I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
If God exists, how come the Tories are only on 121 MPs?
Because (parts of) the Church of England have been the Liberal Democrat Party at prayer since about 1985 (see Mrs Thatcher passim) !
Ed Davey is a practising Anglican I believe so that is largely true, certainly for Bishops and clergy although the C of E congregations tend to be more Tory.
The Tories got a higher percentage of Jews voting for them at the last general election than Anglicans but did do well with conservative Protestant evangelicals and Rishi also made gains with Hindus. Labour got its biggest vote from Muslims and atheists.
Roman Catholics voted for Boris in 2019 but Starmer this time
Many years ago in 1984 Jerry Adams was gunned down by Margaret Thatcher - he survived . The idea that the Irish would someday kick the British the fuck out of Ireland would have been thought impossible . Untill it wasn’t .
Justice will come for Palestine
Is that John Cusack the actor?
"Of course you're having trouble reaching him. He's off saving the rain forest, or recycling his sandals or some shit!"
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's not identical to a lack of belief in a god.
It's the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.
Any scientist knows those aren't the same thing.
Yes, but in general you can also make the argument of parsimony, that in the absence of evidence for an omnipotent God, existing in a realm very different to our own, etc, etc, it is logical to conclude that he does not exist. There's certainly not much reason to believe that he does so.
But Belief trumps Reason, so it doesn't really matter.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
Are you certain there is no Tooth Fairy?
No
In one version of the multiverse theory, every possible universe must exist, so out there, somewhere, is a universe with a tooth fairy
So if serious physicists believe tooth fairies are possible, who am I to dispute that?
In the end, religion comes down to intuition.It is probably beyond our ability to comprehend the universe, rationally. The universe is a fucking big place, it may indeed be infinite, or there is an infinite sequence of universes one after the other, or there are infinite universes in parallel, or we are actually in a simulation (a more fashionable theory held by serious scientists)
What can a hairy bipedal ape on one small planet, with a lack of parking, do in the face of that? We can try and work it all out (and we’ve done amazingly well so far, and we should continue) but I suspect we will eventually hit limits, and may be close to them, now. At that point you fall back on intuition, you listen to yourself, and see if you can detect the pure, beautiful voice of your own soul, calling you, welcoming you back to God, like an Estonian homecoming song, one of those beautiful melodies Baltic women sing in airports when the beloved returns and which make you tear up a bit, as you fumble with your Duty Free
As Blaise Pascal said: the heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Five Guys is WAY over-rated. Tasteless crap EXCEPT for the MASSIVE amount of salt (mis)used.
My take, is like a lot of brands, the massive expansive has come at the cost of quality.
I tried a Five Guys a few months ago, and even though it was not a ginormous, I still thought comparing it to a Cheese Burger was like Clarkson comparing an American to a European.
I had Five Guys in the very early 2000s when they only had a very small number of outlets in the US and it was great. Last time I had one was probably a year or so ago, it wasn't anywhere near as good.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
We are not an irreligious nation.
Only 37% had no religion on the last census, 46% were Christian, 6.5% Muslim and 2% Hindu and 0.5% Jewish and 0.5% Buddhist
The rise of atheism is correlated with the decline in birth rates and now the dying of humanity. It is nothing to be celebrated, also atheists are sad, mediocre twats *
*with the noble exception of @Cookie who is one of the finest PB-ers in existence, I live in hope he will see the Light
In terms of those of child bearing age yes, no surprise that the most religious continent on earth now is Africa which also has the highest birth rate of any continent
If God exists, how come the Tories are only on 121 MPs?
Because (parts of) the Church of England have been the Liberal Democrat Party at prayer since about 1985 (see Mrs Thatcher passim) !
Ed Davey is a practising Anglican I believe so that is largely true, certainly for Bishops and clergy although the C of E congregations tend to be more Tory.
The Tories got a higher percentage of Jews voting for them at the last general election than Anglicans but did do well with conservative Protestant evangelicals and Rishi also made gains with Hindus. Labour got its biggest vote from Muslims and atheists.
Roman Catholics voted for Boris in 2019 but Starmer this time
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's not identical to a lack of belief in a god.
Do you believe there is no Tooth Fairy? Or is it a lack of belief in a Tooth Fairy?
To steal @Leon's phrase, that is the analogy of the adolescent.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
I am always amused how evangelical atheists are about their belief system without them noticing the obvious irony. This has always been particularly so of Dawkins.
As you say atheism (like socialism) is the belief system of the adolescent.
Not always, there are religious atheists too.
In many religions atheism is perfectly compatible.
Would surprise me to see Buddhism called the belief system of the adolescent, in particular.
It is, nonetheless, a belief system. I personally *believe* that many avowed atheists are highly adolescent in their approach. It doesn't necessarily follow that all atheists are as simplistic as most.
It is just such a wonderful outcome in so many ways. They all need separate posts. One that occurs immediately is swift poetic justice for the loathsome practice of Tory MPs to deliberately lend votes to the weakest of their opponents, meaning the MP's ballot was a race to find the worst candidates not the best (yet members got all the blame for choosing between the two they were offered) - now the silly twats have been so clever in gaming the system they've actually voted out their own candidate!
Many years ago in 1984 Jerry Adams was gunned down by Margaret Thatcher - he survived . The idea that the Irish would someday kick the British the fuck out of Ireland would have been thought impossible . Untill it wasn’t .
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
Silly. Most atheists reject the existence of god(s) usually (but not exclusively) because there's sod all reason to believe it. Guff about the meaning of life doesn't come into it.
Correction - "Guff about the meaning of death . . ."
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
They are keeping the riff raff out....
Of course they are, what would you expect from Geneva?
Wait until next May, and @Leon will be complaining that his £200 a day budget doesn’t go far at the Monaco Grand Prix.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
Silly. Most atheists reject the existence of god(s) usually (but not exclusively) because there's sod all reason to believe it. Guff about the meaning of life doesn't come into it.
Correction - "Guff about the meaning of death . . ."
OT: The Tory Party had an opportunity to have a leader that would look attractive and normal to compare with Sir Keir Freebie-Boring. They have blown it. A choice of two swiveleyed nutters who will take the Conservative Party further to the right and further into the wilderness. Sir Keir must be pissing his very expensive underpants with laughter.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
Silly. Most atheists reject the existence of god(s) usually (but not exclusively) because there's sod all reason to believe it. Guff about the meaning of life doesn't come into it.
Not sure why it is important whether someone is an atheist, agnostic or of faith as it is an individual matter of conscience
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Five Guys is WAY over-rated. Tasteless crap EXCEPT for the MASSIVE amount of salt (mis)used.
My take, is like a lot of brands, the massive expansive has come at the cost of quality.
I tried a Five Guys a few months ago, and even though it was not a ginormous, I still thought comparing it to a Cheese Burger was like Clarkson comparing an American to a European.
I had Five Guys in the very early 2000s when they only had a very small number of outlets in the US and it was great. Last time I had one was probably a year or so ago, it wasn't anywhere near as good.
BUT probably at least twice as salty? Five Guys should issue health alerts with their "meals"!
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Five Guys is WAY over-rated. Tasteless crap EXCEPT for the MASSIVE amount of salt (mis)used.
My take, is like a lot of brands, the massive expansive has come at the cost of quality.
I tried a Five Guys a few months ago, and even though it was not a ginormous, I still thought comparing it to a Cheese Burger was like Clarkson comparing an American to a European.
I had Five Guys in the very early 2000s when they only had a very small number of outlets in the US and it was great. Last time I had one was probably a year or so ago, it wasn't anywhere near as good.
BUT probably at least twice as salty? Five Guys should issue health alerts with their "meals"!
Salt is delicious and without it we wouldn't be alive.
OT: The Tory Party had an opportunity to have a leader that would look attractive and normal to compare with Sir Keir Freebie-Boring. They have blown it. A choice of two swiveleyed nutters who will take the Conservative Party further to the right and further into the wilderness. Sir Keir must be pissing his very expensive underpants with laughter.
Expensive , he gets them free!
They are still expensive to Lord Alli, but then again perhaps not. Perhaps I should have said " high quality".
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Five Guys is WAY over-rated. Tasteless crap EXCEPT for the MASSIVE amount of salt (mis)used.
My take, is like a lot of brands, the massive expansive has come at the cost of quality.
I tried a Five Guys a few months ago, and even though it was not a ginormous, I still thought comparing it to a Cheese Burger was like Clarkson comparing an American to a European.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That's not identical to a lack of belief in a god.
Do you believe there is no Tooth Fairy? Or is it a lack of belief in a Tooth Fairy?
To steal @Leon's phrase, that is the analogy of the adolescent.
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy or not?
I will keep you guessing on that one, but I do now believe that you are probably a silly twat.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Is lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy a belief set?
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Yeah, of course it is, but denigrating it in the terms Leon did can be turned around...
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
So how much does life suck now, knowing that you could be there but aren’t allowed to be?
lol. Zero. It was OK. I’ve been to a trillion five star hotels, that was an agreeable one, but I cannot remember a single thing about it apart from “nice view” and “oh there are famous footballers in the gardens, I think I recognise a couple. Anyway where are my olives”
I am meant to be going to a genuinely great and UNUSUAL hotel next month, we shall see
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
So how much does life suck now, knowing that you could be there but aren’t allowed to be?
lol. Zero. It was OK. I’ve been to a trillion five star hotels, that was an agreeable one, but I cannot remember a single thing about it apart from “nice view” and “oh there are famous footballers in the gardens, I think I recognise a couple. Anyway where are my olives”
I am meant to be going to a genuinely great and UNUSUAL hotel next month, we shall see
When we stayed in Geneva in 2014, it was in the Novotel near the lake, perfectly acceptable. We even got free travel vouchers around the city.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
I think Evian, though on Lake Geneva/Lac Leman) is in France, not Switzerland. Sorry to be pedantic
Tho I suspect it is the hotel resort @Sandpit is referring to. It is probably the most famous/prestigious on the lake shore in terms of spa/cuisine/scale etc
OT: The Tory Party had an opportunity to have a leader that would look attractive and normal to compare with Sir Keir Freebie-Boring. They have blown it. A choice of two swiveleyed nutters who will take the Conservative Party further to the right and further into the wilderness. Sir Keir must be pissing his very expensive underpants with laughter.
Expensive , he gets them free!
They are still expensive to Lord Alli, but then again perhaps not. Perhaps I should have said " high quality".
If he bought a full set at two per MP and three for Ministers, he could get the 1000 qty bulk discount .
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Is lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy a belief set?
An inability to understand an appropriate intellectual analogy and indulge in the puerile argument of a ten year old is a probably a twatset. Well done on continuing to underline your stupidity.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
I sense the next Flinter Knapper Weekly dispatch might not be as positive as the British Columbia one...
Given all the inflation, £21 for a burger isn't as mind blowing as it maybe once was. How much is a Five Guys these days? £15? In some part of the US, a shitty McDonald's can be $15.
Five Guys is WAY over-rated. Tasteless crap EXCEPT for the MASSIVE amount of salt (mis)used.
My take, is like a lot of brands, the massive expansive has come at the cost of quality.
I tried a Five Guys a few months ago, and even though it was not a ginormous, I still thought comparing it to a Cheese Burger was like Clarkson comparing an American to a European.
I had Five Guys in the very early 2000s when they only had a very small number of outlets in the US and it was great. Last time I had one was probably a year or so ago, it wasn't anywhere near as good.
BUT probably at least twice as salty? Five Guys should issue health alerts with their "meals"!
Salt is delicious and without it we wouldn't be alive.
In moderation.
Which is NOT how it's used by most fast-food mongers, with 5 Guys being especially abusive of their customers.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying everyone, theist or atheist, is an agnostic.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Is lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy a belief set?
An inability to understand an appropriate intellectual analogy and indulge in the puerile argument of a ten year old is a probably a twatset. Well done on continuing to underline your stupidity.
But if it's not OK for me not to believe in God, why is it OK for YOU to not believe in the Tooth Fairy?
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
I think Evian, though on Lake Geneva/Lac Leman) is in France, not Switzerland. Sorry to be pedantic
Tho I suspect it is the hotel resort @Sandpit is referring to. It is probably the most famous/prestigious on the lake shore in terms of spa/cuisine/scale etc
I wasn’t referring to any particular resort, merely making the point that there are many of them on the lake, and you’re destined to get the bus back into town to your sh!tty AirBnB tonight, with barely the budget for a bottle of Aldi’s best wine…
(You know I’m just taking the piss, but it’s an interesting assignment if you properly stick to it. They should have given you a chaperone in Geneva to make sure you do, and had said chaperone do a review of the Four Seasons.)
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying everyone, theist or atheist, is an agnostic.
Which is just claiming that agnosticism is a meaningless concept.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
I think Badenoch has the highest ceiling of the final three (and probably of the original six) but Jenrick probably has the lowest floor (though this may be Badenoch too). She certainly has a belief system that reflects a significant share of the population and a tiny share of the country's leadership class - if she can graft a coherent policy platform onto that, there are rewards to be reaped.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
I think Evian, though on Lake Geneva/Lac Leman) is in France, not Switzerland. Sorry to be pedantic
Tho I suspect it is the hotel resort @Sandpit is referring to. It is probably the most famous/prestigious on the lake shore in terms of spa/cuisine/scale etc
I wasn’t referring to any particular resort, merely making the point that there are many of them on the lake, and you’re destined to get the bus back into town to your sh!tty AirBnB tonight, with barely the budget for a bottle of Aldi’s best wine…
(You know I’m just taking the piss, but it’s an interesting assignment if you properly stick to it. They should have given you a chaperone in Geneva to make sure you do!)
You’re still missing my point. Why would anyone come HERE? When nearby towns are so superior in terms of beauty, cuisine, art, culture, landscape - Lausanne, Montreux, Zermatt, Chamonix, Annecy, Lucerne, Lyon, Turin, Milan
Why would any tourist voluntarily come to GENEVA for a holiday given that it is the most expensive city in Europe? And has none of these peerless attractions?
So why is it so expensive? I can only presume it is all the international institutions- FIFA, UN. Red Cross, etc - and their boring bureaucrats on expense accounts
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
I think Badenoch has the highest ceiling of the final three (and probably of the original six) but Jenrick probably has the lowest floor (though this may be Badenoch too). She certainly has a belief system that reflects a significant share of the population and a tiny share of the country's leadership class - if she can graft a coherent policy platform onto that, there are rewards to be reaped.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Is lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy a belief set?
An inability to understand an appropriate intellectual analogy and indulge in the puerile argument of a ten year old is a probably a twatset. Well done on continuing to underline your stupidity.
But if it's not OK for me not to believe in God, why is it OK for YOU to not believe in the Tooth Fairy?
Oh dear, you really are not a very deep thinker are you? Personally I don't really care that you are unable to understand that an openmindedness to the possibility of a greater power in the universe or a collective consciousness might be a more logical position than believing that it cannot possibly exist. Comparing such a belief set to the tooth fairy amply illustrates @Leon's suggestion that atheism is an adolescent perspective. Try harder at debate and I might then bother to reply. In the meantime I suggest you find a debating society for the under elevens. I will stick to chatting to grownups.
Lefties celebrating this need to remember that if Labour implode before the Tories get themselves sorted out, Farage is next in line.
I'm not celebrating one iota. I can tell you for a fact that Labour want Badenoch but that's based mainly on her short, unconvincing career thus far. It's perfectly possible she won't be as catastrophic as everyone expects. Plus she might not beat Jenrick. He's very much still in there, Rob is.
I think Jenrick would produce a reasonable result but almost certainly lose. Badenoch rolls the dice - anything from a win to a meltdown, but certainly the more interesting choice.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
I think Evian, though on Lake Geneva/Lac Leman) is in France, not Switzerland. Sorry to be pedantic
Tho I suspect it is the hotel resort @Sandpit is referring to. It is probably the most famous/prestigious on the lake shore in terms of spa/cuisine/scale etc
I wasn’t referring to any particular resort, merely making the point that there are many of them on the lake, and you’re destined to get the bus back into town to your sh!tty AirBnB tonight, with barely the budget for a bottle of Aldi’s best wine…
(You know I’m just taking the piss, but it’s an interesting assignment if you properly stick to it. They should have given you a chaperone in Geneva to make sure you do, and had said chaperone do a review of the Four Seasons.)
PS I actually am sticking to it. I’ve bought a supper from the local supermarket and I am picnicking in my room. I worked out if I do that I can afford a decent-ish bottle of wine and two gin and tonics in a studenty bar (where I am now, in the student part of town). Sticking to the budget actually makes it more interesting
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
I think Evian, though on Lake Geneva/Lac Leman) is in France, not Switzerland. Sorry to be pedantic
Tho I suspect it is the hotel resort @Sandpit is referring to. It is probably the most famous/prestigious on the lake shore in terms of spa/cuisine/scale etc
I wasn’t referring to any particular resort, merely making the point that there are many of them on the lake, and you’re destined to get the bus back into town to your sh!tty AirBnB tonight, with barely the budget for a bottle of Aldi’s best wine…
(You know I’m just taking the piss, but it’s an interesting assignment if you properly stick to it. They should have given you a chaperone in Geneva to make sure you do!)
You’re still missing my point. Why would anyone come HERE? When nearby towns are so superior in terms of beauty, cuisine, art, culture, landscape - Lausanne, Montreux, Zermatt, Chamonix, Annecy, Lucerne, Lyon, Turin, Milan
Why would any tourist voluntarily come to GENEVA for a holiday given that it is the most expensive city in Europe? And has none of these peerless attractions?
So why is it so expensive? I can only presume it is all the international institutions- FIFA, UN. Red Cross, etc - and their boring bureaucrats on expense accounts
Banks. And also you can get the most luxurious treatment for your ills on the planet, no questions asked. (I suspect not the best treatment though - if you can pay then perhaps it's in the US?)
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
I think Evian, though on Lake Geneva/Lac Leman) is in France, not Switzerland. Sorry to be pedantic
Tho I suspect it is the hotel resort @Sandpit is referring to. It is probably the most famous/prestigious on the lake shore in terms of spa/cuisine/scale etc
I wasn’t referring to any particular resort, merely making the point that there are many of them on the lake, and you’re destined to get the bus back into town to your sh!tty AirBnB tonight, with barely the budget for a bottle of Aldi’s best wine…
(You know I’m just taking the piss, but it’s an interesting assignment if you properly stick to it. They should have given you a chaperone in Geneva to make sure you do!)
You’re still missing my point. Why would anyone come HERE? When nearby towns are so superior in terms of beauty, cuisine, art, culture, landscape - Lausanne, Montreux, Zermatt, Chamonix, Annecy, Lucerne, Lyon, Turin, Milan
Why would any tourist voluntarily come to GENEVA for a holiday given that it is the most expensive city in Europe? And has none of these peerless attractions?
So why is it so expensive? I can only presume it is all the international institutions- FIFA, UN. Red Cross, etc - and their boring bureaucrats on expense accounts
Yes, that seems obvious. But the mystery is why, with a captive audience of all those bureaucrats, why haven't the interesting cultural things followed, as they generally do when you concentrate a lot of cash in one location?
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
I think Evian, though on Lake Geneva/Lac Leman) is in France, not Switzerland. Sorry to be pedantic
Tho I suspect it is the hotel resort @Sandpit is referring to. It is probably the most famous/prestigious on the lake shore in terms of spa/cuisine/scale etc
I wasn’t referring to any particular resort, merely making the point that there are many of them on the lake, and you’re destined to get the bus back into town to your sh!tty AirBnB tonight, with barely the budget for a bottle of Aldi’s best wine…
(You know I’m just taking the piss, but it’s an interesting assignment if you properly stick to it. They should have given you a chaperone in Geneva to make sure you do!)
You’re still missing my point. Why would anyone come HERE? When nearby towns are so superior in terms of beauty, cuisine, art, culture, landscape - Lausanne, Montreux, Zermatt, Chamonix, Annecy, Lucerne, Lyon, Turin, Milan
Why would any tourist voluntarily come to GENEVA for a holiday given that it is the most expensive city in Europe? And has none of these peerless attractions?
So why is it so expensive? I can only presume it is all the international institutions- FIFA, UN. Red Cross, etc - and their boring bureaucrats on expense accounts
I think it has gone downhill. I used to regularly visit 20 years ago or so and quite liked it. I then returned a few years ago and found myself wondering why. Lausanne and Montreux, though expensive are much better. And in the latter you have Funky Claud running in and out.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
In 2029, after some soul-searching, you will vote for her...
Oh dear. The first rule of politics is to know how to count. This feels suboptimal for the Tories.
I sense the tears of a crocodile
Weirdly I wanted Cleverly to win even though I think he'd have been the most effective opposition to Labour. I don't really like having bad or mad people in politics even if they might make things easier for my 'side' from a tactical POV. At some point the Tories will form a government and it would be better if they were run by sensible and honest people.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying everyone, theist or atheist, is an agnostic.
Which is just claiming that agnosticism is a meaningless concept.
Kind of, yes. Because it's obvious that we cannot know. We can only believe (despite no evidence) or not believe (because of no evidence). But neither believers nor non believers can know. Thus we are all agnostics in addition to being believers or non believers. Agnosticism is not some additional third way between the two.
Oh dear. The first rule of politics is to know how to count. This feels suboptimal for the Tories.
I sense the tears of a crocodile
Weirdly I wanted Cleverly to win even though I think he'd have been the most effective opposition to Labour. I don't really like having bad or mad people in politics even if they might make things easier for my 'side' from a tactical POV. At some point the Tories will form a government and it would be better if they were run by sensible and honest people.
That was always my view when Labour ditched Corbyn. Much better to have the two main parties run by grownups than by extreme weirdos
There is a local by-election in Powys today - Ind defence. Tomorrow we have a bonanza. We have Lab defences in Coventry, Ealing(x2), Harlow, Leeds, NE Derbyshire, North Lanarkshire(x2), South Ribble, Southampton, and Worthing. There are Con defences in Ealing, Elmbridge, North Northamptonshire, Runnymede, and Suffolk. There is also a Lib Dem defence in Elmbridge. We have Ind defences in Fylde and Pembrokeshire. Finally there is a Green defence in Lewes. Expect changes.
Lefties celebrating this need to remember that if Labour implode before the Tories get themselves sorted out, Farage is next in line.
I'm not celebrating one iota. I can tell you for a fact that Labour want Badenoch but that's based mainly on her short, unconvincing career thus far. It's perfectly possible she won't be as catastrophic as everyone expects. Plus she might not beat Jenrick. He's very much still in there, Rob is.
I think Jenrick would produce a reasonable result but almost certainly lose. Badenoch rolls the dice - anything from a win to a meltdown, but certainly the more interesting choice.
I think that’s right, Nick.
Badenoch has a habit of being able to get attention. Now, it may be that she chances on a magic formula and gets everyone’s attention in the right way, or she spends her whole leadership trying to course-correct as she gaffes her way all over the place with weird outbursts. I suspect the latter is more likely, but she’s interesting, and could make good capital from any government slip ups.
She feels to me to be a better choice than Jenrick.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Except it's not a belief set, it's the absence of one.
Belief and absence of belief are not the same things.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying everyone, theist or atheist, is an agnostic.
Which is just claiming that agnosticism is a meaningless concept.
Kind of, yes. Because it's obvious that we cannot know. We can only believe (despite no evidence) or not believe (because of no evidence). But neither believers nor non believers can know. Thus we are all agnostics in addition to being believers or non believers. Agnosticism is not some additional third way between the two.
Except that agnosticism and atheism are not equal. Atheism is the disavowal of possibility without evidence. Atheism is therefore fundamentally irrational. Agnosticism allows an open mind rather than a closed one.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Is lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy a belief set?
An inability to understand an appropriate intellectual analogy and indulge in the puerile argument of a ten year old is a probably a twatset. Well done on continuing to underline your stupidity.
But if it's not OK for me not to believe in God, why is it OK for YOU to not believe in the Tooth Fairy?
Oh dear, you really are not a very deep thinker are you? Personally I don't really care that you are unable to understand that an openmindedness to the possibility of a greater power in the universe or a collective consciousness might be a more logical position than believing that it cannot possibly exist. Comparing such a belief set to the tooth fairy amply illustrates @Leon's suggestion that atheism is an adolescent perspective. Try harder at debate and I might then bother to reply. In the meantime I suggest you find a debating society for the under elevens. I will stick to chatting to grownups.
You can have an open mindedness to the possibility of a greater power in the universe while not believing in one because there is no evidence for it.
If you do, you are an atheist.
There is nothing closed minded about atheism. That you think there is, is your lack of comprehension that says more about you than atheists.
Possibly, though so was Boris Johnson once. Like Johnson, Starmer is also a greedy hypocritical grifting bastard who will eventually get his comeuppance
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying everyone, theist or atheist, is an agnostic.
Which is just claiming that agnosticism is a meaningless concept.
Kind of, yes. Because it's obvious that we cannot know. We can only believe (despite no evidence) or not believe (because of no evidence). But neither believers nor non believers can know. Thus we are all agnostics in addition to being believers or non believers. Agnosticism is not some additional third way between the two.
Except that agnosticism and atheism are not equal. Atheism is the disavowal of possibility without evidence. Atheism is therefore fundamentally irrational. Agnosticism allows an open mind rather than a closed one.
Atheism is not the disavow of possibility. That is your misunderstanding.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying everyone, theist or atheist, is an agnostic.
Which is just claiming that agnosticism is a meaningless concept.
Kind of, yes. Because it's obvious that we cannot know. We can only believe (despite no evidence) or not believe (because of no evidence). But neither believers nor non believers can know. Thus we are all agnostics in addition to being believers or non believers. Agnosticism is not some additional third way between the two.
Except that agnosticism and atheism are not equal. Atheism is the disavowal of possibility without evidence. Atheism is therefore fundamentally irrational. Agnosticism allows an open mind rather than a closed one.
Atheism is not the disavow of possibility. That is your misunderstanding.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
Atheism and agnosticism are only the same from the point of view of actual established religions, rather than theism as a concept.
I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying everyone, theist or atheist, is an agnostic.
Which is just claiming that agnosticism is a meaningless concept.
Kind of, yes. Because it's obvious that we cannot know. We can only believe (despite no evidence) or not believe (because of no evidence). But neither believers nor non believers can know. Thus we are all agnostics in addition to being believers or non believers. Agnosticism is not some additional third way between the two.
Except that agnosticism and atheism are not equal. Atheism is the disavowal of possibility without evidence. Atheism is therefore fundamentally irrational. Agnosticism allows an open mind rather than a closed one.
Atheism is not the disavow of possibility. That is your misunderstanding.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Except it's not a belief set, it's the absence of one.
Belief and absence of belief are not the same things.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Is lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy a belief set?
An inability to understand an appropriate intellectual analogy and indulge in the puerile argument of a ten year old is a probably a twatset. Well done on continuing to underline your stupidity.
But if it's not OK for me not to believe in God, why is it OK for YOU to not believe in the Tooth Fairy?
Oh dear, you really are not a very deep thinker are you? Personally I don't really care that you are unable to understand that an openmindedness to the possibility of a greater power in the universe or a collective consciousness might be a more logical position than believing that it cannot possibly exist. Comparing such a belief set to the tooth fairy amply illustrates @Leon's suggestion that atheism is an adolescent perspective. Try harder at debate and I might then bother to reply. In the meantime I suggest you find a debating society for the under elevens. I will stick to chatting to grownups.
You can have an open mindedness to the possibility of a greater power in the universe while not believing in one because there is no evidence for it.
If you do, you are an atheist.
There is nothing closed minded about atheism. That you think there is, is your lack of comprehension that says more about you than atheists.
Yea, you keep believing that Barty. How is the Sixth Form debating society these days?
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Except it's not a belief set, it's the absence of one.
Belief and absence of belief are not the same things.
It does tickle me how so many posters here think the 14 years of government was so of the right that anything further to the right is positively fascist.
A near tripling of the national debt, post-war high in taxation, 50% increase in the foreign born population as % of the total, choking economic regulation, gutting of the national defence capability, normalisation of DE&I targets, etc etc etc… none of this feels like particularly “right wing” governance to me.
Meanwhile concerning the usual defining characteristic of the far right, the period saw the UK’s first non-white PM, four consecutive non-white Chancellors and now highly likely we will see the first black party leader. All while the Labour Party saw mass resignations over its apparent institutional anti-semitism.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
I don't really think that argument stacks up. There is a distinction between belief and knowledge. You're quite right that it's not terribly rational to say I "know" God exists or not - we all must accept the limitations of science at this time and the reality that something could happen to change our view.
But it does appear to me to be possible not to have a belief about something. "Belief" implies a level of confidence or trust that something is likely to be true, and a level of consistency over time.
I accept the strict linguistic point about "atheism" in the sense that the word technically encompasses everything that isn't theism. But it seems to me there is a difference between someone who believes there is no God and someone who doesn't have any (or has no consistent) view on the matter.
If you’re in charge of the Geneva Tourist Board how the living FUCK do you sell this place?
It’s quite a nice middle European city with some pleasant scenery. It has a nice lake but it also plagued with petty crime and gets quite edgy at night. Oh, also, there is literally nothing to do in the city itself. And it’s not THAT pretty. And the food is a bit meh. And you can go to about 100 nicer cities within 200km, all with much grander scenery and fascinating history and loads of art, and, guess what, they will be four times cheaper. Here we charge you TWENTY ONE POUNDS FOR A BURGER YOU FUCKING SAPS AHAHAHAHAH
Yes, anyway, ignore all that - come to Geneva!
The tourists they’re selling to, tens of thousands of them at the moment, are all in those nice resorts on the lake, where they can spend a week looking at water and mountains, visit the spas and drink in the bars, and only spend €10,000 per person per week doing so. It’s a bargain for the exclusivity.
Are you feeling left out yet?
No. I’ve been to those resorts. I stayed at this one for three nights a few years ago
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
I think Evian, though on Lake Geneva/Lac Leman) is in France, not Switzerland. Sorry to be pedantic
Tho I suspect it is the hotel resort @Sandpit is referring to. It is probably the most famous/prestigious on the lake shore in terms of spa/cuisine/scale etc
I wasn’t referring to any particular resort, merely making the point that there are many of them on the lake, and you’re destined to get the bus back into town to your sh!tty AirBnB tonight, with barely the budget for a bottle of Aldi’s best wine…
(You know I’m just taking the piss, but it’s an interesting assignment if you properly stick to it. They should have given you a chaperone in Geneva to make sure you do!)
You’re still missing my point. Why would anyone come HERE? When nearby towns are so superior in terms of beauty, cuisine, art, culture, landscape - Lausanne, Montreux, Zermatt, Chamonix, Annecy, Lucerne, Lyon, Turin, Milan
Why would any tourist voluntarily come to GENEVA for a holiday given that it is the most expensive city in Europe? And has none of these peerless attractions?
So why is it so expensive? I can only presume it is all the international institutions- FIFA, UN. Red Cross, etc - and their boring bureaucrats on expense accounts
I think it has gone downhill. I used to regularly visit 20 years ago or so and quite liked it. I then returned a few years ago and found myself wondering why. Lausanne and Montreux, though expensive are much better. And in the latter you have Funky Claud running in and out.
We visited Geneva, Lausanne AND Montreux back in 2014. Took the train round the northern side of the lake. If Geneva has gone downhill, I bow to your more up to date knowledge.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
I don't really think that argument stacks up. There is a distinction between belief and knowledge. You're quite right that it's not terribly rational to say I "know" God exists or not - we all must accept the limitations of science at this time and the reality that something could happen to change our view.
But it does appear to me to be possible not to have a belief about something. "Belief" implies a level of confidence or trust that something is likely to be true, and a level of consistency over time.
I accept the strict linguistic point about "atheism" in the sense that the word technically encompasses everything that isn't theism. But it seems to me there is a difference between someone who believes there is no God and someone who doesn't have any (or has no consistent) view on the matter.
You may think there is a difference but both are atheists.
Which is the point, atheism is not a belief system, it is merely the absence of one. It covers the set of people of everyone who is not a theist, without any regimented beliefs or orthodoxies.
Closed minded ignorant theists trying to pigeonhole atheism into something they dislike which it's not is just them showing their ignorance.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
In 2029, after some soul-searching, you will vote for her...
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
In 2029, after some soul-searching, you will vote for her...
Long way away but if it means beating a Labour government then yes
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Is lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy a belief set?
An inability to understand an appropriate intellectual analogy and indulge in the puerile argument of a ten year old is a probably a twatset. Well done on continuing to underline your stupidity.
But if it's not OK for me not to believe in God, why is it OK for YOU to not believe in the Tooth Fairy?
Oh dear, you really are not a very deep thinker are you? Personally I don't really care that you are unable to understand that an openmindedness to the possibility of a greater power in the universe or a collective consciousness might be a more logical position than believing that it cannot possibly exist. Comparing such a belief set to the tooth fairy amply illustrates @Leon's suggestion that atheism is an adolescent perspective. Try harder at debate and I might then bother to reply. In the meantime I suggest you find a debating society for the under elevens. I will stick to chatting to grownups.
You can have an open mindedness to the possibility of a greater power in the universe while not believing in one because there is no evidence for it.
If you do, you are an atheist.
There is nothing closed minded about atheism. That you think there is, is your lack of comprehension that says more about you than atheists.
I need to log off now, but I look forward to your gradual evolution over the next few years from evangelical fanatical atheist to full on church-going-every-Sunday Born Again Christian in the same way you have moved from teeth gnashing right wing Faragist to moderate centrist (Corbynite perhaps in a few years?)
I am only teasing, I of course respect your right to be wrong. And God? Well I am sure She forgives you, if She exists.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
People have a tendency to look for comfort by relying on old certainties/maxims - they don't apply anymore. I think the big fallacy that is being made is the idea that 'elections are won in the centre', what people want is a coherant and radical alternative vision. The establishment cannot provide this- all sides are bogged down in legalism and managerialism.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
In 2029, after some soul-searching, you will vote for her...
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
In 2029, after some soul-searching, you will vote for her...
Long way away but if it means beating a Labour government then yes
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
Silly. Most atheists reject the existence of god(s) usually (but not exclusively) because there's sod all reason to believe it. Guff about the meaning of life doesn't come into it.
Not sure why it is important whether someone is an atheist, agnostic or of faith as it is an individual matter of conscience
I think the late Dave Allen had the best response
'May your God go with you '
A slightly serious comment on a lighthearted thread, if I may. Not intending to disrespect your suggestion, but to question how it works.
Yes, there is a matter of conscience, but what is the point of a belief unless it is a foundation for values, and what is the point of a set of values values if they have no practical effect on life, even personal life?
If values and practice do not come from belief, where do they come from, and how do they get out of the head into wider society?
That I think is the heresy that Trumpist evangelicals fall into. They have a religion which is a system of belief, which is where they tell themselves that the important things exist. But they embrace a system of policies that are inimical to that belief, and can only hide the contradiction from themselves and others by a bizarre, self-deluding rhetoric.
IMO in the words of the Gospel writer Trumpist evangelicals are 'whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside - but full of rottenness'. That will not stand.
It's rather like rich people are more inclined to embrace a heterodox version of Christian religion that somehow justifies them keeping their wealth for themselves.
One thing that interests me is that Kamala Harris is rooted in a church (individual church, not denomination) which owes its values to Martin Luther King, and the superintendent minister was supported for training by MLK himself.
At some point history says that the putrid version of evangelicalism embraced by Trumpists will rot from the inside and collapse. It will be interesting to see what comes next - that's the dynamic of the history of Christianity.
Hmm... curious choice. I said at the outset I didn't think if I was the Labour Party I would care very much who won. Trying to put my own centrist liberal views to one side (Cleverley scared me the least, but I'm never voting Tory so I'm irrelevant).
Jenrick has the ruthlessness to win, and perhaps change tack completely once in office if that's the way to go. He's singing from the right's songsheet at the moment but I could see him doing whatever's needed. On the down side he is unlikeable and as dodgy as F and I expect that will undo him eventually.
Badenoch is the wild card choice. I can't see it, but others seem to think she has something extra. A black woman might do better than another rich white bloke with the wider electorate. On the other hand she was poor to invisible as a Minister, and has a very thin skin and also not especially likeable.
Of the two, I think Jenrick is just too dodgy so I would vote for Badenoch. Actually I think I probably wouldn't vote.
Compared to Cleverly, both were poor ministers (not that he was great) and neither come across well to me, but I think both have a chance of surprising on the upside. Cleverly would have been the candidate likely to make the Tories perform least poorly in the worst case at the next GE, but I also feel he was unlikely to do much better than do more than a mild improvement. Both Jenrick and Badenoch are shit or bust choices. But in both cases the Tories are relying on rolling a 6. I guess if a 6 isn't forthcoming there will be a rerun in 2 years' time.
Indeed, it's not much of a choice is it. A dodgy career fellow (rather obviously, given the rather sudden weight loss, haircut, swivel to the right), with a bit of dodgy dealing thrown in (the distasteful Desmond dealings) or a very right wing "culture warrior" with a dislike for pregnant ladies. They look likely to be out of power for some time yet with either of those at the helm as their views will in no way chime with the general public. The Libs must be very pleased...
The Tories are highly unlikely to win a majority under Jenrick or Badenoch I agree. There is a slim chance the Tories + Reform + DUP+TUV combined have enough seats for a majority though
Indeed, although as you say, slim. It's likely that Badenoch wins the leadership. I cannot see the public warming to her, the current mood is generally against "shouty" populism as people seem a broken country and want competent leaders to fix things to work easily, efficiently and in their favour. It's quite possible that there could be a further reversal in Tory MP's at the next election if they swing ever right wards into a Trumpist/Tea Party style of politics. I just don't think that would wash here. Of course she could end up defenestrated a la Thatch/IDS and then a moderate new boy (or indeed girl) comes swinging in all Heseltonian Tarzanlike.
A shouty populist party has gone from polling 3% to polling 20% in under a year. The master of dull (I admit competence is becoming a stretch) is becoming the fastest ever approval ratings loser. This is pure projection.
I am at a loss to understand what this means for not only the conservative party but politics as a whole, but in this climate where politicians fall like a stone in approval once in the spotlight anything could happen
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
In 2029, after some soul-searching, you will vote for her...
Long way away but if it means beating a Labour government then yes
I need a new definition of "some"
I honestly do not know much about her but certainly am relieved she is likely to beat Jenrick
I think the next year will be very interesting leading up to the elections in Scotland and Wales, both on the 7th May 26
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Except it's not a belief set, it's the absence of one.
Belief and absence of belief are not the same things.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Indeed:
Do you believe in God?
If Yes, goto 1. If No, goto 2.
1: You are a theist 2. You are an atheist
Yes, atheist vs agnostic is a superficial distinction. It mainly crops up as a rhetorical 'divide and rule' play by people who have (and good luck to them) made the Leap of Faith that there is a God and for some reason are bugged that others have not.
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
I don't really think that argument stacks up. There is a distinction between belief and knowledge. You're quite right that it's not terribly rational to say I "know" God exists or not - we all must accept the limitations of science at this time and the reality that something could happen to change our view.
But it does appear to me to be possible not to have a belief about something. "Belief" implies a level of confidence or trust that something is likely to be true, and a level of consistency over time.
I accept the strict linguistic point about "atheism" in the sense that the word technically encompasses everything that isn't theism. But it seems to me there is a difference between someone who believes there is no God and someone who doesn't have any (or has no consistent) view on the matter.
You may think there is a difference but both are atheists.
Which is the point, atheism is not a belief system, it is merely the absence of one. It covers the set of people of everyone who is not a theist, without any regimented beliefs or orthodoxies.
Closed minded ignorant theists trying to pigeonhole atheism into something they dislike which it's not is just them showing their ignorance.
I think a big, potential difference between agnostics and atheists is the level of credence they'd probably give to God existing. I'd consider myself an agnostic for instance because I'm pretty on the fence whether there is a 'creator being' of some kind or not. With Dawkins, by comparison, his level of credence would be near 0. Of course, you might get an agnostic who thinks the probability of there being God is only around 10% or so and just has a preference for the term of agnostic rather than atheist. But I think the point is that there probably a good chunk of agnostics (like myself) who'd be uncomfortable being referred to as atheists.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
I'm genuinely disappointed, even though Cleverly was a much stronger candidate and this scarcely believable fiasco suits Labour.
Cleverly is a nice guy, a thoughtful decent man – and an atheist. It would have been interesting – and overdue – to have atheists leading both big parties, which reflected the irreligious nature of our nation.
The nation is irreligious and agnostic.
That is *not* the same as atheist
Yes it is. They are pretty much synonyms.
The idea that atheism is a definitive belief is a fallacy spread by theists.
Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Agnosticism is a lack of definitive knowledge on whether there is or is not anything.
On a Venn Diagram those two are almost a completely overlapping circle.
Don't fall for theists fallacies in letting them define atheist to mean any more than what it means.
Atheism IS a belief system. You are unable believe in a higher state of collective universal consciousness, therefore you disbelieve, and that disbelief is based on very limited evidence. You also pompously believe that this is a superior belief system, but you are in fact simply demonstrating an extreme lack of imagination and capability to have an open mind.
Agnosticism is the most logical position. Atheism is simply an inability to comprehend that there are elements to the universe that we are unlikely to ever understand. In the hierarchy of closed minded philosophies, materialist atheism is at the top of the pyramid.
Yes, I have no problem with agnosticism. It is a noble and coherent position. “I do not know”
I am agnostic about many things, I do not know, I do not have the information
Atheists are CERTAIN of that which they cannot be certain, that there is no God, there is no deeper meaning to the universe, no spiritual and emotional purpose, no story of which we are a part, no greater design outwith our comprehension. Nope. They are certain. Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT
Atheism is the belief system of an adolescent
I note with amusement that even Richard Dawkins is now marching back his atheism, somewhat
"Like teenagers THEY JUST KNOW, ALRIGHT" applies just as well to a not inconsiderable number of theists.
Certainly, but you missed the point. Our very own resident adolescent Barty, tried to postulate that atheism is not a belief set. It is. The whataboutery has nothing to do with the discussion.
Except it's not a belief set, it's the absence of one.
Belief and absence of belief are not the same things.
Do you believe in evolution?
Yes, because there is evidence for it.
That's the difference.
Do you believe that all people have equal worth?
(intervening). Yes. Which is different from equal pay, which is decided by supply and demand.
Comments
But Belief trumps Reason, so it doesn't really matter.
In one version of the multiverse theory, every possible universe must exist, so out there, somewhere, is a universe with a tooth fairy
So if serious physicists believe tooth fairies are possible, who am I to dispute that?
In the end, religion comes down to intuition.It is probably beyond our ability to comprehend the universe, rationally. The universe is a fucking big place, it may indeed be infinite, or there is an infinite sequence of universes one after the other, or there are infinite universes in parallel, or we are actually in a simulation (a more fashionable theory held by serious scientists)
What can a hairy bipedal ape on one small planet, with a lack of parking, do in the face of that? We can try and work it all out (and we’ve done amazingly well so far, and we should continue) but I suspect we will eventually hit limits, and may be close to them, now. At that point you fall back on intuition, you listen to yourself, and see if you can detect the pure, beautiful voice of your own soul, calling you, welcoming you back to God, like an Estonian homecoming song, one of those beautiful melodies Baltic women sing in airports when the beloved returns and which make you tear up a bit, as you fumble with your Duty Free
As Blaise Pascal said: the heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing
*Edited for insufficient lols.
Wait until next May, and @Leon will be complaining that his £200 a day budget doesn’t go far at the Monaco Grand Prix.
I think the late Dave Allen had the best response
'May your God go with you '
https://hotel-royal.evianresort.com/en
They gave me a free solo ride in their brand new million quid James Bond hyperjet speed boat
The hotel was full of Liverpool FC players, doing some pre season training in the sun
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-horror-does-to-us/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=LIFE 20241009 SG+CID_fa555427dfc7da04f84a648398e2c58a
Might as well stuff yourself with a roll (or more) of bum-wipe.
Preferably unused . . . but no accounting for taste!
It's not a meaningful exercise to try and split atheism from something called "agnosticism". Why? Because everybody (the religious and the not religious) ultimately is an agnostic on the Big Big Picture in the sense they must accept, if they are rational, that there could be things unknown (and possibly unknowable) to us.
So there are theists and there are atheists and that's it. If you're not in the first lane you are in the second. And everyone in both lanes, ie everyone on the planet, is an agnostic.
I am meant to be going to a genuinely great and UNUSUAL hotel next month, we shall see
Which is NOT how it's used by most fast-food mongers, with 5 Guys being especially abusive of their customers.
At this point Badenoch seems a slightly less horrifying choice than the mural painter Jenrick who makes my skin crawl .
(You know I’m just taking the piss, but it’s an interesting assignment if you properly stick to it. They should have given you a chaperone in Geneva to make sure you do, and had said chaperone do a review of the Four Seasons.)
Volatility is by its name unpredictable, and never has our politics been more unpredictable and anyone saying with any certainty what the future holds is either wishcasting, or oblivious to how politics is changing before our very eyes
Greetings, Professor Falken...
Oh, guess like @TSE, I'll have to plump for the Madenoch.
It is a big "if", true.
Why would any tourist voluntarily come to GENEVA for a holiday given that it is the most expensive city in Europe? And has none of these peerless attractions?
So why is it so expensive? I can only presume it is all the international institutions- FIFA, UN. Red Cross, etc - and their boring bureaucrats on expense accounts
Badenoch has a habit of being able to get attention. Now, it may be that she chances on a magic formula and gets everyone’s attention in the right way, or she spends her whole leadership trying to course-correct as she gaffes her way all over the place with weird outbursts. I suspect the latter is more likely, but she’s interesting, and could make good capital from any government slip ups.
She feels to me to be a better choice than Jenrick.
Belief and absence of belief are not the same things.
It could have been Jenrick v Braverman.
If you do, you are an atheist.
There is nothing closed minded about atheism. That you think there is, is your lack of comprehension that says more about you than atheists.
That might be the next leadership runoff.
That's the difference.
A near tripling of the national debt, post-war high in taxation, 50% increase in the foreign born population as % of the total, choking economic regulation, gutting of the national defence capability, normalisation of DE&I targets, etc etc etc… none of this feels like particularly “right wing” governance to me.
Meanwhile concerning the usual defining characteristic of the far right, the period saw the UK’s first non-white PM, four consecutive non-white Chancellors and now highly likely we will see the first black party leader. All while the Labour Party saw mass resignations over its apparent institutional anti-semitism.
Funny thing perspective.
But it does appear to me to be possible not to have a belief about something. "Belief" implies a level of confidence or trust that something is likely to be true, and a level of consistency over time.
I accept the strict linguistic point about "atheism" in the sense that the word technically encompasses everything that isn't theism. But it seems to me there is a difference between someone who believes there is no God and someone who doesn't have any (or has no consistent) view on the matter.
Which is the point, atheism is not a belief system, it is merely the absence of one. It covers the set of people of everyone who is not a theist, without any regimented beliefs or orthodoxies.
Closed minded ignorant theists trying to pigeonhole atheism into something they dislike which it's not is just them showing their ignorance.
I am only teasing, I of course respect your right to be wrong. And God? Well I am sure She forgives you, if She exists.
Yes, there is a matter of conscience, but what is the point of a belief unless it is a foundation for values, and what is the point of a set of values values if they have no practical effect on life, even personal life?
If values and practice do not come from belief, where do they come from, and how do they get out of the head into wider society?
That I think is the heresy that Trumpist evangelicals fall into. They have a religion which is a system of belief, which is where they tell themselves that the important things exist. But they embrace a system of policies that are inimical to that belief, and can only hide the contradiction from themselves and others by a bizarre, self-deluding rhetoric.
IMO in the words of the Gospel writer Trumpist evangelicals are 'whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside - but full of rottenness'. That will not stand.
It's rather like rich people are more inclined to embrace a heterodox version of Christian religion that somehow justifies them keeping their wealth for themselves.
One thing that interests me is that Kamala Harris is rooted in a church (individual church, not denomination) which owes its values to Martin Luther King, and the superintendent minister was supported for training by MLK himself.
At some point history says that the putrid version of evangelicalism embraced by Trumpists will rot from the inside and collapse. It will be interesting to see what comes next - that's the dynamic of the history of Christianity.
I need a new definition of "some"
I honestly do not know much about her but certainly am relieved she is likely to beat Jenrick
I think the next year will be very interesting leading up to the elections in Scotland and Wales, both on the 7th May 26
K-E-I-R.
Of course, you might get an agnostic who thinks the probability of there being God is only around 10% or so and just has a preference for the term of agnostic rather than atheist. But I think the point is that there probably a good chunk of agnostics (like myself) who'd be uncomfortable being referred to as atheists.
Really rollercoaster for Cleverly though.
I thought it would be Jenrick at the start and still think it though. Generic leaders are in right now.