He wanted me to admit I was "completely wrong re DG" just now (and tried something similar last night over that Paddick article). I used the last two things I've said about it to prove him quite wrong, while reminding him I've been asked not to talk about it (so do kindly stfu about it), and hopefully not upset any moderators.
Today is the last dry day I have before I get to work on the astonishing amount of high quality alcoholic beverages I have assembled for the Christmas period: beers from England, whisky from Scotland, wine from France, Spain, Italy and the US, port from Portugal, Baileys from Ireland ;-) And yesterday I purchased three Montecristo Number 2’s. I am all set.
So we can expect your posts to be even more insightful than normal? Can’t wait.
Today is the last dry day I have before I get to work on the astonishing amount of high quality alcoholic beverages I have assembled for the Christmas period: beers from England, whisky from Scotland, wine from France, Spain, Italy and the US, port from Portugal, Baileys from Ireland ;-) And yesterday I purchased three Montecristo Number 2’s. I am all set.
So we can expect your posts to be even more insightful than normal? Can’t wait.
Today is the last dry day I have before I get to work on the astonishing amount of high quality alcoholic beverages I have assembled for the Christmas period: beers from England, whisky from Scotland, wine from France, Spain, Italy and the US, port from Portugal, Baileys from Ireland ;-) And yesterday I purchased three Montecristo Number 2’s. I am all set.
So we can expect your posts to be even more insightful than normal? Can’t wait.
Merry Christmas!!
And to you Southam. It sounds as if yours will be merry indeed.
the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable.
I read a history of the creation of the King James bible - committees of committees - anything less likely to lead to a successful outcome would be difficult to imagine.....and yet, we have one of the great works of English literature.....
the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable.
I read a history of the creation of the King James bible - committees of committees - anything less likely to lead to a successful outcome would be difficult to imagine.....and yet, we have one of the great works of English literature.....
As an atheist I have no problem considering it one of the great books in the English language. Whether it was a good use of resources for Gove to send it to every school is of course a different question.
Mr. G, what's the SNP/separatist position on currency? Still the pound?
Mr D , There have been no recent discussions on a currency after independence that I am aware of, however the same options are available as per last time. Short term they could use pound , longer term would be either Scottish currency or the Euro. Separatist is an offensive unionist description for someone wishing to run their own affairs, I never see you or any unionists on here using it to describe themselves on EU, it does not become you to be so xenophobic.
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The nativity always struck me as an ex post rationalisation. This man was the son of God, how could he have a normal birth? The royal blood thing seems somewhat overstated. He was of the house of David, as were about 10% of all Jews. Mary must have been too, especially as Jews are wise enough to establish blood lines through the mother. What is more important is the symbolism. Poverty and a complete lack of worldly power and trappings shows vividly that he later promises a very different kind of Kingdom.
I agree with @foxinsoxuk that the sermon on the mount is the best and most important part of the New Testament but the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable. I find the idea that there were mistakes between Nazarene and Nazareth pretty unconvincing.
Not completely clear about the betting angles on this though.
Mr. G, what's the SNP/separatist position on currency? Still the pound?
Mr D , There have been no recent discussions on a currency after independence that I am aware of, however the same options are available as per last time. Short term they could use pound , longer term would be either Scottish currency or the Euro. Separatist is an offensive unionist description for someone wishing to run their own affairs, I never see you or any unionists on here using it to describe themselves on EU, it does not become you to be so xenophobic.
Malcolm, I never had you down as such a sensitive soul. Merry Christmas you old reprobate.
“it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought.”
I've read it and disagree, nor is Paddicks Quote as firm as suggested (the direct quote being about unlikely a jury would unanimously find it not to be public interest). They shouldn't have held on to the information, end of, as they has left the service. The federations Quote is just stupid given the retention of police information.
How many former police officers decide to keep hold of information they've been told not to, on how many people? How much of that information is fortunate enough to them be able to be leaked to the press as in the public interest?
Should we now encourage all officers to retain information on all cases on their own moral judgement, since who knows what might be public interest later?
Green misled, and he's, been sacked, fine. But the implications are frightening. Former police making moral judgements to keep info on the off chance it will be useful years later. How,many other people, significant or not, have these officers kept info on? What exactly were there plans if it never came up again?
Merry Xmas to all
The former police officer denies leaking it to the Sunday Times.He said the journalist obtained the information from the Leveson Enquiry.Nevertheless if you are accused of something you have a right to defend yourself from anyone including a politician.Just because you have made your mind up does not make it correct.You do not have all the information to back your decision.
the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable.
I read a history of the creation of the King James bible - committees of committees - anything less likely to lead to a successful outcome would be difficult to imagine.....and yet, we have one of the great works of English literature.....
As an atheist I have no problem considering it one of the great books in the English language. Whether it was a good use of resources for Gove to send it to every school is of course a different question.
I've always struggled with the language, which seems to me to be archaic, even for the 1600's.
IMHO, the best-written Bible is the New English Bible of 1970, which reads like The Times of 50 years ago.
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The nativity always struck me as an ex post rationalisation. This man was the son of God, how could he have a normal birth? The royal blood thing seems somewhat overstated. He was of the house of David, as were about 10% of all Jews. Mary must have been too, especially as Jews are wise enough to establish blood lines through the mother. What is more important is the symbolism. Poverty and a complete lack of worldly power and trappings shows vividly that he later promises a very different kind of Kingdom.
I agree with @foxinsoxuk that the sermon on the mount is the best and most important part of the New Testament but the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable. I find the idea that there were mistakes between Nazarene and Nazareth pretty unconvincing.
Not completely clear about the betting angles on this though.
They are in the PB Archives. You said there was no Porn on his computer on 2 Dec 2017
"I see a load more perverts came out on the last thread. There wasn't any porn found on the DPM's computer. It was a fabrication by two bent coppers, disgracefully spread by the state broadcaster"
You continued the theme till the 5th December Do you really want me to cut and paste all your posts between 2/12 and 5/12?
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The nativity always struck me as an ex post rationalisation. This man was the son of God, how could he have a normal birth? The royal blood thing seems somewhat overstated. He was of the house of David, as were about 10% of all Jews. Mary must have been too, especially as Jews are wise enough to establish blood lines through the mother. What is more important is the symbolism. Poverty and a complete lack of worldly power and trappings shows vividly that he later promises a very different kind of Kingdom.
I agree with @foxinsoxuk that the sermon on the mount is the best and most important part of the New Testament but the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable. I find the idea that there were mistakes between Nazarene and Nazareth pretty unconvincing.
Not completely clear about the betting angles on this though.
Stake: one soul. Returns: eternal salvation (or damnation). Bookmaker of uncertain provenance.
Another great piece of writing by David - that last sentence in particular has an eerie resonance. I hope he is deploying his talents in other fields too.
I'm not sure that the specific political example is the best one - an easier explanation of Corbyn's comment is that if you're asked "Will you win soon?" then politicians just can't reply "Nah, probably not." But it's certainly true of most of us that we work out (or just have a gut feeling) what we want to happen and then often interpret events as showing that we're right or, if we're optimists, as showing that we're getting there.
I'm not especially moderate in my opinions these days (too much wrong in our world to opt for tinkering), but one point that centrists get right is that we all need to be aware that our assumptions MAY be wrong, and we therefore shouldn't do anything that would be catastrophic if they were.
Corbyn would be better saying "we're ready to form a government or fight an election whenever the chance arises but clearly there's no election scheduled until 2022 and the government has an effective, if small, majority. Our aim is to keep pressure on the government and to prove our effectiveness by setting the agenda on the issues we believe are important, even while we're in opposition."
Mr. G, what's the SNP/separatist position on currency? Still the pound?
Mr D , There have been no recent discussions on a currency after independence that I am aware of, however the same options are available as per last time. Short term they could use pound , longer term would be either Scottish currency or the Euro. Separatist is an offensive unionist description for someone wishing to run their own affairs, I never see you or any unionists on here using it to describe themselves on EU, it does not become you to be so xenophobic.
Malcolm, I never had you down as such a sensitive soul. Merry Christmas you old reprobate.
My sensitive caring personality shining through David, hurt to the quick, Merry Christmas to you and your family.
“I’m in it for the long term,” May said when asked if she will lead her party into the next general election, scheduled for 2022. “I’m here to do the job I believe needs to be done for the British people and that’s what I’m going to focus on.”
the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable.
I read a history of the creation of the King James bible - committees of committees - anything less likely to lead to a successful outcome would be difficult to imagine.....and yet, we have one of the great works of English literature.....
As an atheist I have no problem considering it one of the great books in the English language. Whether it was a good use of resources for Gove to send it to every school is of course a different question.
I've always struggled with the language, which seems to me to be archaic, even for the 1600's.
IMHO, the best-written Bible is the New English Bible of 1970, which reads like The Times of 50 years ago.
Didn't Matthew Mark and Luke just make stuff up to fit with Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah?
Oh and the whole virgin birth thing is the result of a mistranslation.
Laters...
The Nativity does not feature in Mark, which begins with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Generally Mark is considered the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels.
“I’m in it for the long term,” May said when asked if she will lead her party into the next general election, scheduled for 2022. “I’m here to do the job I believe needs to be done for the British people and that’s what I’m going to focus on.”
the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable.
I read a history of the creation of the King James bible - committees of committees - anything less likely to lead to a successful outcome would be difficult to imagine.....and yet, we have one of the great works of English literature.....
As an atheist I have no problem considering it one of the great books in the English language. Whether it was a good use of resources for Gove to send it to every school is of course a different question.
I've always struggled with the language, which seems to me to be archaic, even for the 1600's.
IMHO, the best-written Bible is the New English Bible of 1970, which reads like The Times of 50 years ago.
I'm not a believer, but I am hugely fond of the King James Bible.
I favour the New English Bible, but the KJV does have beautiful Shakesperean type language, much of which has become part of the English language, and often people quote unwittingly.
Mr. kle4, agree entirely, and the shameful lack of media scrutiny of that aspect is almost as bad.
Mr. G, if you prefer I not use the term I'll desist from doing so, though it seems fairly neutral to me (and I'd use the same or worse about anyone who wanted Yorkshire to separate).
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The general theory of relativity was created a priori and without reference to experiment. The experimental confirmations came later.
However, it is a highly unusual example in science. We would probably still be waiting for the theory if Einstein had not lived. And it ruined its creator who was unable to repeat the trick as he sought for unification theories.
Almost all advances in science come from experiments or data, that is then rationalised by theorists (such as quantum theory or QCD or dark energy).
Mr. kle4, agree entirely, and the shameful lack of media scrutiny of that aspect is almost as bad.
Mr. G, if you prefer I not use the term I'll desist from doing so, though it seems fairly neutral to me (and I'd use the same or worse about anyone who wanted Yorkshire to separate).
MD, It was a bit tongue in cheek , though it does annoy me.I know you would not use it if you thought it was offensive , others do use it for that very purpose.
the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable.
I read a history of the creation of the King James bible - committees of committees - anything less likely to lead to a successful outcome would be difficult to imagine.....and yet, we have one of the great works of English literature.....
As an atheist I have no problem considering it one of the great books in the English language. Whether it was a good use of resources for Gove to send it to every school is of course a different question.
I've always struggled with the language, which seems to me to be archaic, even for the 1600's.
IMHO, the best-written Bible is the New English Bible of 1970, which reads like The Times of 50 years ago.
I think the KJV committee heavily plagerised the Tyndale Bible of 1536, and when reading the TB this is quite transparent. The committee was largely a tidying up exercise, and as Tyndale was rather awkwardly executed for his translation, it was convenient to skate over!
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The general theory of relativity was created a priori and without reference to experiment. The experimental confirmations came later.
However, it is a highly unusual example in science. We would probably still be waiting for the theory if Einstein had not lived. And it ruined its creator who was unable to repeat the trick as he sought for unification theories.
Almost all advances in science come from experiments or data, that is then rationalised by theorists (such as quantum theory or QCD or dark energy).
I would disagree. While induction from observed events helps in the generation of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that sets up the experiment which then either supports or refutes the hypothesis, then generates further hypotheses. Intuition and inductive reasoning is fundamental to the scientific method.
Religion is a separate domain of knowledge, and like art, is evaluated by different means. Jesus put it rather well "a tree is known by its fruit". In other words, "Do your religious beliefs make you a better person?"
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
Yes it just looks petty and pathetic, very backward and insular looking. They are most certainly not in control of anything and seem to just pander to the xenophobes, very depressing and does not bode well for future.
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
This is a good point. I think British racing green would have been lovely.
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
This is a good point. I think British racing green would have been lovely.
It is a new colour, isn't it? Old British passports were black.
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
This is a good point. I think British racing green would have been lovely.
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
Yes it just looks petty and pathetic, very backward and insular looking. They are most certainly not in control of anything and seem to just pander to the xenophobes, very depressing and does not bode well for future.
Malc, for somebody who gets so het up about the term 'separatists' you use 'xenophobes' awfully casually.
Aside from the lyrical prose, David's pieces always are objective. Today's though is outstanding.
Wasn't it David that first alerted the site to a NoM on the day before the election following his canvassing? If it was then David Herdson rightly deserves his place as pbCom's person of the year.
Thank goodness those pesky Christians decided to use a pagan day of celebration as their most important date of the year. Instead of wanting to top ourselves as the winter gloom sets in, we can usefully spend the time eating, getting pissed, shagging and spending hours on the sofa watching crap TV.
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
This is a good point. I think British racing green would have been lovely.
The DUP would've vetoed green !
Green passports are favoured in Islamic countries. I recall Australia is too.
Perhaps Purple and Yellow stripes in honour of UKIP would be apposite. Indeed the new colour is suspiciously Tory blue, rather than the traditional dark Indigo.
Aside from the lyrical prose, David's pieces always are objective. Today's though is outstanding.
Wasn't it David that first alerted the site to a NoM on the day before the election following his canvassing? If it was then David Herdson rightly deserves his place as pbCom's person of the year.
Thank goodness those pesky Christians decided to use a pagan day of celebration as their most important date of the year. Instead of wanting to top ourselves as the winter gloom sets in, we can usefully spend the time eating, getting pissed, shagging and spending hours on the sofa watching crap TV.
Aside from the lyrical prose, David's pieces always are objective. Today's though is outstanding.
Wasn't it David that first alerted the site to a NoM on the day before the election following his canvassing? If it was then David Herdson rightly deserves his place as pbCom's person of the year.
Thank goodness those pesky Christians decided to use a pagan day of celebration as their most important date of the year. Instead of wanting to top ourselves as the winter gloom sets in, we can usefully spend the time eating, getting pissed, shagging and spending hours on the sofa watching crap TV.
Merry Christmas all.
Happy Christmas tyson!
Is Die Hard "crap TV" or the centrepiece of the day?
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
Yes it just looks petty and pathetic, very backward and insular looking. They are most certainly not in control of anything and seem to just pander to the xenophobes, very depressing and does not bode well for future.
Oh, and Independent Scotland wouldn't have wanted a blue passport?
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The general theory of relativity was created a priori and without reference to experiment. The experimental confirmations came later.
However, it is a highly unusual example in science. We would probably still be waiting for the theory if Einstein had not lived. And it ruined its creator who was unable to repeat the trick as he sought for unification theories.
Almost all advances in science come from experiments or data, that is then rationalised by theorists (such as quantum theory or QCD or dark energy).
I would disagree. While induction from observed events helps in the generation of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that sets up the experiment which then either supports or refutes the hypothesis, then generates further hypotheses. Intuition and inductive reasoning is fundamental to the scientific method.
Religion is a separate domain of knowledge, and like art, is evaluated by different means. Jesus put it rather well "a tree is known by its fruit". In other words, "Do your religious beliefs make you a better person?"
"Do your religious beliefs make you a better person?"
Scientific theories, unlike religious beliefs, are not about universal truths. They are about models of reality that evolve over time to better fit observations.
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The general theory of relativity was created a priori and without reference to experiment. The experimental confirmations came later.
However, it is a highly unusual example in science. We would probably still be waiting for the theory if Einstein had not lived. And it ruined its creator who was unable to repeat the trick as he sought for unification theories.
Almost all advances in science come from experiments or data, that is then rationalised by theorists (such as quantum theory or QCD or dark energy).
I would disagree. While induction from observed events helps in the generation of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that sets up the experiment which then either supports or refutes the hypothesis, then generates further hypotheses. Intuition and inductive reasoning is fundamental to the scientific method.
Religion is a separate domain of knowledge, and like art, is evaluated by different means. Jesus put it rather well "a tree is known by its fruit". In other words, "Do your religious beliefs make you a better person?"
The problem for me with religion is that I cannot get over the written text....and so equate them all really in the same box. I think it was the Bishop of Oxford was on the radio that I heard sniggering about the teaching of Scientology. My reply would be "Seriously Bishop. Seriously when you believe in some really weird shit."
But if you can get over aliens, virgin births, armageddons, devils, reincarnations, heavens and all the silly nonsense, there is much to commend religion which fits well alongside theories of philosophy, morality and theoretical science. When Einstein first devised his Theory of Relativity the idea was created in his head with no recourse to empiricism. I find that utterly astonishing, and on that basis alone I would never call myself an atheist.
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The general theory of relativity was created a priori and without reference to experiment. The experimental confirmations came later.
However, it is a highly unusual example in science. We would probably still be waiting for the theory if Einstein had not lived. And it ruined its creator who was unable to repeat the trick as he sought for unification theories.
Almost all advances in science come from experiments or data, that is then rationalised by theorists (such as quantum theory or QCD or dark energy).
I would disagree. While induction from observed events helps in the generation of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that sets up the experiment which then either supports or refutes the hypothesis, then generates further hypotheses. Intuition and inductive reasoning is fundamental to the scientific method.
Religion is a separate domain of knowledge, and like art, is evaluated by different means. Jesus put it rather well "a tree is known by its fruit". In other words, "Do your religious beliefs make you a better person?"
"Do your religious beliefs make you a better person?"
Scientific theories, unlike religious beliefs, are not about universal truths. They are about models of reality that evolve over time to better fit observations.
Well, that is entirely compatible with the Gospels! Matthew in particular is harsh on those Pharisees who put external religious observance above true compassion, mercy and love of others.
Didn't Matthew Mark and Luke just make stuff up to fit with Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah?
Oh and the whole virgin birth thing is the result of a mistranslation.
Laters...
The Nativity does not feature in Mark, which begins with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Generally Mark is considered the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels.
Great thread header for this time of year. If Our Lord was to signal to people of the BC age it would have to be in a way that they would understand. Hence coordinating the birth of his Son with a rare planetary conjunction would be suitable for that time. That must have occurred several times during the 600 year gap between the end of the Old and New Testaments, any idea how many times?
I agree that Mark is probably the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels and omits the absence of discussion of the birth but it is also the shortest and some suggest forms the basis of both Matthew and Luke. It doesn't follow that the latter made up stuff to fit with Old Testament prophesy unless you were there and know different?
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Christmas TV....ITV4 have surpassed themselves once again. Rejoice because they are pretty much repeating their schedule from last year, notably the Green Berets at 15.25.
The problem for me with religion is that I cannot get over the written text....and so equate them all really in the same box. I think it was the Bishop of Oxford was on the radio that I heard sniggering about the teaching of Scientology. My reply would be "Seriously Bishop. Seriously when you believe in some really weird shit."
But if you can get over aliens, virgin births, armageddons, devils, reincarnations, heavens and all the silly nonsense, there is much to commend religion which fits well alongside theories of philosophy, morality and theoretical science. When Einstein first devised his Theory of Relativity the idea was created in his head with no recourse to empiricism. I find that utterly astonishing, and on that basis alone I would never call myself an atheist.
I profoundly disagree. You should behave kindly, honourably and justly because you just self-evidently should, and to believe otherwise is to be morally insane, is a much more satisfactory basis for morality than You should behave kindly, honourably and justly to curry favour with the ghost of an amiable religious nutter who was judicially murdered two millennia back. And the willingness of the religious to torture one another to death for not being Christian or Catholic or Sunni or muslim suggests that hatred and cruelty are hardwired into their beliefs.
Didn't Matthew Mark and Luke just make stuff up to fit with Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah?
Oh and the whole virgin birth thing is the result of a mistranslation.
Laters...
The Nativity does not feature in Mark, which begins with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Generally Mark is considered the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels.
Great thread header for this time of year. If Our Lord was to signal to people of the BC age it would have to be in a way that they would understand. Hence coordinating the birth of his Son with a rare planetary conjunction would be suitable for that time. That must have occurred several times during the 600 year gap between the end of the Old and New Testaments, any idea how many times?
I agree that Mark is probably the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels and omits the absence of discussion of the birth but it is also the shortest and some suggest forms the basis of both Matthew and Luke. It doesn't follow that the latter made up stuff to fit with Old Testament prophesy unless you were there and know different?
A triple-conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, in Pisces, is a once-in-800 years event. Combined with a bright comet or nova would be extraordinarily rare. Obviously, it won't be the only rare event but other events wouldn't necessarily have the same astrological significance.
Didn't Matthew Mark and Luke just make stuff up to fit with Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah?
Oh and the whole virgin birth thing is the result of a mistranslation.
Laters...
The Nativity does not feature in Mark, which begins with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. Generally Mark is considered the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels.
Great thread header for this time of year. If Our Lord was to signal to people of the BC age it would have to be in a way that they would understand. Hence coordinating the birth of his Son with a rare planetary conjunction would be suitable for that time. That must have occurred several times during the 600 year gap between the end of the Old and New Testaments, any idea how many times?
I agree that Mark is probably the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels and omits the absence of discussion of the birth but it is also the shortest and some suggest forms the basis of both Matthew and Luke. It doesn't follow that the latter made up stuff to fit with Old Testament prophesy unless you were there and know different?
I think that it is fairly generally accepted that Luke and Matthew both used Mark as a source.
I am not a Literalist, so I am not as bothered as some Christians as to whether the Nativity is a genuine account, or a parable to illustrate a point. I am quite comfortable with storytelling, fable and myth as means of communicating meaning. Indeed it was Jesus's core teaching style. The ancients may well have been less educated than us, but were as intelligent. They perhaps were better than us at understanding the layers of meaning that come in a story.
Indeed, while I consider Bible study important, I believe that we can lose the wood for the trees by getting bogged down in whether any particular incident is to be interpreted literally or as a parable.
Just mulling it over, and it strikes me that the passport colour was a missed opportunity. If they had decided to go with a new colour altogether it would have sent out a signal that we are moving to a different state to the one we used to be in but not going back to a previous one. The flack from remainers would have been much the same but they'd have also got it in the neck from the hardline leavers. That would have enabled the govt to portray itself as in the centre and in control.
Yes it just looks petty and pathetic, very backward and insular looking. They are most certainly not in control of anything and seem to just pander to the xenophobes, very depressing and does not bode well for future.
Oh, and Independent Scotland wouldn't have wanted a blue passport?
Well, now you've got them.....
Surely an independent Scotland would/will have an EU burgundy one?
The problem for me with religion is that I cannot get over the written text....and so equate them all really in the same box. I think it was the Bishop of Oxford was on the radio that I heard sniggering about the teaching of Scientology. My reply would be "Seriously Bishop. Seriously when you believe in some really weird shit."
But if you can get over aliens, virgin births, armageddons, devils, reincarnations, heavens and all the silly nonsense, there is much to commend religion which fits well alongside theories of philosophy, morality and theoretical science. When Einstein first devised his Theory of Relativity the idea was created in his head with no recourse to empiricism. I find that utterly astonishing, and on that basis alone I would never call myself an atheist.
I profoundly disagree. You should behave kindly, honourably and justly because you just self-evidently should, and to believe otherwise is to be morally insane, is a much more satisfactory basis for morality than You should behave kindly, honourably and justly to curry favour with the ghost of an amiable religious nutter who was judicially murdered two millennia back. And the willingness of the religious to torture one another to death for not being Christian or Catholic or Sunni or muslim suggests that hatred and cruelty are hardwired into their beliefs.
Exactly. When you stand back from any particular religion and look at the huge variety of belief systems that have been used to fill the gaping holes in human knowledge over the millenia, and as very handy control systems for myriad rulers, it is pretty difficult not to conclude that they are all the creations of human imagination.
Aside from the lyrical prose, David's pieces always are objective. Today's though is outstanding.
Wasn't it David that first alerted the site to a NoM on the day before the election following his canvassing? If it was then David Herdson rightly deserves his place as pbCom's person of the year.
Thank goodness those pesky Christians decided to use a pagan day of celebration as their most important date of the year. Instead of wanting to top ourselves as the winter gloom sets in, we can usefully spend the time eating, getting pissed, shagging and spending hours on the sofa watching crap TV.
Merry Christmas all.
Cheers, Tyson - and to others who've offered kind comments.
To respond to an earlier comment of Nick's, no, I don't have another (i.e. paid) outlet for my analysis / writing. If anyone has offers or suggestions, please let me know.
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
Thank goodness those pesky Christians decided to use a pagan day of celebration as their most important date of the year. Instead of wanting to top ourselves as the winter gloom sets in, we can usefully spend the time eating, getting pissed, shagging and spending hours on the sofa watching crap TV.
Merry Christmas all.
Which, if I understand the traditions right our NW European ancestors did (with, of course, the exception of watching TV) long before the disciples of the 'pale Galilean' arrived here. if, of course, he was pale!
Christmas TV....ITV4 have surpassed themselves once again. Rejoice because they are pretty much repeating their schedule from last year, notably the Green Berets at 15.25.
Hmm! The Green Berets is surely not in the Die Hard class of Christmas Movies. It is a very interesting piece of propaganda, that came just before the scales started to fall from Americans eyes over Vietnam. The Tet offensive and My Lai made it obselete so quickly.
Is science really that different? It seems to me that many of the great leaps forward came from inspiration or a theory in respect of which there was then a search for evidence to test it one way or the other. The theory of relativity being a good example. The human mind and its capacity for intuitive leaps is truly one of the great mysteries of our universe.
The general theory of relativity was created a priori and without reference to experiment. The experimental confirmations came later.
However, it is a highly unusual example in science. We would probably still be waiting for the theory if Einstein had not lived. And it ruined its creator who was unable to repeat the trick as he sought for unification theories.
Almost all advances in science come from experiments or data, that is then rationalised by theorists (such as quantum theory or QCD or dark energy).
I would disagree. While induction from observed events helps in the generation of a falsifiable hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that sets up the experiment which then either supports or refutes the hypothesis, then generates further hypotheses. Intuition and inductive reasoning is fundamental to the scientific method.
Religion is a separate domain of knowledge, and like art, is evaluated by different means. Jesus put it rather well "a tree is known by its fruit". In other words, "Do your religious beliefs make you a better person?"
The problem for me with religion is that I cannot get over the written text....and so equate them all really in the same box. I think it was the Bishop of Oxford was on the radio that I heard sniggering about the teaching of Scientology. My reply would be "Seriously Bishop. Seriously when you believe in some really weird shit."
But if you can get over aliens, virgin births, armageddons, devils, reincarnations, heavens and all the silly nonsense, there is much to commend religion which fits well alongside theories of philosophy, morality and theoretical science. When Einstein first devised his Theory of Relativity the idea was created in his head with no recourse to empiricism. I find that utterly astonishing, and on that basis alone I would never call myself an atheist.
Einstein did use the observation of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury and compare it with his own calculations to test his theory.
There's some proper shite being chatted about special and general relativity in this thread.
Einstein didn't just make it up out of thin air, he built it up on the extensive body of theoretical and, crucially, empirical work before him.
Without Maxwells equations there is no special relativity.
I was talking about GENERAL RELATIVITY.
The gap from special to general relativity is a huge leap in the dark. There was no empirical evidence that drove Einstein from special to general relativity, other than his belief in the geometrization of physics.
Whereas from Maxwell’s equations to special relativity is but a short step, and Einstein may not even have been the first (Poincare, Michelson).
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
t'Economist "Double-Edition": Almost half the size it used to be. My views; so far:
# Summary: Zookie does not like DJ Trump.
# Editorials: First one failed.
## Chose the correct tune but failed to reach-the-notes (nothing about sexual-aggression within the LGBTQ mob). ## Cyril R was good; 'Nice one'. ## Safer-smoking showed signs of t'Economist liberalism I pay for. ## Well-done France! South-Korea failed at the start.
# Extras (I)
## The Lift article is a rehash from a few years ago: That said some interesting ideas towards the end. ## Polygamy/Polygany: Disturbing. ## B-train: A snap-shot of Paris. It may be vibrant but it still sounds as depressing as I remember it.
Hopefully the quality will be maintained as-per-standard: Do not like the extra-thick plastic cover (not even blue) and question where this paper is going long-term. For the first time I can remember (thirty-years I have chosen not to buy "The World In..."): Maybe time to spin-off the EIU from the parasites.
General Relativity was the big breakthrough. Deciding that time is mutable was a real leap forward. (Lorentz can claim credit there too). Gravity = acceleration. Did the painter have to fall off the roof opposite or is it an another apple story?
Pity the poor photon - being massless means it set off 14 billion years ago and no time's passed.(in its frame of reference). "Are we nearly there, Dad?" would get a bit tiresome.
Mr Hopkins, I agree. And even scientists have biases.
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Here are some chaps who have exactly the same complaint about resistance to their beliefs: https://www.tfes.org/
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Even if there were, it doesn't follow that all the worshipping and other paraphanalia that goes with whatever flavour of religion you have chosen makes any sense, or has any purpose, other than a human/social one. Pretending there is someone watching just made it easier to force people to follow whatever rules the powerful wanted.
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Here are some chaps who have exactly the same complaint about resistance to their beliefs: https://www.tfes.org/
I feel for you.
Straw-man arguments used against what Christians believe is par for the course. It usually follows a pattern of "You believe in [stupid thing], therefore I must be a superior thinker to you."
Referencing the flat-earth society is a typical example of the type. Come on, you can do better than that!
New Populus poll shows both over 35s and under 35s in the UK think greater gender equality, LGBTQ rights, growing awareness of climate change, rising living standards outside the West and tariff free trade have been a benefit and religion less so. Over 35s think immigration and automation have been negative influences albeit under 35s think they have been more beneficial
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Even if there were, it doesn't follow that all the worshipping and other paraphanalia that goes with whatever flavour of religion you have chosen makes any sense, or has any purpose, other than a human/social one. Pretending there is someone watching just made it easier to force people to follow whatever rules the powerful wanted.
I agree with a lot of that. The amount of paraphernalia the Church of England has added over base Christianity is quite scary - but many feel it helps them in their faith, so who am I to complain.
People wanting to control others is an ongoing issue with humanity, they do it through everything from the threat of violence to social outcasting. Misusing religion is all in there too, but that doesn't mean there isn't something more important and spiritual to humanity.
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Even if there were, it doesn't follow that all the worshipping and other paraphanalia that goes with whatever flavour of religion you have chosen makes any sense, or has any purpose, other than a human/social one. Pretending there is someone watching just made it easier to force people to follow whatever rules the powerful wanted.
The definition of God (omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent) contains a contradiction. It's the benevolence that is the killer assumption. Why would an all seeing, all powerful God allow the awful evils to happen?
I think it is possible we are living in a simulation created by a vastly more technologically advanced intelligence. A bit like the Truman Show. Nick Bostrom tries to quantify the probability in his famous paper.
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Even if there were, it doesn't follow that all the worshipping and other paraphanalia that goes with whatever flavour of religion you have chosen makes any sense, or has any purpose, other than a human/social one. Pretending there is someone watching just made it easier to force people to follow whatever rules the powerful wanted.
I agree with a lot of that. The amount of paraphernalia the Church of England has added over base Christianity is quite scary - but many feel it helps them in their faith, so who am I to complain.
People wanting to control others is an ongoing issue with humanity, they do it through everything from the threat of violence to social outcasting. Misusing religion is all in there too, but that doesn't mean there isn't something more important and spiritual to humanity.
At least we can give thanks for having the choice. Throughout most of human existence the consequences of not going along with whatever flavour of religion the ruler happened to fancy could be very nasty indeed.
Jeremy Corbyn shares the same initials as Jesus Christ, and his deluded followers think that he is the Messiah. But Corbyn was defeated in this year's general election, and will never be prime minister.
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Here are some chaps who have exactly the same complaint about resistance to their beliefs: https://www.tfes.org/
I feel for you.
Straw-man arguments used against what Christians believe is par for the course. It usually follows a pattern of "You believe in [stupid thing], therefore I must be a superior thinker to you."
Referencing the flat-earth society is a typical example of the type. Come on, you can do better than that!
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
New Populus poll shows both over 35s and under 35s in the UK think greater gender equality, LGBTQ rights, growing awareness of climate change, rising living standards outside the West and tariff free trade have been a benefit and religion less so. Over 35s think immigration and automation have been negative influences albeit under 35s think they have been more beneficial
Interesting poll. We get so worked up about generational differences that it's interesting to see that they aren't that huge - a bit of disagreement on LGBT and immigration aside, people broadly agree across the generations, including that religion is on balance harmful, which surprised me (but I suppose people immediately think of the worst cases, ISIS and the Inquisition etc.).
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Just remind us what the obvious evidence for the existence of the flying teapot deity is, would you?
If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Here are some chaps who have exactly the same complaint about resistance to their beliefs: https://www.tfes.org/
I feel for you.
Straw-man arguments used against what Christians believe is par for the course. It usually follows a pattern of "You believe in [stupid thing], therefore I must be a superior thinker to you."
Referencing the flat-earth society is a typical example of the type. Come on, you can do better than that!
No, because your claim is baseless in the first place. This was Russell's point: you don't deserve any more of a refutation than flying teapots and flat earths. Furthermore you don't, like many Christians, understand the nuts and bolts of your own beliefs: the centrality of Faith is a built-in claim to be above, and not susceptible to, logic. You aren't allowed to argue with me.
If you think starting from premises which are assumed to be true makes something illogical, i'm not sure you understand what logic is.
New Populus poll shows both over 35s and under 35s in the UK think greater gender equality, LGBTQ rights, growing awareness of climate change, rising living standards outside the West and tariff free trade have been a benefit and religion less so. Over 35s think immigration and automation have been negative influences albeit under 35s think they have been more beneficial
Interesting poll. We get so worked up about generational differences that it's interesting to see that they aren't that huge - a bit of disagreement on LGBT and immigration aside, people broadly agree across the generations, including that religion is on balance harmful, which surprised me (but I suppose people immediately think of the worst cases, ISIS and the Inquisition etc.).
The change in social attitudes during our lifetimes - as indeed for many generations through history - has been truly dramatic. It is very hard to put ourselves back into the commonly accepted mindset of thirty or forty years ago, even for those of us that lived through it. (Most of) the people wanting to take us back there really don't know what they are wanting.
New Populus poll shows both over 35s and under 35s in the UK think greater gender equality, LGBTQ rights, growing awareness of climate change, rising living standards outside the West and tariff free trade have been a benefit and religion less so. Over 35s think immigration and automation have been negative influences albeit under 35s think they have been more beneficial
Interesting poll. We get so worked up about generational differences that it's interesting to see that they aren't that huge - a bit of disagreement on LGBT and immigration aside, people broadly agree across the generations, including that religion is on balance harmful, which surprised me (but I suppose people immediately think of the worst cases, ISIS and the Inquisition etc.).
Yes, it is interesting that apart from immigration and automation people across the generations agree on most things.
As we are now basically a secular country the religion figures did not surprise me, religion is now more influential in the developing world than the western world (outside the USA of course). There are now more Christians as a percentage in Nigeria than the UK for example, a complete reversal from a century ago.
the skill and care used by the learned men who put the bible together was considerable.
I read a history of the creation of the King James bible - committees of committees - anything less likely to lead to a successful outcome would be difficult to imagine.....and yet, we have one of the great works of English literature.....
As an atheist I have no problem considering it one of the great books in the English language. Whether it was a good use of resources for Gove to send it to every school is of course a different question.
I've always struggled with the language, which seems to me to be archaic, even for the 1600's.
IMHO, the best-written Bible is the New English Bible of 1970, which reads like The Times of 50 years ago.
I'm not a believer, but I am hugely fond of the King James Bible.
I favour the New English Bible, but the KJV does have beautiful Shakesperean type language, much of which has become part of the English language, and often people quote unwittingly.
Perhaps more importantly, it is difficult to fully enjoy the novels of P G Wodehouse without some knowledge of Scripture... ... though one could arguably say the same about the appalling game of golf, which rather spoils my argument.
As we are now basically a secular country the religion figures did not surprise me, religion is now more influential in the developing world than the western world (outside the USA of course). There are now more Christians as a percentage in Nigeria than the UK for example, a complete reversal from a century ago.
Between yourself and HB you are seriously showing:
# A lack of knowledge, # A lack of comprehension, # An ignorance of history, and # Exposing yourselves as a threat to the Conservative Party.
I am sure that you both feel-at-home-as-Tories - in a 'Tim NbD' way: I respect this (albeit reluctantly). Utterances-of-bolleaux do not, however, endear you to true conservatives (including the deluded republicans): Please desist.
Comments
Short term they could use pound , longer term would be either Scottish currency or the Euro.
Separatist is an offensive unionist description for someone wishing to run their own affairs, I never see you or any unionists on here using it to describe themselves on EU, it does not become you to be so xenophobic.
I mean I know it's in zone 2 but, really...
IMHO, the best-written Bible is the New English Bible of 1970, which reads like The Times of 50 years ago.
You don't remember my posts well at all.
They are in the PB Archives. You said there was no Porn on his computer on 2 Dec 2017
"I see a load more perverts came out on the last thread. There wasn't any porn found on the DPM's computer. It was a fabrication by two bent coppers, disgracefully spread by the state broadcaster"
You continued the theme till the 5th December Do you really want me to cut and paste all your posts between 2/12 and 5/12?
Merry Christmas one and all, May everyone have a great few days wherever they are and whoever they’re with.
Now for the drinks cabinet to start getting lighter!
Didn't Matthew Mark and Luke just make stuff up to fit with Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah?
Oh and the whole virgin birth thing is the result of a mistranslation.
Laters...
Things officially started for me last night in the pub. Not feeling too fresh this morning, let's say.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/the-new-testament-a-translation-david-bentley-hart/546551/
I'm not a believer, but I am hugely fond of the King James Bible.
:-)
Mr. kle4, agree entirely, and the shameful lack of media scrutiny of that aspect is almost as bad.
Mr. G, if you prefer I not use the term I'll desist from doing so, though it seems fairly neutral to me (and I'd use the same or worse about anyone who wanted Yorkshire to separate).
However, it is a highly unusual example in science. We would probably still be waiting for the theory if Einstein had not lived. And it ruined its creator who was unable to repeat the trick as he sought for unification theories.
Almost all advances in science come from experiments or data, that is then rationalised by theorists (such as quantum theory or QCD or dark energy).
Merry Christmas you yourself and Mrs G.
Religion is a separate domain of knowledge, and like art, is evaluated by different means. Jesus put it rather well "a tree is known by its fruit". In other words, "Do your religious beliefs make you a better person?"
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2017/12/23/little-red-white-and-blue-riding-hood-a-topical-christmas-story/
Must admit I am lost as to why he isn’t kicking up more fuss....
Wasn't it David that first alerted the site to a NoM on the day before the election following his canvassing? If it was then David Herdson rightly deserves his place as pbCom's person of the year.
Thank goodness those pesky Christians decided to use a pagan day of celebration as their most important date of the year. Instead of wanting to top ourselves as the winter gloom sets in, we can usefully spend the time eating, getting pissed, shagging and spending hours on the sofa watching crap TV.
Merry Christmas all.
Perhaps Purple and Yellow stripes in honour of UKIP would be apposite. Indeed the new colour is suspiciously Tory blue, rather than the traditional dark Indigo.
Is Die Hard "crap TV" or the centrepiece of the day?
Well, now you've got them.....
Most people say no.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-there-a-correlation-between-religious-belief-and-moral-behavior
Scientific theories, unlike religious beliefs, are not about universal truths. They are about models of reality that evolve over time to better fit observations.
But if you can get over aliens, virgin births, armageddons, devils, reincarnations, heavens and all the silly nonsense, there is much to commend religion which fits well alongside theories of philosophy, morality and theoretical science. When Einstein first devised his Theory of Relativity the idea was created in his head with no recourse to empiricism. I find that utterly astonishing, and on that basis alone I would never call myself an atheist.
I agree that Mark is probably the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels and omits the absence of discussion of the birth but it is also the shortest and some suggest forms the basis of both Matthew and Luke. It doesn't follow that the latter made up stuff to fit with Old Testament prophesy unless you were there and know different?
"... it is all too easy to start with a conclusion you want to be true and then rationalise the supporting analysis and logic; for the wish to be father to the thought."
Indeed, and which atheists use to convince themselves there's no God...
Christmas TV....ITV4 have surpassed themselves once again. Rejoice because they are pretty much repeating their schedule from last year, notably the Green Berets at 15.25.
I am not a Literalist, so I am not as bothered as some Christians as to whether the Nativity is a genuine account, or a parable to illustrate a point. I am quite comfortable with storytelling, fable and myth as means of communicating meaning. Indeed it was Jesus's core teaching style. The ancients may well have been less educated than us, but were as intelligent. They perhaps were better than us at understanding the layers of meaning that come in a story.
Indeed, while I consider Bible study important, I believe that we can lose the wood for the trees by getting bogged down in whether any particular incident is to be interpreted literally or as a parable.
To respond to an earlier comment of Nick's, no, I don't have another (i.e. paid) outlet for my analysis / writing. If anyone has offers or suggestions, please let me know.
flying teapotdeity is, would you?If you are a Christian you are in a logical bind, by the way, because you gotta have faith, and if you can prove to your own satisfaction that your beliefs are true you don't got faith, because you don't need it, so I am afraid you are going to burn for all eternity. Bummer.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/944527511706329088
I agree with Mr Herdsons warning - it’s certainly a mistake I’ve made a lot of times in the past and doubtless will continue to do so in future.
On the subject of wise men - some people think one of them came from Ethiopia - which would mean travelling north to get to Bethlehem I think...
Bit early to be on the sauce to this extent surely?
Einstein didn't just make it up out of thin air, he built it up on the extensive body of theoretical and, crucially, empirical work before him.
Without Maxwells equations there is no special relativity.
Bonkers bet.
Forty to tackle the fire, and thirty to eat the roast reindeer and par-baked penguins.
The gap from special to general relativity is a huge leap in the dark. There was no empirical evidence that drove Einstein from special to general relativity, other than his belief in the geometrization of physics.
Whereas from Maxwell’s equations to special relativity is but a short step, and Einstein may not even have been the first (Poincare, Michelson).
One lesson I've learned over the years is that there is more than enough evidence for those that want to believe in God, but there will never be enough for those that don't.
If all the atheists in the world asked God for proof and to write "I AM GOD" in the clouds above London on Christmas day, and it actually happened... then it would days, or more probably hours, before all the 'explanations' came in for it and how it couldn't be possibly be God at all, and it just a natural phenomenon.
Sky News (really) says that 'one aardvark is also still unaccounted for'.
Not to worry, as the saying goes, a little aardvark never hurt anybody...
t'Economist "Double-Edition": Almost half the size it used to be. My views; so far:
# Summary: Zookie does not like DJ Trump.
# Editorials: First one failed.
## Chose the correct tune but failed to reach-the-notes (nothing about sexual-aggression within the LGBTQ mob).
## Cyril R was good; 'Nice one'.
## Safer-smoking showed signs of t'Economist liberalism I pay for.
## Well-done France! South-Korea failed at the start.
# Extras (I)
## The Lift article is a rehash from a few years ago: That said some interesting ideas towards the end.
## Polygamy/Polygany: Disturbing.
## B-train: A snap-shot of Paris. It may be vibrant but it still sounds as depressing as I remember it.
Hopefully the quality will be maintained as-per-standard: Do not like the extra-thick plastic cover (not even blue) and question where this paper is going long-term. For the first time I can remember (thirty-years I have chosen not to buy "The World In..."): Maybe time to spin-off the EIU from the parasites.
Pity the poor photon - being massless means it set off 14 billion years ago and no time's passed.(in its frame of reference). "Are we nearly there, Dad?" would get a bit tiresome.
Mr Hopkins, I agree. And even scientists have biases.
I feel for you.
Straw-man arguments used against what Christians believe is par for the course. It usually follows a pattern of "You believe in [stupid thing], therefore I must be a superior thinker to you."
Referencing the flat-earth society is a typical example of the type. Come on, you can do better than that!
https://mobile.twitter.com/PopulusPolls/status/944535308019826688
I agree with a lot of that. The amount of paraphernalia the Church of England has added over base Christianity is quite scary - but many feel it helps them in their faith, so who am I to complain.
People wanting to control others is an ongoing issue with humanity, they do it through everything from the threat of violence to social outcasting. Misusing religion is all in there too, but that doesn't mean there isn't something more important and spiritual to humanity.
Apparently some of our Scotch cousins can do it: https://www.thistlycrosscider.co.uk/?age-verified=539ea18cd9
Shame about 2014; here is hoping they get it right next time.
I think it is possible we are living in a simulation created by a vastly more technologically advanced intelligence. A bit like the Truman Show. Nick Bostrom tries to quantify the probability in his famous paper.
https://www.simulation-argument.com/
If this is so, the intelligence is not benevolent to us. We are part of an experiment or perhaps an alien child's entertainment.
Edit: This year they've been taking the piss with Brexit and Trump.
Point 8 is interesting.
As we are now basically a secular country the religion figures did not surprise me, religion is now more influential in the developing world than the western world (outside the USA of course). There are now more Christians as a percentage in Nigeria than the UK for example, a complete reversal from a century ago.
... though one could arguably say the same about the appalling game of golf, which rather spoils my argument.
# A lack of knowledge,
# A lack of comprehension,
# An ignorance of history, and
# Exposing yourselves as a threat to the Conservative Party.
I am sure that you both feel-at-home-as-Tories - in a 'Tim NbD' way: I respect this (albeit reluctantly). Utterances-of-bolleaux do not, however, endear you to true conservatives (including the deluded republicans): Please desist.
a) dissecting other cults based on faith; and
b) getting upset by identified inaccuracies told by political opponents.
This Christmas it seems that irony is flying off the shelves.