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.
I'm with @Philip_Thompson on this one. There is no need to invent a god for what one can't understand.
Re your comment it might be worth checking out Laplace's Demon to take it to a more basic level. Seems perfectly logical to me. Just because everything is predetermined it doesn't mean you stop making decisions, even if those decisions are predetermined. They may be predetermined, but you don't know that when you make them. If you accept the established science on particles and their motion this appears inevitable. I have to say I am blown away by Laplace coming up with this when he did.
The chat started this morning with aliens, and had now moved on to predestination.
Can we rename please to epistemological betting dot com?
Ok to square the circle, this morning the assertion was that the US government is leading up to announcing the presence of aliens, and evidence was shown from US naval leaked footage. I now contend that the footage shows not aliens, but angels, and presages the end of the world and judgement day.
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. ...
If they have 39 buttons, they had better turn up early.
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.
Key question for this board though - is God a Remainer or a Brexiter?
God would have voted Remain but, having gotten over his sadness and disappointment in his fellow, less enlightened beings, He would realized the democratic necessity of leaving and been implacably opposed to a second Referendum.
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.
Whether we get there or not is immaterial to the position, with perfect knowledge you could pretty much from a known state predict someones entire life. The fact we don't know enough yet is neither here nor there it was simply a statement of fact if it all comes down to rules of physics , chemistry and biology we are predestined
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.
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
The chat started this morning with aliens, and had now moved on to predestination.
Can we rename please to epistemological betting dot com?
Ok to square the circle, this morning the assertion was that the US government is leading up to announcing the presence of aliens, and evidence was shown from US naval leaked footage. I now contend that the footage shows not aliens, but angels, and presages the end of the world and judgement day.
Just as likely to be right...
Well, angels are beings from the heavens and aliens are... beings from the heavens.
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
I never understood why Calvinists were such a miserable lot; if your fate is predestined why not eat, drink and be merry. Catholic girls were a lot more fun!
Comments
Re your comment it might be worth checking out Laplace's Demon to take it to a more basic level. Seems perfectly logical to me. Just because everything is predetermined it doesn't mean you stop making decisions, even if those decisions are predetermined. They may be predetermined, but you don't know that when you make them. If you accept the established science on particles and their motion this appears inevitable. I have to say I am blown away by Laplace coming up with this when he did.
Pays out at the crack of doom.”
Just as likely to be right...
And, either way, Farage was clearly put on this world in order to try our collective patience.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9414625/Teacher-tells-father-fears-life-Prophet-Muhammad-row.html
See, for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
How do I know this? Well ...
Is there a meaningful distinction?
NEW THREAD
Catholic girls were a lot more fun!