politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The dangers of reverse-reasoning: a Christmas parable
Comments
-
What are you going on about? I myself am a practicing Anglican, as are a higher percentage of Tories that does not change the fact most Britons are not now religious, or if they are they are more likely to be from ethnic minorities.Rebourne_Fluffy said:
Between yourself and HB you are seriously showing:HYUFD said:As we are now basically a secular country the religion figures did not surprise me, religion is now more influential in the developing world than the western world (outside the USA of course). There are now more Christians as a percentage in Nigeria than the UK for example, a complete reversal from a century ago.
# A lack of knowledge,
# A lack of comprehension,
# An ignorance of history, and
# Exposing yourselves as a threat to the Conservative Party.
I am sure that you both feel-at-home-as-Tories - in a 'Tim NbD' way: I respect this (albeit reluctantly). Utterances-of-bolleaux do not, however, endear you to true conservatives (including the deluded republicans): Please desist.0 -
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writingRebourne_Fluffy said:Off-topic:
t'Economist "Double-Edition": Almost half the size it used to be. My views; so far:
# Summary: Zookie does not like DJ Trump.
# Editorials: First one failed.
## Chose the correct tune but failed to reach-the-notes (nothing about sexual-aggression within the LGBTQ mob).
## Cyril R was good; 'Nice one'.
## Safer-smoking showed signs of t'Economist liberalism I pay for.
## Well-done France! South-Korea failed at the start.
# Extras (I)
## The Lift article is a rehash from a few years ago: That said some interesting ideas towards the end.
## Polygamy/Polygany: Disturbing.
## B-train: A snap-shot of Paris. It may be vibrant but it still sounds as depressing as I remember it.
Hopefully the quality will be maintained as-per-standard: Do not like the extra-thick plastic cover (not even blue) and question where this paper is going long-term. For the first time I can remember (thirty-years I have chosen not to buy "The World In..."): Maybe time to spin-off the EIU from the parasites.
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?0 -
Leavers = Skoptsi.AlastairMeeks said:Loving all the Brexiters:
a) dissecting other cults based on faith; and
b) getting upset by identified inaccuracies told by political opponents.
This Christmas it seems that irony is flying off the shelves.
Self-mutilation now. Pauline redemption through eradication of ancestral sin at some unspecified point in the future.0 -
Ishmael_Z said:
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
0 -
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.0 -
Thistly Cross is delicious.Rebourne_Fluffy said:Off-topic:
Apparently some of our Scotch cousins can do it: https://www.thistlycrosscider.co.uk/?age-verified=539ea18cd9
Shame about 2014; here is hoping they get it right next time.
0 -
Merry Christmas.stevef said:Jeremy Corbyn shares the same initials as Jesus Christ, and his deluded followers think that he is the Messiah. But Corbyn was defeated in this year's general election, and will never be prime minister.
I think you forgot your sign off - ‘and i am a labour supporter/have voted Labour all my life etc...’0 -
Probably, though we could of course choose whatever colour we like.OldKingCole said:
Surely an independent Scotland would/will have an EU burgundy one?MarqueeMark said:
Oh, and Independent Scotland wouldn't have wanted a blue passport?malcolmg said:
Yes it just looks petty and pathetic, very backward and insular looking. They are most certainly not in control of anything and seem to just pander to the xenophobes, very depressing and does not bode well for future.Recidivist said:Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
Well, now you've got them.....
Just like the UK could have done for the last 30 years.0 -
And a merry Christmas to you, too.AlastairMeeks said:Loving all the Brexiters:
a) dissecting other cults based on faith; and
b) getting upset by identified inaccuracies told by political opponents.
This Christmas it seems that irony is flying off the shelves.0 -
Well maybe. In my younger days I was a goalkeeper and as you get older so do your reactions. The balls that used to hi the plan of my hands started to go through my fingers. I had three dislocated before I retired and was unable to close the smallest finger on one hand. Two years ago someone asked if they could pray for my finger to be straightened. I said yes and thought the whole thing to be funny. They closed their hands on my affected hand and prayed for my finger to be healed in Jesus name. When they opened their hands I could close (and still can to this day) the finger that I couldn't do before. I was gobsmacked.
Then a year ago I was filling my car with petrol at the local Tesco's when a man, who I didn't know, approached me and said "I know there's a God". Well, I thought, what on earth is this all about? Apparently his wife had just been given the all clear from throat cancer a fortnight after the doctor's had told him there was nothing more they could do for her (it had returned after treatment) and all he could do was pray. He had never prayed before but he said they asked Jesus for a miracle. She felt her throat grow warm and at the subsequent check up there was no sign of the cancer. He wasn't after money or fame, just confused and thankful for what had happened to them and wanting to let others know what had happened.
I share these two tales because I personally experienced them. (I have others but this is a political website so I'll restrict those to my diaries/blog). I have no doubt that there is "there is someone watching" but appreciate that, just like the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus time, some may need a sign to believe and even after that may not!0 -
IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
0 -
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.0 -
Remainers = failed prophetsDura_Ace said:
Leavers = Skoptsi.AlastairMeeks said:Loving all the Brexiters:
a) dissecting other cults based on faith; and
b) getting upset by identified inaccuracies told by political opponents.
This Christmas it seems that irony is flying off the shelves.
Self-mutilation now. Pauline redemption through eradication of ancestral sin at some unspecified point in the future.
"Punish them God, Punish them God, Punish them God. Why don't you punish them God. I am a true believer and told the wicked unbelievers you would smite them with a recession, with tax rises, with pension cuts, with increased unemployment, with falling house prices, with a stock market crash and with crops going unharvested them in the fields. Its not fair God that you haven't punished the unbelieving Leavers"0 -
Yes, I've experienced it in my own thinking. I used to think that civil partnerships were great but gay marriage was provoking people too much (I have gay friends who agreed); gay adoption seemed to me a step too far. I now have no idea what I was worried about - I can't relate to my thinking on this just 20 years ago at all.IanB2 said:
The change in social attitudes during our lifetimes - as indeed for many generations through history - has been truly dramatic. It is very hard to put ourselves back into the commonly accepted mindset of thirty or forty years ago, even for those of us that lived through it. (Most of) the people wanting to take us back there really don't know what they are wanting.0 -
Sorry, not really. I am, however, paying for 'Print/Internet' costs for a publication I barely read. I have other interests that amuse me now (as democracy is dead): The decline of a once-liberal newspaper - the clarion-call of the 'Anti-Corn-Laws' no-less - may become a charity-too-far.RoyalBlue said:The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
The Lisbon Treaty was rightly rejected by "'t'economist": Now they cry a tear-of repentence and show respect for the folly that is Juncker (over a gin-filled dinner party in Islington...).
0 -
IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
0 -
Did you see that a Mr Yezhov has been consorting with the PM? It’s a sign.Dura_Ace said:
Leavers = Skoptsi.AlastairMeeks said:Loving all the Brexiters:
a) dissecting other cults based on faith; and
b) getting upset by identified inaccuracies told by political opponents.
This Christmas it seems that irony is flying off the shelves.
Self-mutilation now. Pauline redemption through eradication of ancestral sin at some unspecified point in the future.0 -
I think the prominence of transgenderism has increased tolerance of homosexuality as there is now a different aspect of 'strange' or 'not normal' to comprehend for many people.NickPalmer said:
Yes, I've experienced it in my own thinking. I used to think that civil partnerships were great but gay marriage was provoking people too much (I have gay friends who agreed); gay adoption seemed to me a step too far. I now have no idea what I was worried about - I can't relate to my thinking on this just 20 years ago at all.IanB2 said:
The change in social attitudes during our lifetimes - as indeed for many generations through history - has been truly dramatic. It is very hard to put ourselves back into the commonly accepted mindset of thirty or forty years ago, even for those of us that lived through it. (Most of) the people wanting to take us back there really don't know what they are wanting.
That many homosexuals and feminists have strong disagrrements with the trans community is a feature of this.0 -
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.0 -
This really isn't difficult. The claim is that God a. is omnipotent and b. loves humanity in the same way that a human parent loves his/er children. If that were true, the very first time in history that a child was tortured to death a God fitting those criteria would have said OMFG what have I done and deleted the whole experiment, rather than risk a repeat. It is no use saying yebbut he gives us the choice to be good or evil, because the victims don't get that choice.
Another way to nail the religious: ask them, if they completely lost their belief, would they then be entirely OK with robbing widows and orphans, coveting their neighbour's ass and other naughtiness. If the answer is Yes, you are a c**t; if the answer is No, then this religious flimflam isn't actually fundamental to morality, is it? and if the answer is That could never happen, so the question is meaningless, that is a surrender of the right to argue about it, because you are stipulating in advance that any evidence against you is inadmissible because it's against you.0 -
You sent me off to Wikipedia to have a look. His theories appear to apply explicitly and specifically to the field of mathematics only. Not being a mathematician I am not qualified to judge, but it seems that you are pushing your luck trying to construct a universal theory of everything out of his mathematical proposition.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
In any event, I would imagine that the absence of something would commonly be impossible to prove. The presence of something is possible to prove, depending on the circumstances, but constructing the theory in the absence of any evidence whatsoever is delusion, as I said. That it is so is evidenced by the completely different theories that different civilisations have come up with in different places and times.0 -
Won't Buddhists be reincarnated, so they'll get another go in their next life?OldKingCole said:
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA7v0zknMCoIshmael_Z said:This really isn't difficult. The claim is that God a. is omnipotent and b. loves humanity in the same way that a human parent loves his/er children. If that were true, the very first time in history that a child was tortured to death a God fitting those criteria would have said OMFG what have I done and deleted the whole experiment, rather than risk a repeat. It is no use saying yebbut he gives us the choice to be good or evil, because the victims don't get that choice.
Another way to nail the religious: ask them, if they completely lost their belief, would they then be entirely OK with robbing widows and orphans, coveting their neighbour's ass and other naughtiness. If the answer is Yes, you are a c**t; if the answer is No, then this religious flimflam isn't actually fundamental to morality, is it? and if the answer is That could never happen, so the question is meaningless, that is a surrender of the right to argue about it, because you are stipulating in advance that any evidence against you is inadmissible because it's against you.
:facepalm:0 -
Might be a step up, might not be. Daughter-in-law goes to the temple to ‘make merit’.david_herdson said:
Won't Buddhists be reincarnated, so they'll get another go in their next life?OldKingCole said:
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.0 -
Jesus was quite fine praising the faith of a Roman Centurion (who would be Pagan), Samaritans and many others. He was quite harsh on the orthodox Sanhedrin etc.OldKingCole said:
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
While some Christian churches would claim that only Christians are in heaven, Jesus does not back that up. Indeed He expressed a very different view. While I wouldn't claim to firsthand knowledge, I cannot conceive a God who is a stickler for paperwork.
My advice would be to stick to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, and you should be fine, whether athiest, pagan, Christian or Buddhist.
0 -
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.0 -
Agree, especially with your last two sentences.foxinsoxuk said:
Jesus was quite fine praising the faith of a Roman Centurion (who would be Pagan), Samaritans and many others. He was quite harsh on the orthodox Sanhedrin etc.OldKingCole said:
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.IanB2 said:
.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.
While some Christian churches would claim that only Christians are in heaven, Jesus does not back that up. Indeed He expressed a very different view. While I wouldn't claim to firsthand knowledge, I cannot conceive a God who is a stickler for paperwork.
My advice would be to stick to the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, and you should be fine, whether athiest, pagan, Christian or Buddhist.0 -
The chances of returning in human form are vanishingly small.david_herdson said:
Won't Buddhists be reincarnated, so they'll get another go in their next life?OldKingCole said:
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.0 -
Just seen this on the Beeb (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42466312)
Paralympic champion Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson has said she was prevented from boarding a train after being told "there's no room for her".
She said in a tweet: "Merry Christmas to the person on the train who just stopped me getting on. Told member of staff 'there's no room for her’.”
Apparently the member of staff was ‘good’.0 -
Only the first time. Anyway, why not enjoy life as a bacterium?dixiedean said:
The chances of returning in human form are vanishingly small.david_herdson said:
Won't Buddhists be reincarnated, so they'll get another go in their next life?OldKingCole said:
One of the problems that I had with Christianity before I dropped out was that there was no chance of ‘salvation’ for the pious, good living ... for example.... Buddhist.IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Buddhism has people who aren’t ‘gentle' ..... see Myanmar at the moment, ......but overall they are a kindly lot.0 -
I quite like the idea of the old Norse / Roman / Greek gods. Their philosophy seems more consistent with their actions than the Christian god (who has a more than a bit of a split personality anyway).Barnesian said:
The definition of God (omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent) contains a contradiction. It's the benevolence that is the killer assumption. Why would an all seeing, all powerful God allow the awful evils to happen?IanB2 said:
Even if there were, it doesn't follow that all the worshipping and other paraphanalia that goes with whatever flavour of religion you have chosen makes any sense, or has any purpose, other than a human/social one. Pretending there is someone watching just made it easier to force people to follow whatever rules the powerful wanted.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of theMarkHopkins said:
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...flying teapotdeity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
I think it is possible we are living in a simulation created by a vastly more technologically advanced intelligence. A bit like the Truman Show. Nick Bostrom tries to quantify the probability in his famous paper.
https://www.simulation-argument.com/
If this is so, the intelligence is not benevolent to us. We are part of an experiment or perhaps an alien child's entertainment.
Edit: This year they've been taking the piss with Brexit and Trump.0 -
Afternoon all
A brief respite from the pre-Christmas hullabaloo and before the afternoon's racing - in the pre-Mrs Stodge days I'd have been at Lingfield where Barry Dennis used to throw mince pies round the betting ring at the last AW fixture before Christmas. After being struck by one said object one year and no doubt in a state of concussion, I decided to have a tenner on a 7/2 shot on his pitch (4/1 elsewhere but the man had hit me with a mince pie!!). He was happy to take the tenner and apologised for the mince pie - less happy 10 minutes later when I relieved him of £45.
So, we're on the heavy stuff this afternoon...
Okay, I'll play.
I'm not sure - belief in God doesn't strike me as all that important. I suppose I've derived my moral code primarily from Christianity but there are messages in a number of other religions around love, tolerance, respect and a whole number of other positive values such as helping others and generally doing good. If you try to live to a code like that I don't think the faith is that important.
Perhaps living a good and positive life transcends one faith or indeed all faiths.0 -
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
0 -
@david_herdson said:
Only the first time. Anyway, why not enjoy life as a bacterium?
There is as much philosophical debate about the reality of re-incarnation within Buddhism as there is in Christianity about the existence of heaven.
As there is about the mechanisms, practicality, qualificatios required, etc, etc.
Similarly, most practitioners don't worry themselves overly about the details.0 -
NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
Yep - at uni I used to take the Economist and the NS, usually some decent reading in the more tedious lectures. Both have dropped off a quality cliff since though.0 -
Delusion. Noun. What everyone else suffers from.
0 -
The theorem says that *within any given axiomatic system* there are some things which are true but cannot be proved. And it doesn't help you.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?0 -
Wouldn't the chocolate melt in the heat?JosiasJessop said:Seventy firefighters have been tackling a fire at London Zoo.
Forty to tackle the fire, and thirty to eat the roast reindeer and par-baked penguins.0 -
Free will is the answer to your conundrum: He sets the rules but not the outcomesBarnesian said:
The definition of God (omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent) contains a contradiction. It's the benevolence that is the killer assumption. Why would an all seeing, all powerful God allow the awful evils to happen?IanB2 said:
Even if there were, it doesn't follow that all the worshipping and other paraphanalia that goes with whatever flavour of religion you have chosen makes any sense, or has any purpose, other than a human/social one. Pretending there is someone watching just made it easier to force people to follow whatever rules the powerful wanted.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of theMarkHopkins said:
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...flying teapotdeity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
I think it is possible we are living in a simulation created by a vastly more technologically advanced intelligence. A bit like the Truman Show. Nick Bostrom tries to quantify the probability in his famous paper.
https://www.simulation-argument.com/
If this is so, the intelligence is not benevolent to us. We are part of an experiment or perhaps an alien child's entertainment.
Edit: This year they've been taking the piss with Brexit and Trump.0 -
Stopped-reading early: Dulwich-College; pfft! How is the 'doggie'?stodge said:Afternoon all
A brief respite from the pre-Christmas hullabaloo and before the afternoon's racing - in the pre-Mrs Stodge days I'd have been at Lingfield where Barry Dennis used to throw mince pies round the betting ring at the last AW fixture before Christmas. After being struck by one said object one year and no doubt in a state of concussion, I decided to have a tenner on a 7/2 shot on his pitch (4/1 elsewhere but the man had hit me with a mince pie!!). He was happy to take the tenner and apologised for the mince pie - less happy 10 minutes later when I relieved him of £45.
So, we're on the heavy stuff this afternoon...
Okay, I'll play.
I'm not sure - belief in God doesn't strike me as all that important. I suppose I've derived my moral code primarily from Christianity but there are messages in a number of other religions around love, tolerance, respect and a whole number of other positive values such as helping others and generally doing good. If you try to live to a code like that I don't think the faith is that important.
Perhaps living a good and positive life transcends one faith or indeed all faiths.0 -
Ding ding ding. Gödel alarm. Godel alarm. Whoop, whoop.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
Please, talk us through Godel starting from the axioms.0 -
Ishmael_Z said:
The theorem says that *within any given axiomatic system* there are some things which are true but cannot be proved. And it doesn't help you.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
You are trying to define a logical system, and then demanding that I prove God from it. That is a mathematical* nonsense.
*And everything in the real world depends on mathematics.
0 -
Don't know - when are you going to start using the English language or at least some language we can all understand ?Rebourne_Fluffy said:
Stopped-reading early: Dulwich-College; pfft! How is the 'doggie'?
0 -
Apparently an aardvark is dead and some meerkats are missing. You’d have to have a heart of stone...Charles said:
Wouldn't the chocolate melt in the heat?JosiasJessop said:Seventy firefighters have been tackling a fire at London Zoo.
Forty to tackle the fire, and thirty to eat the roast reindeer and par-baked penguins.0 -
I, for one, wasn't expecting you to prove anything. I was simply responding in kind to your suggestion that there is 'evidence' for your delusion, which somehow you have powers to perceive that are lost on the rest of us.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:
The theorem says that *within any given axiomatic system* there are some things which are true but cannot be proved. And it doesn't help you.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
You are trying to define a logical system, and then demanding that I prove God from it. That is a mathematical* nonsense.
*And everything in the real world depends on mathematics.0 -
I'm really not, I am just putting you right about Godel.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:
The theorem says that *within any given axiomatic system* there are some things which are true but cannot be proved. And it doesn't help you.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
I appreciate your blind faith, but trying to pretend that there is any evidence for it helps you none. Had you been born in Arabia you would surely be a Muslim, and in Thailand a Buddhist. Hopefully my beliefs would be the same, wherever. Although TBF Arabia would be my bottom choice.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:
Your last sentence is absurd. You are just validating your own delusion.MarkHopkins said:Ishmael_Z said:No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
Russell makes flawed assumptions. Faith is simply a demonstration to set aside one's own self/ego and be submissive to your Creator.
The heart of God's message to humanity is to ask (but not force) people to come back to him. To respond people have to let go of their own ego and belief in their own superiority (which causes all the real harm in this world).
To do that people have to:
(a) accept they are wrong (sin/rejected God),
(b) accept there's nothing they can do about it (trying to be a 'good' person is not a substitute),
(c) accept God's forgiveness (Jesus dying instead).
At each stage, the person has to let their own self/ego reduce a little more.
Faith is basically not insisting that God keeps proving himself to you - as that would be still making yourself superior to Him. There is enough evidence already there if you want to see it.
'absurd' 'delusion'
I appreciate you do not understand, but trying to devalue it like this does not make you right.
Do you accept Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and that there are some things which are true but cannot be proved?
You are trying to define a logical system, and then demanding that I prove God from it. That is a mathematical* nonsense.
*And everything in the real world depends on mathematics.0 -
In terms of its editorial positions, the economist has been calling everything wrong, over and over again. It is so intrinsically committed to free markets and liberalism that it is unable to analyse the political changes that are taking place around the world, that are essentially rooted in the failings of liberalism and free markets. It is rapidly losing its authority in this regard.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
On the plus side, its artwork is great, and its coverage on emerging markets is very detailed.
In general, I don't have any time to read any of these papers, unfortunately.0 -
I take the Economist, but it has always been patchy, perhaps reflecting the different writers and perspectives within.nielh said:
In terms of its editorial positions, the economist has been calling everything wrong, over and over again. It is so intrinsically committed to free markets and liberalism that it is unable to analyse the political changes that are taking place around the world, that are essentially rooted in the failings of liberalism and free markets. It is rapidly losing its authority in this regard.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
On the plus side, its artwork is great, and its coverage on emerging markets is very detailed.
In general, I don't have any time to read any of these papers, unfortunately.
What I do like is that they concentate on analysis rather than breaking news, and their special reports are very often interesting insights into areas that do not see the light of day in other publications. Their international coverage is very broad. I also like and often buy their book recommendations. The only other paper with such intellectual depth seems to be the Saturday FT, though The Guardian has its moments.0 -
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.0
-
IanB2 said:
I, for one, wasn't expecting you to prove anything. I was simply responding in kind to your suggestion that there is 'evidence' for your delusion, which somehow you have powers to perceive that are lost on the rest of us.
There is more than enough 'evidence' if you are prepared to open your eyes. As long as you choose not to, then nothing will change.
0 -
There you go again. Any adherent of any wacky cult in the world would say exactly the same.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:I, for one, wasn't expecting you to prove anything. I was simply responding in kind to your suggestion that there is 'evidence' for your delusion, which somehow you have powers to perceive that are lost on the rest of us.
There is more than enough 'evidence' if you are prepared to open your eyes. As long as you choose not to, then nothing will change.0 -
There's nothing wrong with championing free markets and liberalism. The problem is the writers' inability to empathise with their critics.nielh said:
In terms of its editorial positions, the economist has been calling everything wrong, over and over again. It is so intrinsically committed to free markets and liberalism that it is unable to analyse the political changes that are taking place around the world, that are essentially rooted in the failings of liberalism and free markets. It is rapidly losing its authority in this regard.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
On the plus side, its artwork is great, and its coverage on emerging markets is very detailed.
In general, I don't have any time to read any of these papers, unfortunately.0 -
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.SouthamObserver said:
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.0 -
viewcode said:
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
No it's about proving statements within such a system - like asking whether N is a prime number or not. Godel shows that even with infinite computing resources there are some questions within any system that are true, but can never be proved.
0 -
Good afternoon, my fellow disciples of the great god Gamblor0
-
-
It's a logical fallacy to argue that because there are true things that cannot be proved it follows that this thing that cannot be proved is true. It might be, or it might not, and there's not any reliable way of distinguishing it from all the other things that cannot be proved that might, or might not, be true.0
-
IanB2 said:
There you go again. Any adherent of any wacky cult in the world would say exactly the same.MarkHopkins said:IanB2 said:I, for one, wasn't expecting you to prove anything. I was simply responding in kind to your suggestion that there is 'evidence' for your delusion, which somehow you have powers to perceive that are lost on the rest of us.
There is more than enough 'evidence' if you are prepared to open your eyes. As long as you choose not to, then nothing will change.
There are lots of 'wacky cults' in the world. Atheists believe what they want to. Lib Dems believe what they want to. Etc.
On some level, everyone thinks they are right and everyone else is deluded. Look at Remainer vs Leaver fights on here.
However the most powerful tool that anyone has, is to look up for a moment and think: "Am I wrong?" and consider a different point of view. Despite what you might think I do this for my beliefs as much as for anything else.
0 -
The problem is: Who will pay £250+ p.a. (plus "The World In...") when it offers illiberal solutions? Cheaper to pay for Momentum and rope.Sean_F said:There's nothing wrong with championing free markets and liberalism. The problem is the writers' inability to empathise with their critics.
A sad end is accomming for 'tick-boxes' and "lack-standards" at t'Economist. Quality should override 'tokens'.
0 -
Which is what I said. Only I used numbers. And gave an example.MarkHopkins said:viewcode said:I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
No it's about proving statements within such a system - like asking whether N is a prime number or not. Godel shows that even with infinite computing resources there are some questions within any system that are true, but can never be proved.
0 -
If you mention her name, she does not come, as any Terry Pratchett fan kno.Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, my fellow disciples of the great god Gamblor
0 -
I asked a priest about that once and his argument was that I'd live a much more positive life if I added faith and Christian practice to my Atheist moral code. I didn't agree at the time but looking back nearly two decades later and it's possible he would have been right. Not that I can manage to conjure up some faith on command.stodge said:I'm not sure - belief in God doesn't strike me as all that important. I suppose I've derived my moral code primarily from Christianity but there are messages in a number of other religions around love, tolerance, respect and a whole number of other positive values such as helping others and generally doing good. If you try to live to a code like that I don't think the faith is that important.
Perhaps living a good and positive life transcends one faith or indeed all faiths.0 -
viewcode said:
I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
Does anyone know the square-root of "infinity"? By itself inifinity-squared is inifinty so what is observable?0 -
Infinity squared is not infinity since infinity is a concept and not a number. That's like asking what is infinity minus one.Rebourne_Fluffy said:viewcode said:I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
Does anyone know the square-root of "infinity"? By itself inifinity-squared is inifinty so what is observable?0 -
I see the thing about blue passports is falling apart amid dispute and acrimony. What a self-imposed blunder by Theresa, which was completely unnecessary. The woman really is tin eared and devoid of even rudimentary political judgement.0
-
I’ve certainly found interesting things in both the New Statesman and Prospect from time to time, but to actually buy them? St Margaret of Grantham might strike me down... I’ll have to check out Standpoint again.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
PS @NickPalmer notwithstanding my differences with you over Europe, I wish you a very merry Christmas I know you did what you did because you believe it to be best for the nation. I will never agree but I recognise your motivation.
What will you be eating on Christmas Day? I presume you are a vegetarian who has had more than their share of nutroasts
0 -
You mean the claims from Labour MPs that the cost of moving to blue would be £500 million?Stark_Dawning said:I see the thing about blue passports is falling apart amid dispute and acrimony.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/9444692636618874880 -
Over-egging it a touch, don't you think?Stark_Dawning said:I see the thing about blue passports is falling apart amid dispute and acrimony. What a self-imposed blunder by Theresa, which was completely unnecessary. The woman really is tin eared and devoid of even rudimentary political judgement.
0 -
As a veggie, I shall be tucking into Vbites Celebration meat-free roast dinner.RoyalBlue said:
I’ve certainly found interesting things in both the New Statesman and Prospect from time to time, but to actually buy them? St Margaret of Grantham might strike me down... I’ll have to check out Standpoint again.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
PS @NickPalmer notwithstanding my differences with you over Europe, I wish you a very merry Christmas I know you did what you did because you believe it to be best for the nation. I will never agree but I recognise your motivation.
What will you be eating on Christmas Day? I presume you are a vegetarian who has had more than their share of nutroasts0 -
Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?0
-
Sorry,Philip_Thompson said:Infinity squared is not infinity since infinity is a concept and not a number. That's like asking what is infinity minus one.
Long time since I approached Calculas: A couple of points:
# -i is an imaginary-number,
# Approaching infinity is a measurement in Newtonian derivation, so
# How does something approach summinck un-achievable?
NOTE: Someone has tried to prove to me every integer can be divisble and reducable. It was over two years ago and I am still questioning the inverse.0 -
Cantor showed that there were many infinities, of varying 'sizes' iirc.Philip_Thompson said:
Infinity squared is not infinity since infinity is a concept and not a number. That's like asking what is infinity minus one.Rebourne_Fluffy said:viewcode said:I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
Does anyone know the square-root of "infinity"? By itself inifinity-squared is inifinty so what is observable?0 -
On infinities: David Malone's documentary 'Dangerous Knowledge', from around ten years ago, is one of the greatest and fascinating documentaries ever made imho.0
-
In othewr news a senior GP has given a warning to Santa. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42464803
It’s suggested that he should "give the sherry a miss" and share some of Rudolph's carrots instead.0 -
John Harris on Guardian has done more than anyone else on the Left to try and seek out and understand what is happening on the ground, especially in the 'left behind' areas. Outstanding work.Recidivist said:
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.SouthamObserver said:
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.0 -
I haven't noticed it "falling apart."Stark_Dawning said:I see the thing about blue passports is falling apart amid dispute and acrimony. What a self-imposed blunder by Theresa, which was completely unnecessary. The woman really is tin eared and devoid of even rudimentary political judgement.
0 -
sounds delicious!rottenborough said:
As a veggie, I shall be tucking into Vbites Celebration meat-free roast dinner.RoyalBlue said:
I’ve certainly found interesting things in both the New Statesman and Prospect from time to time, but to actually buy them? St Margaret of Grantham might strike me down... I’ll have to check out Standpoint again.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.
PS @NickPalmer notwithstanding my differences with you over Europe, I wish you a very merry Christmas I know you did what you did because you believe it to be best for the nation. I will never agree but I recognise your motivation.
What will you be eating on Christmas Day? I presume you are a vegetarian who has had more than their share of nutroasts0 -
0
-
Yes - he approaches his subjects as people to be empathised with, not curiosities to snigger over at Islington dinner parties.....rottenborough said:
John Harris on Guardian has done more than anyone else on the Left to try and seek out and understand what is happening on the ground, especially in the 'left behind' areas. Outstanding work.Recidivist said:
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.SouthamObserver said:
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.0 -
what a busy life you must leadRebourne_Fluffy said:
Sorry,Philip_Thompson said:Infinity squared is not infinity since infinity is a concept and not a number. That's like asking what is infinity minus one.
Long time since I approached Calculas: A couple of points:
# -i is an imaginary-number,
# Approaching infinity is a measurement in Newtonian derivation, so
# How does something approach summinck un-achievable?
NOTE: Someone has tried to prove to me every integer can be divisble and reducable. It was over two years ago and I am still questioning the inverse.0 -
-
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
0 -
I've always thought that the left was behind but interesting to see that the Grauniad is up front about it and seeking understanding of the phenomenon.rottenborough said:
John Harris on Guardian has done more than anyone else on the Left to try and seek out and understand what is happening on the ground, especially in the 'left behind' areas. Outstanding work.Recidivist said:
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.SouthamObserver said:
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.0 -
Mr. Dawning, *raises an eyebrow*
Most people just don't care. The only thing that's aggravated me has been the propagation of nonsense by those claiming changing the colour is costing a fortune by people gullible enough to believe red dye costs half a billion pounds less than blue dye.0 -
Nothing to do with EU membership? I disagree. I think it's very symbolic of our membership.Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
0 -
Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
0 -
https://twitter.com/chilak_j/status/944499973470736384Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
0 -
I think it's the swivel-eye wot does itMorris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, *raises an eyebrow*
Most people just don't care. The only thing that's aggravated me has been the propagation of nonsense by those claiming changing the colour is costing a fortune by people gullible enough to believe red dye costs half a billion pounds less than blue dye.0 -
I don't go to dinner parties in Islington. Do people really snigger about the less well off at them? I've never come across anyone, left or right, who I have heard doing so or who I can imagine doing so. If these people do exist, I am not sure why their opinions should have any bearing on mine.CarlottaVance said:
Yes - he approaches his subjects as people to be empathised with, not curiosities to snigger over at Islington dinner parties.....rottenborough said:
John Harris on Guardian has done more than anyone else on the Left to try and seek out and understand what is happening on the ground, especially in the 'left behind' areas. Outstanding work.Recidivist said:
I agree. In fact I would go further. He is one of the writers with the best insight from any political viewpoint. A quick quote – “I’ve already got the Internet. I want a house.” You could do a lot worse to explain the appeal of Corbin to the young than that.SouthamObserver said:
Stephen Bush of the Statesman is the best left of centre writer out there at the moment. The Morning Star provides the Labour leadership’s perspective these days.NickPalmer said:
I agree with your diagnosis, though it's still an interesting read. I think there's a gap in the market, perhaps partly filled by various blog writers. From your position right of centre, I'd think Prospect Magazine is worth trying if you've not already seen it.RoyalBlue said:
The Economist is in a gentle decline. The undoubtedly bright but youthful scribblers they employ still haven’t really come to terms with Trump and Brexit. Obviously one wouldn’t expect agreement, but writing something original about the phenomena would be good. I’ve also noticed a few errors, and the writing
feels glib at times.
Can you suggest an alternative?
On the left we're a bit short too. I want to like the New Statesman, but it has too many long-standing writers recycling their ideas. The Guardian is really the best British source of varied ideas leaning left.0 -
This is true, but irrelevant. Because no statement about the real world is ever proven at all, in the mathematical sense. Instead we make theories based on empirical evidence.MarkHopkins said:viewcode said:I may be wrong here, but possibly you have the Godel thing wrong. The point is that for any given system it is possible, using only the rules of that system, to construct a thing that doesn't fit in it. So if you take something very simple, like the rules of arithmetic (plus, minus, times, divide) and the integers (such as 1,2,3,...) it is possible to build a thing which doesn't fit (1/3 is not an integer). This is true no matter how complex the system is.
No it's about proving statements within such a system - like asking whether N is a prime number or not. Godel shows that even with infinite computing resources there are some questions within any system that are true, but can never be proved.0 -
Maybe we should have a red, White and blue cover, with "Up Yours, Delors" embossed on it.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, *raises an eyebrow*
Most people just don't care. The only thing that's aggravated me has been the propagation of nonsense by those claiming changing the colour is costing a fortune by people gullible enough to believe red dye costs half a billion pounds less than blue dye.0 -
What was that about swivel-eyed?CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/chilak_j/status/944499973470736384Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
0 -
These are people who lost to a bus......MarkHopkins said:Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?
0 -
The real passport news question is: why on earth does it cost around half-a-billion pounds just to redesign them?
0 -
It's astonishing to think you were one of the most vocal pro-remainers on here during the referendum. The way you've oozed yourself amongst those now seen to be in the ascendancy is fascinating yet creepy to behold.CarlottaVance said:
These are people who lost to a bus......MarkHopkins said:Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?0 -
I was an 'on balance' Remainer - and as I've explained before, while I think leaving the EU is a bad idea, trying to 'get around' the referendum result is a very much worse idea.Stark_Dawning said:
It's astonishing to think you were one of the most vocal pro-remainers on here during the referendum. The way you've oozed yourself amongst those now seen to be in the ascendancy is fascinating yet creepy to behold.CarlottaVance said:
These are people who lost to a bus......MarkHopkins said:Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?0 -
It doesn't. It is entirely fake news.MarkHopkins said:
The real passport news question is: why on earth does it cost around half-a-billion pounds just to redesign them?
See this thread: https://twitter.com/tinnypriv/status/9442048078369832970 -
Good question. I suppose the answer is that no-one thought it would need to be thought about.MarkHopkins said:Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?0 -
Just be honest - you sniff out where power lies and align yourself accordingly. If the Tory leadership decided to scrap the Union you'd be on here banging the drum for Scottish independence.CarlottaVance said:
I was an 'on balance' Remainer - and as I've explained before, while I think leaving the EU is a bad idea, trying to 'get around' the referendum result is a very much worse idea.Stark_Dawning said:
It's astonishing to think you were one of the most vocal pro-remainers on here during the referendum. The way you've oozed yourself amongst those now seen to be in the ascendancy is fascinating yet creepy to behold.CarlottaVance said:
These are people who lost to a bus......MarkHopkins said:Stark_Dawning said:
It's now abundantly clear the passport colouration has nothing to do with EU membership and could have been changed at any time, so the whole exercise is completely pointless and done only to curry favour with the swivel-eyed brigade.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Dawning, could you elaborate?
could have been changed at any time
So why did no-one mention that when Farage was going on about it during the referendum?0 -
rottenborough said:
It doesn't. It is entirely fake news.MarkHopkins said:
The real passport news question is: why on earth does it cost around half-a-billion pounds just to redesign them?
See this thread: twitter.com/tinnypriv/status/944204807836983297
Thanks. Very helpful.
So the £500m is mostly the printing costs, which is paid for by us in fees anyway.
0
