Chach

Some good and rather dramatic Comey analysis on the New York Times podcast https://www.nytimes.com/podcasts/the-daily

You've drawn an awful amount of conclusions there, not everyone in Saudi Arabia is a Wahabist and mainstream Islam considers it to be a satanic sect.

Someone on Twitter described the DUP manifesto as "basically just the bible, with fortnightly bin collections." Awesome.

so good.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson wins again. Oh dear.

Why do you say that, would SNP not typically vote with Labour anyway? I thought it would be the DUP that would enable the Tories to form minority government? EDIT: Never mind, just realised SNP lost 12 seats to the Tories.

The numbers you quoted don't match what is in the public domain though, from what I have read its less than 3% of the population and about 30 mill so way less than you claimed and not statistically significant enough really demonstrate anything, a survey of Anglican priests found that 2% were Atheists and up to 16% were agnostic. That's fairly significant. What if you had been Chinese or Indian Steve, do you think you'd still be Christian? If so is it predetermined, does god have a western bias? The basis of those peace deals is compromise which might be in the same vicinity but is not really the same thing IMO. I think you misunderstood my post, I wasn't implying that all liberals are agnostic about the existence of god but rather that they typically encourage debate in the battle of ideas in order to make the ideas better. You seem to have wanted to close this discussion down, like you were uncomfortable discussing it which is not the way I have typically seen you post. Come now Haf, 99% of the "annoyance" stems from the misuse/cherry picking of science to make very flimsy non points not the proposed existence of god It is a personal choice, of course it is, but it should be questioned just like any idea so the ideas can be improved and the bad ideas left behind or we would still be burning witches at the stake. Out of interest, what is your churches/your position on non-Christians. What happens to them in the afterlife?

I heard on the radio on the way to work just then that Corbyn has been installed as favourite. Amazing stuff.

Where are you getting those figures from re China, can you provide a source? Also you've said previously that we shouldn't confuse Christians with evangelical Christians in the US, is there in your opinion a "correct" form of Christianity? If so, what is that form and how did you/they arrive at that opinion?

This misses the point of science and theology though IMO which is ultimately about truth seeking, where do you draw the line between respecting someones belief and respecting someones beliefs that are harmful to others, personal anecdotes are all well and good but not everybody lives a comfortable existence in a liberal democracy. For a liberal you seem to have an ironic foot in the conservative camp there and are uncomfortable having your traditions challenged, did any human progress ever come from "agreeing to disagree?" Well he was born 100 years ago into a religious family when almost everyone was religious but that is besides the point, How can Andrew Snelling and and Kurt Wild hold PhD's in in Geology yet hold the belief that the earth is only several thousand years old, it doesn't really matter because they are outliers. The vast majority of scientists do not believe in a personal god, but even that is beside the point because when they answer that question when asked they are really just answering "do they believe in any of the gods currently on offer who have a plan for humanity", whether its the catholic god who has his little notebook out recording sins or the god of ISIS who demands the blood of every infidel, I'm sure they are pretty open minded beyond that. On a scale of 1-7, 1 being absolutely sure god exists and 7 being absolutely sure god doesn't exist, even Richard Dawkins has himself on a 6 Putting on my devil's avocado hat, I'm not sure if that's going to be the case particularly if you exclude earth science from the mix. Your (homo sapiens) brain developed somewhere in Africa for the intents purpose of keeping you alive, it didn't evolve to understand the complexity of the physical and metaphysical universe. If you are serious about Darwin's theories you have to believe that outside that world where your brain evolved, things might be very weird and counter intuitive and that is entirely what, (also using technology not just sensory perceptions) science is finding, time speeding up and slowing down depending on how close to the speed of light you are travelling, black holes, particles that can be in two places at the same time, all theoretical but all testable and extremely mental to the average homo sapiens brain. We seem to have been for a long time now stuck in the thinking that its either god and a plan, or science and no plan, surely now we must see the possibilities are infinite.

Both professional politicians, Trump is going to get a lot more latitude while GOP control both houses. Clinton aquitted, Nixon involved in verifiable criminal activity on an industrial scale and jumped before he was removed, Trumps nowhere near that yet IMO.

He'll just deny it and nothing will happen.

I think the point is though, you're not really adding much to the conversation when just write them off as fairy tales which is generally the idea in an intelligent debate. Attack the ideas not the source, if nothing else they are both remarkable pieces of literature which is probably why they've stuck around for so long.

You draw a very long bow there implying that the only conclusion one can gather from the apparent fine tuning of the planet/galaxy/universe to support life* is that it not only it had a creator with with a plan for humans but he also visited earth and left some directions to bronze/iron age nomads in one tiny geographical location in the middle east. To then imply that without the morals that we get from religion that we would all degenerate into base survivalism and citing The Selfish Gene as evidence is a complete misunderstanding of that work, socially we are not the sum total of our genes. Again with Dawkins you've drawn a conclusion that is not there, he made the point that the rights of the child have to be balanced with the rights of the parent but the context of discussion was around what should be taught in public schools, which as an ex research scientist I am sure you would agree should be evidence based. He never made a suggestion that children should be forcibly indoctrinated. *Even that is highly debatable, most people on this forum were born in the north west of England and had they have been born in the middle of winter without technology they would have likely been dead within a few hours.

Yes really, Mao and Stalin were not driven by non-belief in a higher power they were driven by their fanatical Marxist ideologies (and some manner of psychopathy) Fanaticism (and psychopathy, maybe its the same thing) is the constant, whether political or religious not belief or disbelief.

Honestly don't have an opinion, haven't heard of any of the ones you mention there. I was raised a JW and rejected it in my early teens so pretty sceptical when it comes to miracles. Wouldn't say I was an atheist though, I find the concept of nothing supernatural existing as mental as something supernatural existing.

Atheism is not a belief system, it's a position. There's not a serious atheist on the planet who is "trying to disprove the existence of god", there's no burden of proof required for something there is zero evidence of existing.

There's been a lot of studies between schizophrenia and religious experiences due to the similarities in their resulting episodes. Its highly likely that if Jesus and Mohamed believed they were who they said they were, that they weren't dealing with a full pack of cards. I see where you're going with this.

Gee we're really getting through these logical fallacies at a rate of knots aren't we Haf.

Mein Kampf is riddled with quotes about how he was doing the lords work as were his speeches. Hitler was a Roman Catholic.

I'm struggling to see how that's delusional, if they are in no way responsible how are they not victims of this crime?

You'd be hard pressed to find an example of injustices/oppression/atrocities carried out in the name of atheism though. Calling out stupid ideas whether religious or non-religious is a critical part of intellectual discourse, that shouldn't be misconstrued as intolerance.

Straight from the latest Tommy Robinson video.

A good start would be properly funding the police and other agencies involved in counter terrorism, at the end of the day these people are just gangsters who should be dealt with like any other criminals. Stop arming authoritarian regimes in the middle east who are known to support extremism would also be useful. I don't buy into the masochistic Chomsky notion that the entire problem is a result of western foreign policy but to say that you are just taking it on the chin time and time again is absolutely dripping in irony, the UK has been at war in the middle east on and off for 20 years.

You've watched one too many Tommy Robinson videos.