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
I tend to try to base my understanding and usage of words on what is generally accepted by those with whom I converse, and dictionaries are quite useful in that regard. So:
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
OR
any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship
Why use a word that is understood differently by others to describe something for which a well understood word - the unknown - already exists?
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.
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.
That's also the essence of science for all but a few.
A mere COVID-19 vaccine crisis wasn't enough I see. What's the plan here? Promote a more general vaccine hesitancy worldwide and disrupt the supply of all medicines from Italy?
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 -
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."
Oi, quantum physics, just fuck right off. Going round with your crazy notions that means a simple bloke has no longer got the foggiest about what is going on the Universe. Yes, that's right, THE Universe. Enough of your multi-verse bollocks. If I can't understand it, it is so much crap. Capiche?
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 -
Yes, but... ...There is a tradition, among a certain kind of Anglican, of wearing a cassock with 39 buttons on the front. The wearer then leaves some spots unbuttoned, indicating which Articles the wearer finds disagreeable. ...
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.
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
I tend to try to base my understanding and usage of words on what is generally accepted by those with whom I converse, and dictionaries are quite useful in that regard. So:
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
OR
any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship
Why use a word that is understood differently by others to describe something for which a well understood word - the unknown - already exists?
So in other words conform to how I use words not how you use words?
People didn't understand how thunder happened they called it Thor the thunder god
We dont understand how the big bang happened I call it god
Seems to me my usage is older and has more of a history of usage than yours
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.
Only Calvinists believe in double Predestination, the Church of England is an Anglo Catholic church.
It believes those who are baptised and have faith comprise the elect but that does not mean some of those baptised will not reject the grace of Christ
Part of the C of E is an Anglo-Catholic church but even that part cannot jettison the 39 Articles and remain in communion with it.
XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION
PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of 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."
Oi, quantum physics, just fuck right off. Going round with your crazy notions that means a simple bloke has no longer got the foggiest about what is going on the Universe. Yes, that's right, THE Universe. Enough of your multi-verse bollocks. If I can't understand it, it is so much crap. Capiche?
Let me explain it...once there was a mummy universe and she disagreed with herself and had two baby universes that hated each other
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
Only Calvinists believe in double Predestination, the Church of England is an Anglo Catholic church.
It believes those who are baptised and have faith comprise the elect but that does not mean some of those baptised will not reject the grace of Christ
Part of the C of E is an Anglo-Catholic church but even that part cannot jettison the 39 Articles and remain in communion with it.
XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION
PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
Predestination in the Church of England is based on baptism and faith, the Church of England is not and never has been a Calvinist Church.
It has to be proved through conduct however 'they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works'
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
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".
"Other names for the fallacy include common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument from consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for "agreement of the people"),[10] democratic fallacy,[11], mob appeal, and truth by association.[12]"
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
I know lots of Christians and Muslims who don't believe that, and so don't agree with you.
This should be pretty obvious when you look at those 56% of people's actual behaviour compared with theology.
If you believe in God, whether as a Christian or Muslim, you are closer to me than Philip Thompson in your views of religion.
Hence a comfortable majority of the global population are still Christian or Muslim.
You do not need to be a Saint to believe in God, that is the whole point, humans are imperfect
The omnipresent Philip Thompson's views on religion are about as deep, informative and persuasive as his views on everything else he pontificates on here about. If God exists, I am quite sure He is quite pleased that atheism has such an inarticulate advocate lol.
Has the entire continental mainland of Europe just taken a trip back to the Dark Ages? How in the sweet name of anything that anyone holds dear can a civilised country be doing 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.
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.
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
Only Calvinists believe in double Predestination, the Church of England is an Anglo Catholic church.
It believes those who are baptised and have faith comprise the elect but that does not mean some of those baptised will not reject the grace of Christ
Part of the C of E is an Anglo-Catholic church but even that part cannot jettison the 39 Articles and remain in communion with it.
XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION
PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
Predestination in the Church of England is based on baptism and faith, the Church of England is not and never has been a Calvinist Church.
It has to be proved through conduct however 'they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works'
I don't get what the cost savings are by running two on the same day vs two on different days. They are so far apart that there can't be any efficiency savings, surely?
There's cost savings by running them on election day since the election is already happening on that day so its just one more ballot in the polling station.
Running it a week after election day is an unnecessary expense.
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.'
That's pretty maximal these days- until quite recently, church schools could have fairly complex involvement points (+5 for being on the flower rota, that sort of thing.) They've definitely gone, often replaced by the church attendance check @HYUFD mentioned. Often with a slice reserved for heathens.
But even that's a London/elsewhere thing in the main. "On your knees, avoid the fees" still happens in and around London at secondary level. But most church schools are primaries, often just the local village school. Disinterested community service.
Has the entire continental mainland of Europe just taken a trip back to the Dark Ages? How in the sweet name of anything that anyone holds dear can a civilised country be doing this?
A mere COVID-19 vaccine crisis wasn't enough I see. What's the plan here? Promote a more general vaccine hesitancy worldwide and disrupt the supply of all medicines from Italy?
I've previously mentioned - the Italian state has form for trying to impose political control on reality. So the issue is
- The state says the problem is the theft of vaccines from the EU/Italy by the manufacturers - The evidence says that the vaccines aren't being stolen. - Therefore the evidence is politically unusable. - Therefor the police must get some more evidence, by new raids/investigations.
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
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".
"Other names for the fallacy include common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument from consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for "agreement of the people"),[10] democratic fallacy,[11], mob appeal, and truth by association.[12]"
Has the entire continental mainland of Europe just taken a trip back to the Dark Ages? How in the sweet name of anything that anyone holds dear can a civilised country be doing this?
To be fair - the real issue, underlying the geologists (ha!) was that a local official was, apparently, trying to get people to say that there wasn't an earthquake risk in the style of the Mayor in Jaws on shark attack risks.
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
I know lots of Christians and Muslims who don't believe that, and so don't agree with you.
This should be pretty obvious when you look at those 56% of people's actual behaviour compared with theology.
If you believe in God, whether as a Christian or Muslim, you are closer to me than Philip Thompson in your views of religion.
Hence a comfortable majority of the global population are still Christian or Muslim.
You do not need to be a Saint to believe in God, that is the whole point, humans are imperfect
The omnipresent Philip Thompson's views on religion are about as deep, informative and persuasive as his views on everything else he pontificates on here about. If God exists, I am quite sure He is quite pleased that atheism has such an inarticulate advocate lol.
Philip is a libertarian, republican, atheist, currently Conservative voting, Little Englander, an unusual combination certainly.
I doubt the Almighty will be too bothered he is not part of the flock no
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
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.'
That's pretty maximal these days- until quite recently, church schools could have fairly complex involvement points (+5 for being on the flower rota, that sort of thing.) They've definitely gone, often replaced by the church attendance check @HYUFD mentioned. Often with a slice reserved for heathens.
But even that's a London/elsewhere thing in the main. "On your knees, avoid the fees" still happens in and around London at secondary level. But most church schools are primaries, often just the local village school. Disinterested community service.
Most church schools are primaries but at secondary level in local authorities which do not have grammar schools, church schools are often outstanding and the best state schools in the area.
If you do not have the money to go private then regular church attendance is the best way to gain one of their limited places
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
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
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".
"Other names for the fallacy include common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument from consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for "agreement of the people"),[10] democratic fallacy,[11], mob appeal, and truth by association.[12]"
What's the cut-off for "many"? 52%?
Not when we're discussing the theft of the Presidential election.
Just me, just the sun - or does today feel a whole lot brighter?
What is a sun
An unlicensed thermo-nuclear reactor. Investigation has revelled - No containment wall, no emergency cooling system, no secondary emergency cooling system, no paperwork on earthquake tolerance, no paperwork on accident mitigation, no paperwork on accident risk analysis.
Law suits are ongoing against the builder, who hasn't issued any statements on the matter.
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.'
That's pretty maximal these days- until quite recently, church schools could have fairly complex involvement points (+5 for being on the flower rota, that sort of thing.) They've definitely gone, often replaced by the church attendance check @HYUFD mentioned. Often with a slice reserved for heathens.
But even that's a London/elsewhere thing in the main. "On your knees, avoid the fees" still happens in and around London at secondary level. But most church schools are primaries, often just the local village school. Disinterested community service.
Most church schools are primaries but at secondary level in local authorities which do not have grammar schools, church schools are often outstanding and the best state schools in the area.
If you do not have the money to go private then regular church attendance is the best way to gain one of their limited places
"Blessed are the Churchgoers. For they shall inherit the best school places."
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.'
That's pretty maximal these days- until quite recently, church schools could have fairly complex involvement points (+5 for being on the flower rota, that sort of thing.) They've definitely gone, often replaced by the church attendance check @HYUFD mentioned. Often with a slice reserved for heathens.
But even that's a London/elsewhere thing in the main. "On your knees, avoid the fees" still happens in and around London at secondary level. But most church schools are primaries, often just the local village school. Disinterested community service.
Most church schools are primaries but at secondary level in local authorities which do not have grammar schools, church schools are often outstanding and the best state schools in the area.
If you do not have the money to go private then regular church attendance is the best way to gain one of their limited places
"Blessed are the Churchgoers. For they shall inherit the best school places."
Funded as part of a theocratic state and governing party massively biased towards that very sect.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
But there are so many businesses that are. You only have to see the numbers reporting they are giving up on exporting, not looking to expand further afield.
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
Most small businesses are UK based with UK customers. An estimated 91% of UK SMEs don't export.
Those who were against leaving the European Union were free to make their case in 2016 and many did. They had valid arguments. Those arguments lost. It happens. Changes happens and all changes come with costs.
If all changes could only be made if they were cost-free then we'd never change anything. That is a Luddite attitude.
Re your first para I agree. It was the point I was making. Of course it will hit them eventually when the US multinational that they sell their sandwiches to moves its EMEA office from the UK to Europe. I mean why would it stay? The added hassle makes it pointless. Of course they won't go immediately, but when say the lease comes up on the building why would they stay with all the hassle running a European business from the UK.
Re your second para I agree. What point are you making?
Re your third para again I agree completely. Again I can't see your point. If anything the Luddite nature is of many Brexiteers (although not you I accept) who want to go back to the good old days. I'm all for change, but for the better not a return to the 1950s.
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
I know lots of Christians and Muslims who don't believe that, and so don't agree with you.
This should be pretty obvious when you look at those 56% of people's actual behaviour compared with theology.
If you believe in God, whether as a Christian or Muslim, you are closer to me than Philip Thompson in your views of religion.
Hence a comfortable majority of the global population are still Christian or Muslim.
You do not need to be a Saint to believe in God, that is the whole point, humans are imperfect
The omnipresent Philip Thompson's views on religion are about as deep, informative and persuasive as his views on everything else he pontificates on here about. If God exists, I am quite sure He is quite pleased that atheism has such an inarticulate advocate lol.
Philip is a libertarian, republican, atheist, currently Conservative voting, Little Englander, an unusual combination certainly.
I doubt the Almighty will be too bothered he is not part of the flock no
IIRC it is a serious sin to condemn someone else as damned. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, one is taight.
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
No I don't. For one thing it isn't possible under the uncertainty principle as far as I know to ever get that level of knowledge.
The only person I can see arguing for predeterminism right now is HYUFD and that is on religious grounds.
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.'
That's pretty maximal these days- until quite recently, church schools could have fairly complex involvement points (+5 for being on the flower rota, that sort of thing.) They've definitely gone, often replaced by the church attendance check @HYUFD mentioned. Often with a slice reserved for heathens.
But even that's a London/elsewhere thing in the main. "On your knees, avoid the fees" still happens in and around London at secondary level. But most church schools are primaries, often just the local village school. Disinterested community service.
Most church schools are primaries but at secondary level in local authorities which do not have grammar schools, church schools are often outstanding and the best state schools in the area.
If you do not have the money to go private then regular church attendance is the best way to gain one of their limited places
I coined the term "Education Christians", after seeing the back rows of the local Catholic Church full of bored people on their Blackberries (yes, a while back).
My wife, who is from South America, hadn't come across the "Rice Christian" stories before.....
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.
Your view rests on the idea that all the evidence is on the same side, ignoring the history of the idea that there is weighty but inconclusive evidence in more than one direction.
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.
Your view rests on the idea that all the evidence is on the same side, ignoring the history of the idea that there is weighty but inconclusive evidence in more than one direction.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
But there are so many businesses that are. You only have to see the numbers reporting they are giving up on exporting, not looking to expand further afield.
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
Most small businesses are UK based with UK customers. An estimated 91% of UK SMEs don't export.
Those who were against leaving the European Union were free to make their case in 2016 and many did. They had valid arguments. Those arguments lost. It happens. Changes happens and all changes come with costs.
If all changes could only be made if they were cost-free then we'd never change anything. That is a Luddite attitude.
Re your first para I agree. It was the point I was making. Of course it will hit them eventually when the US multinational that they sell their sandwiches to moves its EMEA office from the UK to Europe. I mean why would it stay? The added hassle makes it pointless. Of course they won't go immediately, but when say the lease comes up on the building why would they stay with all the hassle running a European business from the UK.
Re your second para I agree. What point are you making?
Re your third para again I agree completely. Again I can't see your point. If anything the Luddite nature is of many Brexiteers (although not you I accept) who want to go back to the good old days. I'm all for change, but for the better not a return to the 1950s.
PS What was your business? What did you do? Did you export? I appreciate you may not want to declare. Although I have much about mine I haven't ever made full disclosure.
Lots of this lost business also won't be obvious. For instance a multi national that I am familiar with has already done the following but none of this will hit the press because it is all internal:
a) It was going to move its Ireland operation to the UK. Cancelled b) It's legal operation European wide was in the UK. All except the UK lawyers moved to Europe. c) It has been outsourcing to India. Now speeding up and extended
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.
Your view rests on the idea that all the evidence is on the same side, ignoring the history of the idea that there is weighty but inconclusive evidence in more than one direction.
All the evidence is on the side of science.
What weighty evidence is there for theism?
Religion is based on faith, that is the whole point
Why do I get this nasty feeling that the Italians will inadvertently damage the other vaccine batches.
Something tells me that the long term future for Italy's fill/finish business is somewhat uncertain.
This is so disturbing and has to be condemned by everyone, not least the EU commission
It should be something all of us on PB, irrespective of our views, call out
Surely, according to PB Brexit logic, this will simply improve Italy’s balance of trade, and complaining Italian pharma exporters should just seek new markets.
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
No I don't. For one thing it isn't possible under the uncertainty principle as far as I know to ever get that level of knowledge.
The only person I can see arguing for predeterminism right now is HYUFD and that is on religious grounds.
Heisenburg is only a theory still as far as I am aware. With a perfect knowledge of all the physics and chemistry both macro and quantum it is pretty sure if your view is correct that we live in a determinate universe where knowing all would allow you pretty much determine the course of a life. Everything they say and do. Sounds like predestination to me.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
But there are so many businesses that are. You only have to see the numbers reporting they are giving up on exporting, not looking to expand further afield.
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
Most small businesses are UK based with UK customers. An estimated 91% of UK SMEs don't export.
Those who were against leaving the European Union were free to make their case in 2016 and many did. They had valid arguments. Those arguments lost. It happens. Changes happens and all changes come with costs.
If all changes could only be made if they were cost-free then we'd never change anything. That is a Luddite attitude.
Re your first para I agree. It was the point I was making. Of course it will hit them eventually when the US multinational that they sell their sandwiches to moves its EMEA office from the UK to Europe. I mean why would it stay? The added hassle makes it pointless. Of course they won't go immediately, but when say the lease comes up on the building why would they stay with all the hassle running a European business from the UK.
Re your second para I agree. What point are you making?
Re your third para again I agree completely. Again I can't see your point. If anything the Luddite nature is of many Brexiteers (although not you I accept) who want to go back to the good old days. I'm all for change, but for the better not a return to the 1950s.
PS What was your business? What did you do? Did you export? I appreciate you may not want to declare. Although I have much about mine I haven't ever made full disclosure.
Lots of this lost business also won't be obvious. For instance a multi national that I am familiar with has already done the following but none of this will hit the press because it is all internal:
a) It was going to move its Ireland operation to the UK. Cancelled b) It's legal operation European wide was in the UK. All except the UK lawyers moved to Europe. c) It has been outsourcing to India. Now speeding up and extended
The latter probably has as much to do with covid as it does with Brexit - things that weren't practical a while ago can now be done remotely.
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."
Oi, quantum physics, just fuck right off. Going round with your crazy notions that means a simple bloke has no longer got the foggiest about what is going on the Universe. Yes, that's right, THE Universe. Enough of your multi-verse bollocks. If I can't understand it, it is so much crap. Capiche?
LOLs. It just made me realize that The Universe is a tautology. There can only be one Uni-verse, so the The is unnecessary.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
But there are so many businesses that are. You only have to see the numbers reporting they are giving up on exporting, not looking to expand further afield.
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
Most small businesses are UK based with UK customers. An estimated 91% of UK SMEs don't export.
Those who were against leaving the European Union were free to make their case in 2016 and many did. They had valid arguments. Those arguments lost. It happens. Changes happens and all changes come with costs.
If all changes could only be made if they were cost-free then we'd never change anything. That is a Luddite attitude.
Re your first para I agree. It was the point I was making. Of course it will hit them eventually when the US multinational that they sell their sandwiches to moves its EMEA office from the UK to Europe. I mean why would it stay? The added hassle makes it pointless. Of course they won't go immediately, but when say the lease comes up on the building why would they stay with all the hassle running a European business from the UK.
Re your second para I agree. What point are you making?
Re your third para again I agree completely. Again I can't see your point. If anything the Luddite nature is of many Brexiteers (although not you I accept) who want to go back to the good old days. I'm all for change, but for the better not a return to the 1950s.
PS What was your business? What did you do? Did you export? I appreciate you may not want to declare. Although I have much about mine I haven't ever made full disclosure.
Lots of this lost business also won't be obvious. For instance a multi national that I am familiar with has already done the following but none of this will hit the press because it is all internal:
a) It was going to move its Ireland operation to the UK. Cancelled b) It's legal operation European wide was in the UK. All except the UK lawyers moved to Europe. c) It has been outsourcing to India. Now speeding up and extended
Similar story at mine.
But @DavidL this morning was raving about how our balance of trade deficit “cost a million jobs”.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
But there are so many businesses that are. You only have to see the numbers reporting they are giving up on exporting, not looking to expand further afield.
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
Most small businesses are UK based with UK customers. An estimated 91% of UK SMEs don't export.
Those who were against leaving the European Union were free to make their case in 2016 and many did. They had valid arguments. Those arguments lost. It happens. Changes happens and all changes come with costs.
If all changes could only be made if they were cost-free then we'd never change anything. That is a Luddite attitude.
Re your first para I agree. It was the point I was making. Of course it will hit them eventually when the US multinational that they sell their sandwiches to moves its EMEA office from the UK to Europe. I mean why would it stay? The added hassle makes it pointless. Of course they won't go immediately, but when say the lease comes up on the building why would they stay with all the hassle running a European business from the UK.
Re your second para I agree. What point are you making?
Re your third para again I agree completely. Again I can't see your point. If anything the Luddite nature is of many Brexiteers (although not you I accept) who want to go back to the good old days. I'm all for change, but for the better not a return to the 1950s.
PS What was your business? What did you do? Did you export? I appreciate you may not want to declare. Although I have much about mine I haven't ever made full disclosure.
Lots of this lost business also won't be obvious. For instance a multi national that I am familiar with has already done the following but none of this will hit the press because it is all internal:
a) It was going to move its Ireland operation to the UK. Cancelled b) It's legal operation European wide was in the UK. All except the UK lawyers moved to Europe. c) It has been outsourcing to India. Now speeding up and extended
The latter probably has as much to do with covid as it does with Brexit - things that weren't practical a while ago can now be done remotely.
The fall in positive tests is a) surprising and b) potentially very big news. Let’s keep a close eye on that - it had been edging up (unsurprisingly, given the huge leap in testing since the schools returned).
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
No I don't. For one thing it isn't possible under the uncertainty principle as far as I know to ever get that level of knowledge.
The only person I can see arguing for predeterminism right now is HYUFD and that is on religious grounds.
Heisenburg is only a theory still as far as I am aware. With a perfect knowledge of all the physics and chemistry both macro and quantum it is pretty sure if your view is correct that we live in a determinate universe where knowing all would allow you pretty much determine the course of a life. Everything they say and do. Sounds like predestination to me.
Heisenberg (sic) is unnecessary if you adopt the many worlds rather than Copenhagen interpretation of quantum events. In which case everything which can happen, happens in one world and not in another. Not sure if that's predestination or not.
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."
Oi, quantum physics, just fuck right off. Going round with your crazy notions that means a simple bloke has no longer got the foggiest about what is going on the Universe. Yes, that's right, THE Universe. Enough of your multi-verse bollocks. If I can't understand it, it is so much crap. Capiche?
LOLs. It just made me realize that The Universe is a tautology. There can only be one Uni-verse, so the The is unnecessary.
Actually its not the universe merely describes everything within our space time continuum. It does not however rule out completely separate space continuums where things are different....for example england might have a good cricket team
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.
Your view rests on the idea that all the evidence is on the same side, ignoring the history of the idea that there is weighty but inconclusive evidence in more than one direction.
All the evidence is on the side of science.
What weighty evidence is there for theism?
Religion is based on faith, that is the whole point
I refer you back to the Babel Fish expo I shared moments ago
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
No I don't. For one thing it isn't possible under the uncertainty principle as far as I know to ever get that level of knowledge.
The only person I can see arguing for predeterminism right now is HYUFD and that is on religious grounds.
Heisenburg is only a theory still as far as I am aware. With a perfect knowledge of all the physics and chemistry both macro and quantum it is pretty sure if your view is correct that we live in a determinate universe where knowing all would allow you pretty much determine the course of a life. Everything they say and do. Sounds like predestination to me.
Heisenberg (sic) is unnecessary if you adopt the many worlds rather than Copenhagen interpretation of quantum events. In which case everything which can happen, happens in one world and not in another. Not sure if that's predestination or not.
That just means many destinies though as each time the universe splits each ongoing one would be similarly predestined. If you want to avoid predestiny you have to advocate being able to consciously picking which one.
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 -
Yes, but... ...There is a tradition, among a certain kind of Anglican, of wearing a cassock with 39 buttons on the front. The wearer then leaves some spots unbuttoned, indicating which Articles the wearer finds disagreeable. ...
I often wondered why it was the buttons around the nether regions that were the most frequently undone.
Thanks Pip. On topic, here is another possible record - the first time since Benjamin Harrison was not re-elected in 1892 that two consecutive first-term Presidents have lost re-election
(yes, you could argue Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter but I'm only assuming those who fought the election).
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
But there are so many businesses that are. You only have to see the numbers reporting they are giving up on exporting, not looking to expand further afield.
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
Most small businesses are UK based with UK customers. An estimated 91% of UK SMEs don't export.
Those who were against leaving the European Union were free to make their case in 2016 and many did. They had valid arguments. Those arguments lost. It happens. Changes happens and all changes come with costs.
If all changes could only be made if they were cost-free then we'd never change anything. That is a Luddite attitude.
Re your first para I agree. It was the point I was making. Of course it will hit them eventually when the US multinational that they sell their sandwiches to moves its EMEA office from the UK to Europe. I mean why would it stay? The added hassle makes it pointless. Of course they won't go immediately, but when say the lease comes up on the building why would they stay with all the hassle running a European business from the UK.
Re your second para I agree. What point are you making?
Re your third para again I agree completely. Again I can't see your point. If anything the Luddite nature is of many Brexiteers (although not you I accept) who want to go back to the good old days. I'm all for change, but for the better not a return to the 1950s.
PS What was your business? What did you do? Did you export? I appreciate you may not want to declare. Although I have much about mine I haven't ever made full disclosure.
Lots of this lost business also won't be obvious. For instance a multi national that I am familiar with has already done the following but none of this will hit the press because it is all internal:
a) It was going to move its Ireland operation to the UK. Cancelled b) It's legal operation European wide was in the UK. All except the UK lawyers moved to Europe. c) It has been outsourcing to India. Now speeding up and extended
The latter probably has as much to do with covid as it does with Brexit - things that weren't practical a while ago can now be done remotely.
How do you know?
A lot of firms worked on the basis that you needed offices as otherwise people weren't productive.
That was shown to be false.
Now you know the work can be done from anywhere you don't need to do it in the UK and you could outsource it somewhere cheaper.
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
No I don't. For one thing it isn't possible under the uncertainty principle as far as I know to ever get that level of knowledge.
The only person I can see arguing for predeterminism right now is HYUFD and that is on religious grounds.
Heisenburg is only a theory still as far as I am aware. With a perfect knowledge of all the physics and chemistry both macro and quantum it is pretty sure if your view is correct that we live in a determinate universe where knowing all would allow you pretty much determine the course of a life. Everything they say and do. Sounds like predestination to me.
You may think that, but the truth is we don't have a perfect knowledge of all the physics and chemistry. AFAIK it isn't possible to know whether the world is predetestined or not with current quantum theories, this is an unknown. You may think it is, the answer for me is that I don't know and I don't know if its ever going to even be possible to know.
Either way it doesn't matter. We have to make our own decisions however we make them.
Currently EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks. It is our exports to them which are being hampered by our own government. This would seem to be the complete opposite of what you want.
That's quite rightly a teething problem.
When the UK is ready to do checks we can do whatever checks suit us best. Unless or until we determine we're in a position to do those checks, there's no point cutting off our own nose to spite our face.
How is it a teething problem? Exporters can't export because the cost and complexity of the new EU rules - which we demanded as part of our preferred 3rd country status - makes it commercially unviable to do so.
This isn't something which will get resolved unless our government climbs down and agrees a co-operation deal which removes the 3rd country barriers. That we will eventually be in a position to impose the same disaster on imports isn't us punishing the EU, its us punishing us.
Did you read what I was responding to? The "teething problem" is the fact that "EU exporters to us have an easy time of it because we are not doing any checks". We aren't doing the checks because because the infrastructure wasn't built by Hammond despite his government pledging to leave the Customs Union, but is getting built now. When the infrastructure is ready, the checks will start.
As for our exporters, they need to adapt. Remember that the majority of our exports, despite the EU membership, despite distance, actually go to the rest of the world already. The EU is closer so for the minority of trade going there, there's little reason why it can't be adapted to besides some edge cases that might die off. Changes happen.
Have you ever run a business Philip? This is cloud cookooland stuff. See my post earlier today. I ran a business for which it would have been impossible to go longer distances (except for a a very few instances). Dealing with America was not profitable, similarly Australia.
Try listening to the people who actually run these small businesses. Boy am I glad I retired before the shit hit the fan because I would have gone under. Less than 5% of my business was outside of Europe (not EU).
Yes I have.
Your business is frankly not representative of our overall balance of trade. The majority of exports by value go to the rest of the world already - despite all the advantages Europe have such as the closer distance, as well as frictionless trade as these figures date from EU membership.
Ultimately politics comes down to a choice. All actions have consequences, all decisions have costs - if no other cost there will always be an "opportunity cost" for every decision. All changes have externalities. Anyone who denies there will be a downside to any decision is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny there will be problems for some. I just believe, coldly, that overall it is the right thing to do. That the benefits outweigh the costs. But it was not an easy to decision.
But there are so many businesses that are. You only have to see the numbers reporting they are giving up on exporting, not looking to expand further afield.
Did you see the example I gave of Lawnsmith re NI. Just look at their website. I only saw it because I am a customer. This isn't political grandstanding. They have ceased selling to Irish customers. This was a UK and Ireland business. Maybe they would have expanded further, now they are going backwards because they can no longer export to Ireland nor ship to NI (because of the so called non existent border down the Irish sea) because it isn't viable.
Just out of interest what sort of business did you run that this would not have been a concern?
One thing I remember from the time is there were a lot of small business owners who were pro Brexit and the one thing they all had in common was all their customers were UK based and local to them. Never actually met one who actually exported. I ran a company where all my customers met up regularly (it was the nature of the business), not one was in favour of Brexit because they all traded with Europe or were from Europe.
Most small businesses are UK based with UK customers. An estimated 91% of UK SMEs don't export.
Those who were against leaving the European Union were free to make their case in 2016 and many did. They had valid arguments. Those arguments lost. It happens. Changes happens and all changes come with costs.
If all changes could only be made if they were cost-free then we'd never change anything. That is a Luddite attitude.
Re your first para I agree. It was the point I was making. Of course it will hit them eventually when the US multinational that they sell their sandwiches to moves its EMEA office from the UK to Europe. I mean why would it stay? The added hassle makes it pointless. Of course they won't go immediately, but when say the lease comes up on the building why would they stay with all the hassle running a European business from the UK.
Re your second para I agree. What point are you making?
Re your third para again I agree completely. Again I can't see your point. If anything the Luddite nature is of many Brexiteers (although not you I accept) who want to go back to the good old days. I'm all for change, but for the better not a return to the 1950s.
PS What was your business? What did you do? Did you export? I appreciate you may not want to declare. Although I have much about mine I haven't ever made full disclosure.
Lots of this lost business also won't be obvious. For instance a multi national that I am familiar with has already done the following but none of this will hit the press because it is all internal:
a) It was going to move its Ireland operation to the UK. Cancelled b) It's legal operation European wide was in the UK. All except the UK lawyers moved to Europe. c) It has been outsourcing to India. Now speeding up and extended
The latter probably has as much to do with covid as it does with Brexit - things that weren't practical a while ago can now be done remotely.
How do you know?
A lot of firms worked on the basis that you needed offices as otherwise people weren't productive.
That was shown to be false.
Now you know the work can be done from anywhere you don't need to do it in the UK and you could outsource it somewhere cheaper.
It’s another person’s anecdote. You’re just making stuff up online.
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
No I don't. For one thing it isn't possible under the uncertainty principle as far as I know to ever get that level of knowledge.
The only person I can see arguing for predeterminism right now is HYUFD and that is on religious grounds.
Heisenburg is only a theory still as far as I am aware. With a perfect knowledge of all the physics and chemistry both macro and quantum it is pretty sure if your view is correct that we live in a determinate universe where knowing all would allow you pretty much determine the course of a life. Everything they say and do. Sounds like predestination to me.
That is not how complex adaptive systems, of which the universe is clearly one, work. They are not deterministic, they cannot be entirely known, and hence nothing can be predicted with certainty, and some things cannot even be imagined until they happen.
But even in deterministic systems, such as chaotic systems, determinism does not equate with predictability.
Only Calvinists believe in double Predestination, the Church of England is an Anglo Catholic church.
It believes those who are baptised and have faith comprise the elect but that does not mean some of those baptised will not reject the grace of Christ
Part of the C of E is an Anglo-Catholic church but even that part cannot jettison the 39 Articles and remain in communion with it.
XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION
PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
Any part can. No-one either lay or clergy has to sign up to agreeing with the 39 Articles in the modern world.
NB We are a long way from political betting, a subject thankfully not covered by the 39 Articles.
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
No I don't. For one thing it isn't possible under the uncertainty principle as far as I know to ever get that level of knowledge.
The only person I can see arguing for predeterminism right now is HYUFD and that is on religious grounds.
Heisenburg is only a theory still as far as I am aware. With a perfect knowledge of all the physics and chemistry both macro and quantum it is pretty sure if your view is correct that we live in a determinate universe where knowing all would allow you pretty much determine the course of a life. Everything they say and do. Sounds like predestination to me.
That is not how complex adaptive systems, of which the universe is clearly one, work. They are not deterministic, they cannot be entirely known, and hence nothing can be predicted with certainty, and some things cannot even be imagined until they happen.
But even in deterministic systems, such as chaotic systems, determinism does not equate with predictability.
Well scientists seem to disagree as they keep telling us they have valid climate predictions
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
That's not an impossible concept. But in terms of living your life, it has no positives.
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.
No, mystery is the antithesis of god. God is mystic crap inserted to get rid of, resolve and explain the mysteries.
and its perfectly fine for you to feel that way, no doubt you also dont believe you have emotions because thats merely a chemical imbalance in your brain giving the illusion. If science can explain everything then you have to believe you are no more than a robot being controlled by electro chemical changes brought about by rules you have no input into.
No, I believe that I do have emotions and I believe emotions are indeed caused by and related to chemicals and different parts of your brain firing.
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
Then you believe that everything you say and do will be totally predictable forever more with sufficient knowledge and your base electro chemical state now. Therefore you believe yourself an automaton without freewill
That's not an impossible concept. But in terms of living your life, it has no positives.
Of course it has positives, if you destiny is premapped and every interaction predestined then you can't be blamed for smashing up police stations with skateboards.....you lefties will love it
That may be true wrt Fauci, but it wasn't settled science (two epidemiologists of my acquaintance, both of whom I respect, had a prolonged ding-dong on Twitter over this, with competing papers on costs and benefits). If you believe fomites to be the dominant transmission vector (as was the view, early on) then being against general mask use is not an unreasonable position.
Does not change the fact that scientists should not lie. We can avoid the question when we lack evidence and refuse to give personal opinions, but we should not lie, even for good reasons.
Comments
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
OR
any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature; deity, esp. a male deity: typically considered objects of worship
Why use a word that is understood differently by others to describe something for which a well understood word - the unknown - already exists?
It believes those who are baptised and have faith comprise the elect but that does not mean some of those baptised will not reject the grace of Christ
...There is a tradition, among a certain kind of Anglican, of wearing a cassock with 39 buttons on the front. The wearer then leaves some spots unbuttoned, indicating which Articles the wearer finds disagreeable. ...
Hence a comfortable majority of the global population are still Christian or Muslim.
You do not need to be a Saint to believe in God, that is the whole point, humans are imperfect
People didn't understand how thunder happened they called it Thor the thunder god
We dont understand how the big bang happened I call it god
Seems to me my usage is older and has more of a history of usage than yours
XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION
PREDESTINATION to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
Lose Bumble at your peril.
https://twitter.com/BumbleCricket/status/1376548617394225160
It has to be proved through conduct however 'they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works'
"In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".
"Other names for the fallacy include common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument from consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,[7][10] consensus gentium (Latin for "agreement of the people"),[10] democratic fallacy,[11], mob appeal, and truth by association.[12]"
Has the entire continental mainland of Europe just taken a trip back to the Dark Ages? How in the sweet name of anything that anyone holds dear can a civilised country be doing this?
Tough choice but ok -
There is a green hill far away without a city wall. Where the dear Lord was crucified and died to save us all.
Credible. Very very credible.
But even that's a London/elsewhere thing in the main. "On your knees, avoid the fees" still happens in and around London at secondary level. But most church schools are primaries, often just the local village school. Disinterested community service.
- The state says the problem is the theft of vaccines from the EU/Italy by the manufacturers
- The evidence says that the vaccines aren't being stolen.
- Therefore the evidence is politically unusable.
- Therefor the police must get some more evidence, by new raids/investigations.
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1376540462211854339
Which in turn fed into memories of what happened at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
I doubt the Almighty will be too bothered he is not part of the flock no
Causation is not an illusion, it is causation. And indeed there is an entire pharmaceutical industry related to dealing with those chemicals if required too.
I also believe the drinking of alcohol and other things can affect your emotions as a result. For better or worse.
Science. Inserting "god" to explain whatever you don't understand is the opposite of saying that something is a mystery, and the opposite of science.
If you do not have the money to go private then regular church attendance is the best way to gain one of their limited places
It should be something all of us on PB, irrespective of our views, call out
Law suits are ongoing against the builder, who hasn't issued any statements on the matter.
Re your second para I agree. What point are you making?
Re your third para again I agree completely. Again I can't see your point. If anything the Luddite nature is of many Brexiteers (although not you I accept) who want to go back to the good old days. I'm all for change, but for the better not a return to the 1950s.
The only person I can see arguing for predeterminism right now is HYUFD and that is on religious grounds.
My wife, who is from South America, hadn't come across the "Rice Christian" stories before.....
What weighty evidence is there for theism?
https://youtu.be/fmpP73-SHPQ
Lots of this lost business also won't be obvious. For instance a multi national that I am familiar with has already done the following but none of this will hit the press because it is all internal:
a) It was going to move its Ireland operation to the UK. Cancelled
b) It's legal operation European wide was in the UK. All except the UK lawyers moved to Europe.
c) It has been outsourcing to India. Now speeding up and extended
Everyone’s a winnah.
But @DavidL this morning was raving about how our balance of trade deficit “cost a million jobs”.
Jesus F Christ.
Or praise science.
Or maybe it was all pre destined and would have happened anyways...
Unlikely angels.
I refer you back to the Babel Fish expo I shared moments ago
(yes, you could argue Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter but I'm only assuming those who fought the election).
That was shown to be false.
Now you know the work can be done from anywhere you don't need to do it in the UK and you could outsource it somewhere cheaper.
https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1376548118800396291?s=21
Either way it doesn't matter. We have to make our own decisions however we make them.
You’re just making stuff up online.
His son, with his anti-establishment, anti-capitalist leanings (see money changers in the temple) would probably be a Lexiteer
But even in deterministic systems, such as chaotic systems, determinism does not equate with predictability.
If you want it phrased differently, they found a noble reason for not reporting a noble lie.
NB We are a long way from political betting, a subject thankfully not covered by the 39 Articles.
Can we rename please to epistemological betting dot com?
Does not change the fact that scientists should not lie. We can avoid the question when we lack evidence and refuse to give personal opinions, but we should not lie, even for good reasons.