority.
Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not.
And yes, I know 'fascism by the back door' and 'where do you draw the line?' bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots...
I'd say that was the situation pre 2015 and we show every sign of returning to it. I certainly self-censor myself these days. I carry out no end of contortions - some of them quite taxing and painful - to avoid the "S" word.
Lol - I take it I've made my point. Now imagine that every time you failed to self-censor those offensive words and concepts - a casual reference to the need to nationalize Eton, for example - an angry mob turned up outside your door and you were lucky to get away with a grovelling apology for your wrongthink.
It's very easy to sneer at absolute principles when you don't think the unpleasant consequences of their being compromised will happen to you.
It's similar to the discussion on racism the other day. Universal concepts are great but in the real world need to be flexed and tempered for best understanding and results. If I was doing a philosophy exam paper, I'd probably roll out a lot of this "first principles" stuff that you are attracted to (when it suits you), I can do it, but it just feels like a waste of time. Maybe I'm getting old.
More likely you can sense that the foundations of so much of the postmodern moral edifice you've invested yourself in are so rotten that you'd rather not inspect them for fear of what you might find...
If you refer to Woke, absolutely not. The more I go into it, and in particular clock the shallowness and special pleading of the objections, the more I buy in, both intellectually and emotionally. I am not a Woke person, far from it. I'm a Yorkshireman of late middle age, with all that that entails. But the movement, I am four square behind. It's a reckoning with two of the forces that have moulded the western world - white supremacy racism and misogyny. They've had their own way for a long time. Time to reappraise and reset. It's bound to be a rocky ride.
People who have their life-long world view horribly challenged, as is clearly happening to you (“OMG maybe wokeness can be bad after all?!”) often react, at first, by investing even more in their faith-system, as it simultaneously totters. It’s a known phenomenon in cult members when they initially experience doubts.
The vast majority of those being challenged to their core, and reacting by clinging ever tighter to old shibboleths, are people like you.
Awww. Bless. If it’s any help I actually feel slightly sorry for you. I’m kind like that
Now you're sounding a bit on-edge and unpleasant. I preferred the old complacent and slightly dim. Can we revert please?
Specially for TSE, here is the best Suez container ship story to date, care of the New York Post:
"As the operation to free the leviathan reaches a climax, a ship bearing about 20 containers of dildos, vibrators and male masturbators may finally continue its voyage and get the adult toys into the eager hands of frustrated customers, the UK’s Metro reported.
"EDC Retail — a Dutch company that runs the biggest online sex toys shop in the Netherlands and Belgium — predicts it is losing millions because it has been unable to replenish its stocks after huge sales during the coronavirus lockdown and Valentine’s Day, according to the outlet."
Specially for TSE, here is the best Suez container ship story to date, care of the New York Post:
"As the operation to free the leviathan reaches a climax, a ship bearing about 20 containers of dildos, vibrators and male masturbators may finally continue its voyage and get the adult toys into the eager hands of frustrated customers, the UK’s Metro reported.
"EDC Retail — a Dutch company that runs the biggest online sex toys shop in the Netherlands and Belgium — predicts it is losing millions because it has been unable to replenish its stocks after huge sales during the coronavirus lockdown and Valentine’s Day, according to the outlet."
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
I really don't think the Batley issue is much about free speech. Teachers are trained to teach controversial issues, and of course they should do. But the teaching of controversial issues should be done sensitively and without unduly antagonising any particular group. Sometimes teachers get it wrong, and offend students unnecessarily; that's happened to me in a previous life.
If the teacher in this case deliberately chose a provocative cartoon (rumour is the one of Mohammed with a bomb for headgear) to wind (Muslim) students up, he and the school are right to backtrack, because that is wholly unnecessary to having the blasphemy debate. If it was just a misjudgement, a simply apology would do. The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it. I'd also argue that age is important: the Charlie Hebdo stuff may well be appropriate for sixth formers, rather than for 11-16s.
None of what I've said, of course, justifies any parental protest, particularly not of an intimidatory nature; nor does it justify disciplinary action against the teacher (unless s/he has already had warnings about the quality of their teaching). But it's not a major free speech issue.
The point being that such a cartoon is unnecessary for the purpose of the lesson: e.g. you can describe it without showing it.
Do you possess the slightest sense of irony? This whole furore is itself the lesson - namely that a de facto blasphemy law now exists in this country, enforced not by democratic consent or Act of Parliament, but by fear.
But apparently that's 'not a major free speech issue' on your planet.
My planet is the same as yours (I hope). The point is that teachers are forever making decisions about teaching materials - is the violence in this history video too graphic; are the materials for this sex education lesson too salacious - and so on. This is no different. Similar decisions have to be made on teaching about blasphemy, and most teachers manage it just fine most of the time.
If you want to look at seriously curtailed education and free speech, you're looking in the wrong place. The real problem is in many faith schools (C of E, Islamic, RC, Jewish) where controversial issues are jettisoned or rarely discussed, with students being fed a diet of beliefs in line with their faiths. Not in most, I accept, but in a large minority.
I have no truck with faith schools of any description, so they can all have that element of their character removed as far as I'm concerned. About 50 years ago, a former headmaster of my old school, in the teeth of the governing body's opposition, lifted the requirement that scholars had to profess the Christian faith, making the rather obvious point that several of the best candidates would otherwise be excluded from election.
Regardless, the analogies you apply to this case are entirely inapposite. Teachers who make particular educational decisions in most areas of the curriculum in most schools are not subjected to intimidation or forced to go into hiding. But in this one, they are. Why exactly is that, if an undemocratic - and very selective - blasphemy law is not now in force?
CofE schools rarely have faith as anything beyond a slight prioritising factor - unlike Catholic schools where I've seen numerous conversions as the question of where will little Johnny go to school in 3 years start to be asked.
The best CofE schools ie those rated outstanding by OFSTED and with excellent exam results, prioritise on the rate of church attendance of the parents, as signed off by the vicar, given that the demand for places in them greatly exceeds the supply of places they have available
Evidence - I'm going from the local diocese where I signed off the - we no longer select on faith policy - as requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The outstanding CofE Davenant Foundation School in Loughton for example.
'Applicants will be invited to complete an Online Supplementary Information Form (SIF) which can be accessed via the school website. (A paper version of the SIF form will be available on request from the school, for use only, if a parent/legal guardian is unable to access the online form). The SIF requests parents/guardians to give details of the frequency of their attendance at a place of mainstream Christian or Jewish worship during the last seven years and to nominate referees who can confirm their record of attendance.'
Luckily for the French their pharma firms failed to come up with a covid vaccine. You'd think if Macron and the government are saying AZ is useless it should be enough to convince people the opposite is true.
Aren't we making a French COVID vaccine? Due in a few months
That's true I forgot about Valneva. Hopefully there's enough UK input to avoid it becoming another Sanofi.
Luckily for the French their pharma firms failed to come up with a covid vaccine. You'd think if Macron and the government are saying AZ is useless it should be enough to convince people the opposite is true.
Aren't we making a French COVID vaccine? Due in a few months
That's true I forgot about Valneva. Hopefully there's enough UK input to avoid it becoming another Sanofi.
LOLs. But it was Sanofi/GSK, wasn't it?
Not entirely which bit of it didn't work, though. (The GSK adjuvants have been pretty successful in previous vaccines)
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Our village surgery sends out periodic updates. In that they said they have been told by the government not to give any appointments to under 50s yet. So either someone didn't get (or is ignoring) the message or there are mixed messages.
Under 30s asthmatic offspring got the AZN jab on Saturday. (& spent Saturday night vomiting...)
I rather suspect that the the "vulnerable" group under 50 will prove to be quite large. My GP is apparently including pretty much everyone with asthma history - though ordered by age and severity of condition.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
Under 30s asthmatic offspring got the AZN jab on Saturday. (& spent Saturday night vomiting...)
I rather suspect that the the "vulnerable" group under 50 will prove to be quite large. My GP is apparently including pretty much everyone with asthma history - though ordered by age and severity of condition.
I think prior hospitalisation is one of the criteria.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I don't think the children who died in the nazi camps, just as one example out of billions, had much responsibility for anything.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
If you forget the flammery of an anthropomorphic being that cares about us then it is as good a description as anything. Something caused the big bang....we don't know if it thinks, or cares about us. But everything changed in cosmos which had no change. A prime mover if you like whether sentient or not. Like the detonator in the c4 turns it from an inert block to an coruscant eruption of energy
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I don't think the children who died in the nazi camps, just as one example out of billions, had much responsibility for anything.
Yes and obviously they would go to Heaven on the Day of Judgement, the Nazis who murdered them would go to Hell
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
Fred ?
As yet to be understood event, possibly beyond the comprehension of the human brain. Yes, let's call that Fred.
Under 30s asthmatic offspring got the AZN jab on Saturday. (& spent Saturday night vomiting...)
I rather suspect that the the "vulnerable" group under 50 will prove to be quite large. My GP is apparently including pretty much everyone with asthma history - though ordered by age and severity of condition.
I think prior hospitalisation is one of the criteria.
I believe some doctors are interpreting that as any hospitalisation in the past. One friend who was bought to hospital as a very young child for observation, and no incidents since then, was called in recently.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
We can give any name we like as a shortcut to describe somethng we don't know or understand (like the 'ether' for light's medium). You might use 'god', I might use 'bob' (big-bang operating bobbin)
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
I would just say it is a mystery, I wouldn't bring "god" into it. seems like a recipe for misunderstandings.
although I do think for a lot of people religion is partly about acknowledging the mystery. another thing a lot of atheists don't understand is that for most people religion is a practice, rather than a theory. an experience rather than a belief system.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
Fred ?
As yet to be understood event, possibly beyond the comprehension of the human brain. Yes, let's call that Fred.
Isn't that a little mysogynist could equally be a freda
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
We can give any name we like as a shortcut to describe somethng we don't know or understand (like the 'ether' for light's medium). You might use 'god', I might use 'bob' (big-bang operating bobbin)
You can't use Bob, that I suspect is trade marked by the church of the sub genius for use in religous purposes
I can sympathise. I was at one time seriously wondering if I would have to make provision in my will for my tortoise (had since I was 4). In the event, he predeceased me, but ...
One wonders if they should be given extra allowance for hibernation, too (like dog years vs humans, only in the other direction).
Someone really should do this. The only problem is that the (large) profits are 150 years distant. And the outlay on tortoises happens now.
Imagine if you had a tortoise for sale today which, as a young tortoise, was placed just to the left of Lenin in this famous photo?
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
If you forget the flammery of an anthropomorphic being that cares about us then it is as good a description as anything. Something caused the big bang....we don't know if it thinks, or cares about us. But everything changed in cosmos which had no change. A prime mover if you like whether sentient or not. Like the detonator in the c4 turns it from an inert block to an coruscant eruption of energy
In which case, why use a word that has other connotations well beyond what you have just described? Let's just call it The Big Bang, or Fred.
And, in any case, we do not know with certainty that existence was unchanging before Big Bang. We have a belief based on very incomplete data and understanding.
+1 - sorry we aren't signing a contract until we are 10,000% confident we can meet your delivery dates...
They already have 1.4 billion doses of sales worldwide. Why bother dealing with the EU when they can concentrate on those for now?
The EU have made their bed now.
This is the exact calculation being made, they have lined up ca. $10bn in revenue, I'm not sure what they have to gain from signing a contract with the EU.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
If you forget the flammery of an anthropomorphic being that cares about us then it is as good a description as anything. Something caused the big bang....we don't know if it thinks, or cares about us. But everything changed in cosmos which had no change. A prime mover if you like whether sentient or not. Like the detonator in the c4 turns it from an inert block to an coruscant eruption of energy
In which case, why use a word that has other connotations well beyond what you have just described? Let's just call it The Big Bang, or Fred.
And, in any case, we do not know with certainty that existence was unchanging before Big Bang. We have a belief based on very incomplete data and understanding.
Hawkings was of the view that time did not exist before the big bang. While not a definite truism I defer to him as he knew a lot more than me about it.
If there is no time then there can be no action everything is of necessity in a state of stasis. This implies that whatever caused the big bang was external to the monobloc
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I mean, it did conclude that (in the words of its Director General):
"We found no evidence to indicate that Mr Johnson influenced the payment of any sponsorship monies to Ms Arcuri or that he influenced or played an active part in securing her participation in trade missions."
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
If you forget the flammery of an anthropomorphic being that cares about us then it is as good a description as anything. Something caused the big bang....we don't know if it thinks, or cares about us. But everything changed in cosmos which had no change. A prime mover if you like whether sentient or not. Like the detonator in the c4 turns it from an inert block to an coruscant eruption of energy
In which case, why use a word that has other connotations well beyond what you have just described? Let's just call it The Big Bang, or Fred.
And, in any case, we do not know with certainty that existence was unchanging before Big Bang. We have a belief based on very incomplete data and understanding.
Hawkings was of the view that time did not exist before the big bang. While not a definite truism I defer to him as he knew a lot more than me about it.
If there is no time then there can be no action everything is of necessity in a state of stasis. This implies that whatever caused the big bang was external to the monobloc
But the Initial Singularity is only one such (speculative) origins theory out of several.
"Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This procreation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another procreation based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists."
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I thought you were C of E?
C of E includes Old Testament as well as New
The core of Anglican teaching on predestination, which is shared by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Universalists, is that God chose His elect long before they were born and thus irrespective of anything they may do or not do. His election is completely gratuitous, completely free, and unaffected by our choice. See article 17 of the 39 Articles, a handy link to which is below -
What I want to know is when "a 28yo white man in good health with no kids who lives alone and works a desk job" is going to be the next class of vaccine.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
And some people here are claiming that believing this is equivalent to not believing this. 😂
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
If you forget the flammery of an anthropomorphic being that cares about us then it is as good a description as anything. Something caused the big bang....we don't know if it thinks, or cares about us. But everything changed in cosmos which had no change. A prime mover if you like whether sentient or not. Like the detonator in the c4 turns it from an inert block to an coruscant eruption of energy
In which case, why use a word that has other connotations well beyond what you have just described? Let's just call it The Big Bang, or Fred.
And, in any case, we do not know with certainty that existence was unchanging before Big Bang. We have a belief based on very incomplete data and understanding.
Hawkings was of the view that time did not exist before the big bang. While not a definite truism I defer to him as he knew a lot more than me about it.
If there is no time then there can be no action everything is of necessity in a state of stasis. This implies that whatever caused the big bang was external to the monobloc
But the Initial Singularity is only one such (speculative) origins theory out of several.
"Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This procreation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another procreation based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists."
In other words its all a bit of a mystery, that is the essence of god if you think about it once you cut away all the mystic crap. Forces we don't understand caused something.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I don't think the children who died in the nazi camps, just as one example out of billions, had much responsibility for anything.
Yes and obviously they would go to Heaven on the Day of Judgement, the Nazis who murdered them would go to Hell
Let us hope so. The reverse would make something of a mockery of things.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I don't think the children who died in the nazi camps, just as one example out of billions, had much responsibility for anything.
Yes and obviously they would go to Heaven on the Day of Judgement, the Nazis who murdered them would go to Hell
You seem quite happy to make that judgment (not at all unreasonably) without divine intervention. (And despite the injunction in Matthew 7)
Why then involve a deity ?
And who is to judge the Adjudicator ? After all, we have it on His own account that he is subject to fits of jealousy, and episodes of bloody retribution.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I don't think the children who died in the nazi camps, just as one example out of billions, had much responsibility for anything.
Yes and obviously they would go to Heaven on the Day of Judgement, the Nazis who murdered them would go to Hell
Let us hope so. The reverse would make something of a mockery of things.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
If you forget the flammery of an anthropomorphic being that cares about us then it is as good a description as anything. Something caused the big bang....we don't know if it thinks, or cares about us. But everything changed in cosmos which had no change. A prime mover if you like whether sentient or not. Like the detonator in the c4 turns it from an inert block to an coruscant eruption of energy
In which case, why use a word that has other connotations well beyond what you have just described? Let's just call it The Big Bang, or Fred.
And, in any case, we do not know with certainty that existence was unchanging before Big Bang. We have a belief based on very incomplete data and understanding.
Hawkings was of the view that time did not exist before the big bang. While not a definite truism I defer to him as he knew a lot more than me about it.
If there is no time then there can be no action everything is of necessity in a state of stasis. This implies that whatever caused the big bang was external to the monobloc
But the Initial Singularity is only one such (speculative) origins theory out of several.
"Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This procreation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another procreation based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists."
In other words its all a bit of a mystery, that is the essence of god if you think about it once you cut away all the mystic crap. Forces we don't understand caused something.
And this is where we disagree. The essence of mystery is mystery, or the unknown, not god.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
But for me, atheism is the position that goes with the evidence, even absent a 'proof' (given it is impossible to prove a negative).
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
Prior to the big bang there was the monobloc
There was no time Everything that existed was inside it For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
You may call it god. I do not feel a need to.
If you forget the flammery of an anthropomorphic being that cares about us then it is as good a description as anything. Something caused the big bang....we don't know if it thinks, or cares about us. But everything changed in cosmos which had no change. A prime mover if you like whether sentient or not. Like the detonator in the c4 turns it from an inert block to an coruscant eruption of energy
In which case, why use a word that has other connotations well beyond what you have just described? Let's just call it The Big Bang, or Fred.
And, in any case, we do not know with certainty that existence was unchanging before Big Bang. We have a belief based on very incomplete data and understanding.
Hawkings was of the view that time did not exist before the big bang. While not a definite truism I defer to him as he knew a lot more than me about it.
If there is no time then there can be no action everything is of necessity in a state of stasis. This implies that whatever caused the big bang was external to the monobloc
But the Initial Singularity is only one such (speculative) origins theory out of several.
"Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This procreation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another procreation based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists."
In other words its all a bit of a mystery, that is the essence of god if you think about it once you cut away all the mystic crap. Forces we don't understand caused something.
And this is where we disagree. The essence of mystery is mystery, or the unknown, not god.
Perhaps your definition of god merely doesn't agree with mine.
Mine is purely a force we don't understand that acts in ways we don't understand and produces results we don't understand and probably never will understand. I don't claim its sentient, benign or even know we exist
Quite a big number from Germany if that's a single day.
https://impfdashboard.de/ Sunday was 168k, Saturday 272k weekends are always lower. Sunday was actually lower than the Sunday before, but Saturday was better than the Saturday before. Next weekend will be shit because it's Easter.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
And some people here are claiming that believing this is equivalent to not believing this. 😂
56% of the global population are still Christian or Muslim, so rather more agree with me still than you
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I don't think the children who died in the nazi camps, just as one example out of billions, had much responsibility for anything.
Yes and obviously they would go to Heaven on the Day of Judgement, the Nazis who murdered them would go to Hell
Let us hope so. The reverse would make something of a mockery of things.
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
And some people here are claiming that believing this is equivalent to not believing this. 😂
56% of the global population are still Christian or Muslim, so rather more agree with me still than you
Can anyone point me to a good and detailed account of the cartoon imbroglio at Batley Grammar School?
I'm really interested in the content of the lesson, and the particular cartoons published - which seem to be from one of the Charlie Hebdo sets.
But we seem to have the usual rabbit hole - "we are going to spend ages talking about this, but it's sooooooooooooooooooo offensive that we will not show the picture / read out the tweet" etc.
I wonder if those Hebdo cartoons - those specifically - have become like the N word for Muslims? Regardless of context and intent, deployment by an outsider risks enormous offence and therefore the best and safest approach, the default in almost all circumstances, is to not. Find another way.
And yes, I know, "blasphemy law by the back door" and "where do you draw the line?" bla bla, I do get that point, and it's a good one, but still. A civilized society is not driven by absolutist principles. Absolutist principles are for extremists and zealots and this includes "free speech" extremists and zealots.
We "draw the line" with things all the time. We weigh up competing interests and values, micro vs macro, long vs short term, theory vs practice, and we decide where the sweet spot lies. We don't always get it right, but we have a bash. It's one of the many things that make this country a very amenable place to live.
Absolutely not.
Skin colour is something people are born with and can't change.
Religion is a belief system and like all belief systems should be able to face rigourous, fierce and offensive scrutiny and challenge.
If you can't be offensive about someone's beliefs there is no such thing as free speech.
Free speech is freedom to express your views without hindrance, and that includes people not going out of their way to sneer at you. They can disagree with you in forthright terms and it works better than Scarfe-style cartoons.
I don't think it should be illegal to be offensive - but it's nearly always going to lose you the argument by upsetting both your opponents and neutral bystanders. And the cartoons aren't trying to make a point, they are all about being offensive for the fun of it, like that exhibit of a crucifix in urine called "piss Christ" which stirred people up some years ago. I absolutely defend their right to do it, but I think it's a pity to want to upset someone's faith, very like vandalising their garden.
Absolutely agree Nick. Freedom of speech is extremely important, but it is often used (particularly by those on the hard right and hard left) as an excuse to be offensive, when the real motivation is that they don't like religion per se (which is pretty childish in most cases) or the ethnicity or skin colour of those that generally espouse the religion.
Why is not liking religion childish? Sounds like you might be sneering there!
I probably was, but I didn't say not liking religion was childish, just that many who express such views do so from a very childish perspective. Most people who get a kick from debunking other peoples' faith are often as prejudiced and simplistic as many Christian evangelicals or devout Muslim , and often more so. They are often closed minded. A belief in atheism is as much a belief as a belief in a deity. Neither positions are genuinely provable, so require "faith". Those that mock others for having faith are simply underlining their own insecurities.
I agree, but with a distinction.
I am an atheist who was brought up in a very religious (Christian) household and works with many very religious people (mostly Muslim), and who respects those who are religious.
For me, atheism is a belief, but not one that requires faith. Belief in a deity(s) does require faith.
Not quite. Belief that there is a deity (say, on the best explanation of why there is something rather than nothing) may be just that, without any sort of personal trust or trust in the saving power or whatever of that deity.
Belief that there is or is not a God are in this sense equal positions. Neither can possibly be demonstrated by proof of a logical variety, and any amount of inductive style proof either for or against God can either be dismissed as insufficient (Russell) or dismissed as an intellectual mistake (Kant).
Belief and absence of belief are not equivalent positions.
I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns, is that position equivalent to those who do believe in invisible pink unicorns?
Is believing that aliens are real and have visited the earth equivalent to not believing that?
Belief in something and the absence of belief are not equivalent.
Thanks for that interesting point. I was addressing an atheist who used the words "atheism is a belief", so you have an argument with both sides. When Dawkins and friends put on the side of a bus "there probably isn't a God so stop worrying" they are expressing directly a belief that there isn't a god, accepting that it is an assertion which falls short of proof. Unlike with invisible pink unicorns there are rational grounds for both sides of the argument, and an individuals beliefs may fall one side or the other.
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Dawkins is 100% correct.
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
Well .... If you just say "God" that can't be disproved, or at least hasn't been. But if you add the Christian claim that God is all powerful and loves humans as a human loves its child, and look at how the world is and always has been, there is overwhelming evidence that the claim is baloney.
Humans have been responsible for their own lives since Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge, we get judged on how we led them at the Day of Judgement
I don't think the children who died in the nazi camps, just as one example out of billions, had much responsibility for anything.
Yes and obviously they would go to Heaven on the Day of Judgement, the Nazis who murdered them would go to Hell
Let us hope so. The reverse would make something of a mockery of things.
Punish them properly and send them to hartlepool
or an eternity on Con home...
Could be even worse might be forced to join the lib dems
Comments
If he's able to navigate the EU import bureaucracy.
Did he do a Taki?
Still ruminating on whether the whole thing needs a response from a different viewpoint.
Still I can retire now, having created an "all-time legendary PB thread". I mean, what is left...?
😀
There is no proof of atheism or theism. But anyone who suggests there are no grounds, or arguments for both sides (unlike pink unicorns) hasn't been paying attention for the last few centuries.
Imagine if you had a tortoise for sale today which, as a young tortoise, was placed just to the left of Lenin in this famous photo?
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/16/on-this-day-vladimir-lenin-arrives-in-st-petersburg-triggering-the-october-revolution-a65247
There are more relevant, defineable questions such as whether there is a life after death. I do not believe that there is, but - annoyingly - I'll only ever find out if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'll never know. So perhaps it's better to believe that there is so that if you're wrong, you'll never know
My general question to people who find the big bang theory unsatisfactory and believe in God is to ask who created God? It's as impossible a question as what came before the big bang (there was, as we understand it, no 'before' the big bang, being the start of time, which is as good an answer as there being no 'before' God).
But, each to their own. My creation version has unexplained and likely unknowable questions. Yours (anyone who believes in God, not you - I think - PT) can too, I've no problem with that.
They're not equally bonkers, one is bonkers and that is the latter.
It is rather conceited and arrogant to think the universe is only sane if humanity can understand its mysteries in full today. That is the false premise which has underpinned the invention of false religions for millenia now.
It is enlightened, not amusing, to acknowledge there are things that you don't understand.
Norris had a very good race. Did well getting ahead and staying ahead of Ricciardo and Leclerc.
Alfa Romeo didn't score but their pace was pretty good. They'll snaffle points here and there.
Midfield's going to be great again. And, unusually, so might the contest for the title.
https://twitter.com/busterdog7/status/1376523887962423303?s=21
https://twitter.com/thesundaysport/status/1345463645954781184
https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la-loire/le-vaccin-de-valneva-nantes-d-abord-en-grande-bretagne-la-presidente-de-region-denonce-un-gachis-7138762
As with all my other scientific and non-scientific beliefs, I hold my atheism lightly. I have witnessed no proof of any god's existence, so my working hypothesis is that there is no god. That belief is consistent with all the evidence available to me. If new evidence emerges which challenges the presumption of atheism, I will revisit my belief.
To take the position that there is a god, absent any evidence of such, requires a leap of faith that is not required to be an atheist.
So beliefs in atheism vs theism are not equivalent.
'British Knobs for British Wankers!'
He rightly does not rule out the possibility, his belief follows the science.
Yes there might be a God, despite the total absence of any evidence for it and the disproving of almost all the myths that the belief requires. There equally might be invisible pink unicorns.
There are no "rational" grounds for belief in a God. There may be rational grounds for saying we don't know what created the universe, but as for a capital-G "God" - I'm sorry it isn't "rational".
'Applicants will be invited to complete an Online Supplementary Information Form (SIF) which can be accessed via the school website. (A paper version of the SIF form will be available on request from the school, for use only, if a
parent/legal guardian is unable to access the online form). The SIF requests parents/guardians to give details of the frequency of their attendance at a place of mainstream Christian or Jewish worship during the last seven years and to nominate referees who can confirm their record of attendance.'
http://www.davenantschool.co.uk/page/?title=Year+7&pid=40
https://twitter.com/mediavenir/status/1376534609371013123?s=21
(& spent Saturday night vomiting...)
(The GSK adjuvants have been pretty successful in previous vaccines)
There was no time
Everything that existed was inside it
For no apparent reason one day it exploded and all that is became
There was a prime cause, that cause was what we call god. Now we can argue certainly whether that prime cause was sentient, or even interested but at the root something changed within a changeless thing.
https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/
https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1376528373854441482
although I do think for a lot of people religion is partly about acknowledging the mystery. another thing a lot of atheists don't understand is that for most people religion is a practice, rather than a theory. an experience rather than a belief system.
Or possibly just coincidence?
https://order-order.com/2021/03/29/hard-left-rallies-behind-holocaust-conspiracist-councillor/
https://www.livescience.com/849-darwin-reputed-tortoise-dies-176.html
Mind, who in the Galapagos in 1835 would have thought to collect extra tortoises? Apart from using them for dinner aboard, of course.
And, in any case, we do not know with certainty that existence was unchanging before Big Bang. We have a belief based on very incomplete data and understanding.
If there is no time then there can be no action everything is of necessity in a state of stasis. This implies that whatever caused the big bang was external to the monobloc
Son and others in Essex who currently furloughed been told by DWP to look for another job.....
He countered with - let me work and I will.....
So some pressure applied but then they dropped it
https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1376541344492097545
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/1376543023316799489
*I know it wasn't a donkey jacket, but still.
"We found no evidence to indicate that Mr Johnson influenced the payment of any sponsorship monies to Ms Arcuri or that he influenced or played an active part in securing her participation in trade missions."
"Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This procreation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another procreation based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists."
It's rational to embrace this irrationality because it replaces existential terror with deep contentment.
But as yet I have not managed the necessary doublethink. I doubt I ever will sadly.
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion
Somehow I won't be pencilling in next Thursday.
(And despite the injunction in Matthew 7)
Why then involve a deity ?
And who is to judge the Adjudicator ?
After all, we have it on His own account that he is subject to fits of jealousy, and episodes of bloody retribution.
Mine is purely a force we don't understand that acts in ways we don't understand and produces results we don't understand and probably never will understand. I don't claim its sentient, benign or even know we exist
Sunday was 168k, Saturday 272k
weekends are always lower. Sunday was actually lower than the Sunday before, but Saturday was better than the Saturday before.
Next weekend will be shit because it's Easter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1376544750996754439
This should be pretty obvious when you look at those 56% of people's actual behaviour compared with theology.
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1376522685073735683