Daniel Harley

Free-Market Liberal. Language Enthusiast. Tweeting on Politics, Current Affairs, and the Mundane.

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@TheRealAdamG @DeryaTR_ I'd love to but apparently the UK isn't allowed to have nice things!

[dan barker @danbarker]

A lot of misunderstanding about this video. He *has* been convicted of assaulting the two female police officers, and another member of the public, but the prosecution has now dropped the charge of assaulting the male police officer. He'll receive his sentence for the assaults on 26th June (he has been in custody for 10 months now).

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@LitecoinTA @SteFox123 @andyrayner9 Fair enough but in that case they're talking about a loophole, so it's not really a punishment that they're getting a worse ROI on cash balances in their S&S ISA..

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@LitecoinTA @SteFox123 @andyrayner9 In the last 5 years you'd have been getting over 10% PA if invested in Vanguard's FTSE Global All Cap Index Fund Accumulation. Can't imagine there's a cash ISA beating that!

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@OpenAIDevs

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@ragwortfacts @theAliceRoberts Leaving aside the fact that you're only quibbling with half my point, am I to understand that you believe an elected president would be valid as a majority would support them, but if the majority support having a king, the majority are no longer relevant?

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@EdwardDanSmith @ClarkeMicah You may have said it twice now but it's still an incorrect claim. Some atheists lack belief in God, and it is absolutely the case that many other atheists positively assert that a God / supernatural creator cannot possibly exist. Dawkins is one such example.

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@EdwardDanSmith @ClarkeMicah But I get the idea. Youd say the more rational position is not to have belief until the evidence theists can point to is more convincing. To that Id say people don't choose what convinces them. You can assess evidence but the point where evidence sparks belief isn't under control

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@EdwardDanSmith @ClarkeMicah People who positively believe God doesn't/cannot exist also call themselves atheists. But even if atheists lack belief in God they must, by necessity, lack the belief that God was involved in the creation of the universe. That only leaves materialistic/naturalistic explanations.

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@EdwardDanSmith @ClarkeMicah It could be argued that to believe, without evidence, that the beginning of the universe has naturalistic rather than a supernatural explanation is to believe something without evidence. It's the same charge of irrationality usually levelled against theists.

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@EdwardDanSmith @ClarkeMicah I used to be a militant athiest, but since I started honestly engaging with the other side's arguments I've realised it's silly to claim 1 side is obviously right/wrong here. The Gospels do contain some historically accurate information, as even atheist biblical historians accept

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@EdwardDanSmith @ClarkeMicah Many Christians (Catholics for example, i.e the biggest denomination) believe the Bible is made up of different genres and would say Genesis is more akin to theological poetry than a scientific paper. The Gospels, on they other hand, they would claim are historical accounts.

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@ToKTeacher @ClarkeMicah Knowledge doesn’t replace belief; it entails it. The issue is warranted/unwarranted belief. All I wanted to say is atheists risk hubris if they think they’ve spotted something obvious that religious philosophers/scientists miss. God’s existence is debatable,not obvious either way

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@ToKTeacher @ClarkeMicah In the ordinary (and legal) sense of the word, science has 'disproved' the hypotheses. But to return to the point, belief in God is not comparable to belief in homeopathy etc because they've been falsified/disproved. Science hasn't discovered a non-theistic origin of the universe

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@ToKTeacher @ClarkeMicah That's an oft repeatedly but obviously false claim. Science routinely disproves the existence of things, e.g phlogiston, astrology, homeopathy, the planet Vulcan and so on. Science absolutely could, one day, discover non-theistic explanations for the claims made by religious folk

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@ToKTeacher @ClarkeMicah Homeopathy and astrology are easily falsifiable. There is plenty of debate to be had over the origin of the universe, fine tuning, consciousness etc, but science certainly hasn't proved God doesn't exist. There wouldn't be so many devoutly religious scientists if it had.

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@Mad_Pieman Anglicans/Lutherans at least keep an elevated view of the Eucharist and endorse the traditional episcopal structure. But sola scriptura is an invention (early church didn't even have a canon) as is sola fide. I haven't heard of the Methodist concept of bright succession before.

[Daniel Harley @Daniel__Harley]

@Mad_Pieman I'd say it's an interesting use of language to claim 'breaking away and doing our own thing = continuity'! Not intending to be combative btw. I just find this whole topic fascinating.