Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
Confirmation that grammar schools, end of pension triple lock, means-testing winter fuel allowance all in history's dustbin #QueensSpeech
The oldies get their way. Not sure that's good for the country.
Can't blame May for that one. Cameron, Osborne and Lansley could have sorted this out back in 2010; they decided to play politics with the Death Tax instead. May is utterly useless, but the legacy she was left by her predecessor was poisoned, to say the least.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
He's on a roll. Authenticity taking a slight back seat to gaining power. Wouldn't do to sully the narrative.
No doubt shortly to address his 'peaceful protest' mysteriously called 'Day of Rage'.....
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
Well said.
A particular bugbear of mine is whenever Richard Dawkins is referred to as somehow an authority/representative of atheism... No thanks.
But we were assured on here that his visit was a CERTAINTY.
Free money, the PB Leaver Trumpers told us!
It would have been, but for the election - I'm happy enough to have lost £100 @ 5-6 on that anyhow. Anyway I need him to not set foot in the country now to win the saver.
Aye, and if me grandma had balls she'd be...
I'd happily make the same bet again.
I'm just pulling your chain. It wasn't a bad bet at all.
Suffering today in my winter clothes as I am holding to my grandmothers mantra of cast ne'er a clout till May is out. Come on you old bag, it's boiling!
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
You're not a football atheist, you're a football Anglican agnostic
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
It depends on the protocol.
For example, I would consider it bad manners to refuse to bow to a judge, when they enter or leave a Courtroom.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
You're bowing to the Office of Head of State, not the person. Dimwit.
Why should he bow to an unelected head of state, Britain's richest welfare recipient?
Because she represents the state he is supposed to be serving. I do understand you feel there is a valid argument for having an elected head of state but as long as we have this system in place she represents the people of this nation in a non political way. By refusing to recognise that he is not insulting her, he is insulting the people of this country and revealing the disdain he holds us all in.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
Well said.
A particular bugbear of mine is whenever Richard Dawkins is referred to as somehow an authority/representative of atheism... No thanks.
Mr. Evershed, a vegetarian believes in eating no meat. That doesn't make them a carnivore.
Tell me in what god I have faith? None. Or afterlife? None. I have no religious belief.
Saying "You don't believe in God" is about as useful as saying "You don't believe in fairies, or the Giant Space Pig Monster or that a chocolate teapot is currently orbiting Jupiter."
A religious faith is about following holy books, prophets, worship of and belief in gods.
I don't have faith. I have reason. Things in which I believe are backed up by science and evidence, not by books written thousands of years ago.
Mr. rkrkrk, I agree entirely. The idea Dawkins speaks for me is perplexing. I don't attend a Church of Dawkins and haven't read the Gospel of Dawkins either. I can only assume that some religious people are unable to grasp that many/most atheists are content to be responsible for their own perspective without requiring some external organisation or individual to act as a moral authority.
A kid at school tried to claim I was an Anglican. I never did work out if he were just provoking me, or was genuinely that stupid (he was academically intelligent but not endowed with boundless common sense).
And, spending in NI per head is already much higher than the rest of the UK at £2700, vs £2200 (eng), £2300 (wales), £2500 (scot).
Greedy bastards.
I think the NI NHS is in a particularly parlous state in terms of waiting times, and also difficulty recruiting. It may be particularly poorly run, or possibly just a higher burden of disease.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
You're bowing to the Office of Head of State, not the person. Dimwit.
Why should he bow to an unelected head of state, Britain's richest welfare recipient?
Because she represents the state he is supposed to be serving. I do understand you feel there is a valid argument for having an elected head of state but as long as we have this system in place she represents the people of this nation in a non political way. By refusing to recognise that he is not insulting her, he is insulting the people of this country and revealing the disdain he holds us all in.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
No, of course it's not what a modern society is about. The purpose of the ceremony is the precise opposite: to reinforce that we are an ancient society with roots, history and common bonds.
If we wanted to do it on a modern, efficient way, it could have simply been e-mailed to MPs and peers. And we'd have been much the poorer for it.
Mr. Evershed, a religious position is not a faith. Tell me what an atheist believes in.
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
An atheist believes there is no God.
There could be an axe murderer creeping up behind you right now. Do you believe there isn't, or are you careful to state you neither believe nor disbelieve in him? Is there actually any practical difference between those two positions? And if there is, why aren't you more afraid?
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
You're bowing to the Office of Head of State, not the person. Dimwit.
Why should he bow to an unelected head of state, Britain's richest welfare recipient?
Because she represents the state he is supposed to be serving. I do understand you feel there is a valid argument for having an elected head of state but as long as we have this system in place she represents the people of this nation in a non political way. By refusing to recognise that he is not insulting her, he is insulting the people of this country and revealing the disdain he holds us all in.
There is no need to bow to her to recognise that.
It is showing respect for the state that he is supposed to be serving. You and I might reasonably say that we will not do that but we are not serving the state. He is. Indeed he wants to be the State's Prime-Minister. If he cannot show respect for the state then he has no right wanting to serve it.
Suffering today in my winter clothes as I am holding to my grandmothers mantra of cast ne'er a clout till May is out. Come on you old bag, it's boiling!
You do realise that it's been June for three weeks now, right? Clouts may safely be cast.
I'm surprised by the DUP demands? I thought they were friends and allies of the Tory party? Friends don't extort money from friends.
Mrs May screwed up and confused the DUP with the UUP.
Of all the mistakes she's made, that's the one that's the most damning. How could she get confused?
I think she was shellshocked that Friday afternoon when she spoke like a woman that had won a 100 seat majority and not frittered away Cameron's majority.
Remember the 1922 had to get her in front of the TV cameras to apologise to all those defeated Tories that night.
Suffering today in my winter clothes as I am holding to my grandmothers mantra of cast ne'er a clout till May is out. Come on you old bag, it's boiling!
You do realise that it's been June for three weeks now, right? Clouts may safely be cast.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
No, of course it's not what a modern society is about. The purpose of the ceremony is the precise opposite: to reinforce that we are an ancient society with roots, history and common bonds.
If we wanted to do it on a modern, efficient way, it could have simply been e-mailed to MPs and peers. And we'd have been much the poorer for it.
I can several pitfalls with the high profile the senior Labour party members have given to the "Day of Rage"
1 Not many people turn up 2 Disjointed different protests undermining the broad message 3 Any sort of trouble 4 Or worse - significant conflict with the police 5 God forbid, a terrorist incident 6 Any MP's or Royal retinue being harassed 7 Labour support for any group involved with subsequent violence
Suffering today in my winter clothes as I am holding to my grandmothers mantra of cast ne'er a clout till May is out. Come on you old bag, it's boiling!
You do realise that it's been June for three weeks now, right? Clouts may safely be cast.
"till May is our" refers to the Blackthorn flower, not the month.
Blackthorn not yet out round here.
Of course a modern interpretation might be the resignation of the Prime minister.
Atheists do not 'believe' there is no God, they hold a position that there is no God or gods. It's an important logical and philosophical distinction. I do not need to believe there are no sentient bananas, it's simply the case that there are no sentient bananas. Their non existence is not a matter of belief but of fact. Should the facts change then I should no longer be that thing which I was when I was defined. Atheists know there is no God or Gods.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
Suffering today in my winter clothes as I am holding to my grandmothers mantra of cast ne'er a clout till May is out. Come on you old bag, it's boiling!
You do realise that it's been June for three weeks now, right? Clouts may safely be cast.
"till May is our" refers to the Blackthorn flower, not the month.
Blackthorn not yet out round here.
Of course a modern interpretation might be the resignation of the Prime minister.
Correct. I was making a joke about the PM based on it. Yes, it refers to the blackthorn not the month.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
Atheists do not 'believe' there is no God, they hold a position that there is no God or gods. It's an important logical and philosophical distinction. I do not need to believe there are no sentient bananas, it's simply the case that there are no sentient bananas. Their non existence is not a matter of belief but of fact. Should the facts change then I should no longer be that thing which I was when I was defined. Atheists know there is no God or Gods.
"For any meaningfully useful definition of God/Gods not adequately covered by other phenomena"
I'm surprised by the DUP demands? I thought they were friends and allies of the Tory party? Friends don't extort money from friends.
Mrs May screwed up and confused the DUP with the UUP.
Of all the mistakes she's made, that's the one that's the most damning. How could she get confused?
But what's crazier is that none of her advisers or anyone else picked up on it. Perhaps Downing Street pay so little attention to NI normally that no one actually realised there was a difference until it was too late.
"till May is our" refers to the Blackthorn flower, not the month.
Blackthorn not yet out round here.
Ha! That's a great comment. I hadn't seen that interpretation, although it seems to be very much disputed and in any case to be a reference to hawthorn, if anything - which has been out for a long time:
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
It can not be proved there is no God.
It cannot be proven that there is. Indeed the whole concept of faith depends upon the inability to prove her existence. It cannot be proven that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist but not believing in it does not mean I am showing any signs of faith. Scepticism is the opposite of faith not another version of it.
I'm surprised by the DUP demands? I thought they were friends and allies of the Tory party? Friends don't extort money from friends.
Mrs May screwed up and confused the DUP with the UUP.
Of all the mistakes she's made, that's the one that's the most damning. How could she get confused?
But what's crazier is that none of her advisers or anyone else picked up on it. Perhaps Downing Street pay so little attention to NI normally that no one actually realised there was a difference until it was too late.
George Osborne said this on election night on ITV. Perhaps Theresa May watched Auntie.
I'm surprised by the DUP demands? I thought they were friends and allies of the Tory party? Friends don't extort money from friends.
Mrs May screwed up and confused the DUP with the UUP.
Of all the mistakes she's made, that's the one that's the most damning. How could she get confused?
But what's crazier is that none of her advisers or anyone else picked up on it. Perhaps Downing Street pay so little attention to NI normally that no one actually realised there was a difference until it was too late.
George Osborne said this on election night on ITV. Perhaps Theresa May watched Auntie.
Unless I've missed further events it seems to be the DUP whinging in the press suggests the Tories have told them to go take a running jump and double dared them to vote down the Queen's speech (in politer terms of course).
Which is the first good move they've made since May called the election.
The invidious effect of the triple lock has been to transfer significant quantities of public spending from the working age population (and their children) to the old. It is, frankly, a disgrace and one can only hope that the higher turnout of younger voters in the recent election means that the incentive to indulge in this intergenerational theft is reduced.
I thought when the state did it, theft was considered "redistribution"?
Eight bills over 2 years is a disgrace = one every three months. The UK government can't just mothball everything except DExEU. We need either a coalition or another election.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
Unless I've missed further events it seems to be the DUP whinging in the press suggests the Tories have told them to go take a running jump and double dared them to vote down the Queen's speech (in politer terms of course).
Which is the first good move they've made since May called the election.
I don't think that fits with them publicly making unreasonable demands like the £1billion. More likely it's brinkmanship to squeeze the Tories as much as they can
Eight bills over 2 years is a disgrace = one every three months. The UK government can't just mothball everything except DExEU. We need either a coalition or another election.
Unless I've missed further events it seems to be the DUP whinging in the press suggests the Tories have told them to go take a running jump and double dared them to vote down the Queen's speech (in politer terms of course).
Which is the first good move they've made since May called the election.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
Eight bills over 2 years is a disgrace = one every three months. The UK government can't just mothball everything except DExEU. We need either a coalition or another election.
Why? The government and the country still run.
The less legislation the government bring forward the better. Small government. C'mon Tories still can be easily sold as in line with your ideology.
Atheists do not 'believe' there is no God, they hold a position that there is no God or gods. It's an important logical and philosophical distinction. I do not need to believe there are no sentient bananas, it's simply the case that there are no sentient bananas. Their non existence is not a matter of belief but of fact. Should the facts change then I should no longer be that thing which I was when I was defined. Atheists know there is no God or Gods.
A position held without evidence is a belief. The absence of evidence to support a contrary conclusion is not of itself remotely close to being evidence from which one can 'know' the position is valid.
Atheists do indeed believe there are no gods (and 'no God or gods' is a tautology: 'no God' is just a specific sub-set of 'no gods').
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
They won't be able to get boundary changes through even with DUP support, hard to believe that is an issue in the negotiations (although who knows these days).
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Is the absence of faith not itself a faith?
No it is not. Faith means belief in something that cannot be proved, for which there is no direct evidence. If one accepts that one will not believe anything without evidence then by definition that is not faith. This applies not only in the religious context but of course it is there that it is most prevalent.
It is easy to underestimate how deep a local reservoir/lake is.
It's not the depth, but the cold water that lies beneath a sun warmed layer on the top of the lake.
You jump into what you think is a body of warm water, find it's cold and the resulting shock causes a deep intake of breath as one goes beneath the surface, resulting in drowning. Very common. There's an RNLI poster campaign running about what to do in such a situation.
"In any discussion of the oil market it is all too easy to ignore the real world consequences of the price fall that has occurred over the last three years. We might appreciate a small cut in the price of petrol or gasoline at the pump, even though its effect is dampened by high levels of taxation. But we do not give much thought to the impact of price changes on the supplying countries. That is short-sighted because the structural shift that has taken place is profoundly destabilising and potentially very dangerous."
The entire "faith"/"So what do they believe in" bemusement from theists is reminiscent to me of that Calvin and Hobbes cartoon (I think it was Calvin and Hobbes) about TV watching:
They won't be able to get boundary changes through even with DUP support, hard to believe that is an issue in the negotiations (although who knows these days).
It's the only way they can get the changes through. They'd have 326 MPs to 312. With a 3-line whip that should be enough, even allowing for a few awkward sods.
Comments
The absence of belief is not belief, it's the very opposite. I have a football position, which is that I don't care very much about it. Your argument is that this makes me a football fan.
https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/877476849114386432
A particular bugbear of mine is whenever Richard Dawkins is referred to as somehow an authority/representative of atheism... No thanks.
new national policies on immigration, international sanctions, nuclear safeguards, agriculture, and fisheries.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2017
What's missing from this list? In other words, what will we be leaving under EU jurisdiction - Medicines? Pharmaceuticals? Air Safety?
Come on you old bag, it's boiling!
The DUP are the UKIP of Northern Ireland. They thought they had power, but didn't
Tell me in what god I have faith? None. Or afterlife? None. I have no religious belief.
Saying "You don't believe in God" is about as useful as saying "You don't believe in fairies, or the Giant Space Pig Monster or that a chocolate teapot is currently orbiting Jupiter."
A religious faith is about following holy books, prophets, worship of and belief in gods.
I don't have faith. I have reason. Things in which I believe are backed up by science and evidence, not by books written thousands of years ago.
Mr. rkrkrk, I agree entirely. The idea Dawkins speaks for me is perplexing. I don't attend a Church of Dawkins and haven't read the Gospel of Dawkins either. I can only assume that some religious people are unable to grasp that many/most atheists are content to be responsible for their own perspective without requiring some external organisation or individual to act as a moral authority.
A kid at school tried to claim I was an Anglican. I never did work out if he were just provoking me, or was genuinely that stupid (he was academically intelligent but not endowed with boundless common sense).
You're right. I am mostly a football agnostic.
Enough to put anyone off their lunch !!
If we wanted to do it on a modern, efficient way, it could have simply been e-mailed to MPs and peers. And we'd have been much the poorer for it.
May you all be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
Remember the 1922 had to get her in front of the TV cameras to apologise to all those defeated Tories that night.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-40349315
1 Not many people turn up
2 Disjointed different protests undermining the broad message
3 Any sort of trouble
4 Or worse - significant conflict with the police
5 God forbid, a terrorist incident
6 Any MP's or Royal retinue being harassed
7 Labour support for any group involved with subsequent violence
Blackthorn not yet out round here.
Of course a modern interpretation might be the resignation of the Prime minister.
I do not need to believe there are no sentient bananas, it's simply the case that there are no sentient bananas. Their non existence is not a matter of belief but of fact.
Should the facts change then I should no longer be that thing which I was when I was defined.
Atheists know there is no God or Gods.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/till-may-is-out.html
https://idiomation.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/never-cast-a-clout-until-may-is-out/
That is summer over for this year
Which is the first good move they've made since May called the election.
https://twitter.com/NewsmanDan/status/877490499875221504
Atheists do indeed believe there are no gods (and 'no God or gods' is a tautology: 'no God' is just a specific sub-set of 'no gods').
You jump into what you think is a body of warm water, find it's cold and the resulting shock causes a deep intake of breath as one goes beneath the surface, resulting in drowning. Very common. There's an RNLI poster campaign running about what to do in such a situation.
https://www.ft.com/content/48d0ac89-3acf-351c-88bc-d55ecf45ae6c
Everyone forgets his contribution to the Salisbury-Addison convention.
- "We don't have a TV"
"...."
"... so - what do you watch?"