Toonpack

Just goes to prove that our democracy, isn't democratic

Splendid, can we bomb the Middle East now please (I'll settle for nuking Afghanistan) The Christian Right don't normally feel the need to ask

Splendid, can we bomb the Middle East now please (I'll settle for nuking Afghanistan)

I would be interesting to see who would come out best if the whole lot was just cancelled on all sides and the banks started again with just the customer deposits which had been guaranteed. My point exactly, but no-one will ever do that sum. Way too many bankers/beurocrats'd not have jobs juggling the pretendy money around

This is where the root cause of the shitstorm go back to Thatcher (and Reagan I think) - they allowed retail banks to act as investment banks which meant everyone's money on the high street became that pound that was was used 30 times. Correct. Ergo - the debt's not real so just write it off except that the banks that have your cash and own your mortgage depend on the fees they make from those dodgy loans to stay afloat They lend not real money to make the money that keeps them being able to lend not real money for the fees. So fuck em, I'll keep the hoose thank you very much. Write it all off, it's never ever going to be repaid, chucking more ficticious dosh at them, which also won't be repaid is futile

This is where the root cause of the shitstorm go back to Thatcher (and Reagan I think) - they allowed retail banks to act as investment banks which meant everyone's money on the high street became that pound that was was used 30 times. Correct. Ergo - the debt's not real so just write it off

Science and technology'll make a massive leap forward an' all

Is it a viable field? They don't know yet, still wildcatting away

Should just write it all off, all global debt and start again. It's never ever going to be repaid anyway.

Hope you're right

I know - I remember Trotter lauding the Siemens plant and you could cynically say that was a genuine reward of government which other places could mirror. Of course no matter where you are there will be enclaves of people who are "natural" Tories and concentrations of them in places like Whitley Bay and Gosforth will affect results but I just think it takes a special kind of selfishness to see the results of their policies around you and still vote for the bastards. Trotter, in fairness was an excellent MP for the local people.

One of the things I'm proud of about about coming from South Shields is that it's the only UK constituency that has never elected a Tory. Unfortunately my curreny constituency will be a Tory victory barring miracles. Pathetic. Should be disenfranchised.

You mean you signed your name on the ballot paper

I take it, that as there hasn't been a sniff of this anywhere (except on message boards) that it's a load of scurilous bollocks.

Absolutely. Where did I say it wasn't, I never even mentioned it, or said anything that resembles the point of your post. You come across as pretty intolerant in general tbf. Hardly adhering to the teachings of your Lord. Your answer to the Middle East problems is behave or we'll bomb the fuck out of you, isn't it? Never denied it: I guess I'm "eye for an eye" sort of bloke in some respects, or maybe even take the eye before the other bugger's even thought about taking yours (because they will eventually) sort of bloke Which makes you a Christian nominally only, which is the exact point I was making. Never said I was Christian, just that I believe in God And the bits of the Bible that suited you. Never said that either

Absolutely. Where did I say it wasn't, I never even mentioned it, or said anything that resembles the point of your post. You come across as pretty intolerant in general tbf. Hardly adhering to the teachings of your Lord. Your answer to the Middle East problems is behave or we'll bomb the fuck out of you, isn't it? Never denied it: I guess I'm "eye for an eye" sort of bloke in some respects, or maybe even take the eye before the other bugger's even thought about taking yours (because they will eventually) sort of bloke Which makes you a Christian nominally only, which is the exact point I was making. Never said I was Christian, just that I believe in God

Absolutely. Where did I say it wasn't, I never even mentioned it, or said anything that resembles the point of your post. You come across as pretty intolerant in general tbf. Hardly adhering to the teachings of your Lord. Your answer to the Middle East problems is behave or we'll bomb the fuck out of you, isn't it? Never denied it: I guess I'm "eye for an eye" sort of bloke in some respects, or maybe even take the eye before the other bugger's even thought about taking yours (because they will eventually) sort of bloke

Absolutely. Where did I say it wasn't, I never even mentioned it, or said anything that resembles the point of your post.

I could ask for clarification what you do believe but that's not really the point. I was more trying to establish how you choose what to believe and what not to, out of curiousity. I accept a lot of this is personal and/or can't be rationalised at the end of the day though. I believe in God, end of, have never and would never go through the bible and say yep that happened or no that's bollocks, haven't got the time or inclination. Can't rationalise it I'm afraid, I also (however irrational it may sound) have no doubt in my mind. I also have some very un-christian views on other matters, but hey ho that's the way I am.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un. Aye, but again you're really talking about human and political failings, not scientific principle per se. And the point is, these theories can be tested and refuted, and gradually we get nearer and nearer the truth. That's why it's so important to me. Religion instead just has an unchanging book which is infallible and can't be tested. Instead, to reconcile the Bible with proven scientific fact, changing moral standards, and good old common sense, people such as yourself have decided that parts of the Bible are actually metaphors. What I'm interested in is how you decide which parts are and which parts aren't. For instance, non-evangelical christians now accept that the reported deluge did not flood the world, and is in fact probably inspired by an ancient localised flood of some sort (which the Bible shares with many other cultures). It's also thought by most christians that Noah didn't literally gather two of each species etc, and the human race was not almost completely extinguished (as can be proved with DNA evidence etc). Yet you're saying that you believe Noah existed and was in communication with God. Why do you accept this and not the rest? Is it because this part of the story isn't testable? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be provocative here. I didn't say that, what I said was: Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousands of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened, and why not Noah. Which isn't a lot different to what you said.

Well no, you're not going to convince me of anything when you seem to have either completely ignored, or cannot answer, my perfectly reasonable question of how you select what to believe and what not to. It's perfectly possible not to have a prior agenda in science and not all science is grant funded. What do you make of the work of Newton, Einstein, and Darwin? Anyway, as I suggested to Parky, technology is really just the application of science, and it works, end of story. Science is not completely incompatible with belief in the Abrahamic God only if you decide all the particularly absurd stuff is a metaphor. Which brings us back to my question, which you won't answer........... Well you either believe in God or you don't, quite simple really. I would add that whilst I do, I also don't have much faith in organised religion, which is in essence the industrialisation of faith for profit IMO. The scientists you mention are from the era before science became a truly big business, let alone the corporate monster it is today, when the quest for knowledge was more "pure" for want of a better word. Just look at some of the BIG science subjects, they are in fact just theories, not proven in fact, Big bang, Dark matter etc. There's a lot of science done to support these theories, but where's the contra-science to disprove them??. There isn't any, because once a theory gathers pace the research grants and kudos come pouring in. Best thing any scientist could come up with is a theory that sounds fucking great, could be possible, but is unprovable in fact, becasue the striving for that fact is what makes science the money machine it is. Dark matter and Big Bang, being a cases in point. As an analogy to what I'm trying to say. I'm an IT project manager, when I get into a project test phase, I don't want my test teams to tell me it works (if everyone has done their jobs right of course it fucking works!!), I want them to tell be it doesn't, I want them to try and break every single important element of the functionality, I don't want to know what's good about it, I want to know what's bad and how bad. Because when they can't, job's a good'un.

What do you base the bolded bit on? Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you? Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah. People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is. Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd. You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath? In a way evangelical christians are more honest really. As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too. As does science, depends where the £££'s are comming from You're confusing human bias with science. Good science is neutral and unbiased - that's kind of the point of it - and something I'm not sure can be claimed by a single religion. If I perform a scientific study and select only the results that prove my point, then it's a crap study, and can be shown to be so by my peers. What about religion though? There's no such thing as Good science then, there is always an agenda or grant to be won Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive. Not getting into a long discussion on this, you won't convince me and I won't convince you.

What do you base the bolded bit on? Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you? Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah. People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is. Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd. You haven't really adressed the point about cherry picking though have you? Can anyone decide what is true or false on their own terms? All the nice bits of the Bible story are true but not the nasty bits, which frankly show Yahweh to be a loathsome, petty, psychopath? In a way evangelical christians are more honest really. As for Science is all, the article proves that Christians cherry pick when to use that too. As does science, depends where the £££'s are comming from

What do you base the bolded bit on? Do you not think you might be cherrypicking bits you like or seem acceptable to you? Most stories from ancient times have, at their heart, a basis in truth. A vast flood in a (by todays standards) local area would have been seen as a world event thousnads of years ago. Rationalise that out and you can easily come to a view that it happened and why not Noah. People have premonitions all the time. Maybe it's God, maybe it's not. I personally happen to believe it is. Stands by for much ridicule from the godless, science is all crowd.

But that's the point, I would doubt even Nick Griffin would get "In the same position" Brown's a buffoon