Who is the smuggest Briton?
Posted by: Kevin-W on 16 August 2009
Here's something to divert you for a few minutes on a cloudy Sunday morn. And make you feel really smug. 
The SIndy is running a poll to find the nation's smuggest person. Some quite funny entries in there, such as The Guardian. And I'm quite pleased (almost to the point of smugness in fact) to see Sting is in the running.
You can view the list and vote here:
Currently, as you might expect, Lord Mandy and Tony B Liar are out in front.
The SIndy is running a poll to find the nation's smuggest person. Some quite funny entries in there, such as The Guardian. And I'm quite pleased (almost to the point of smugness in fact) to see Sting is in the running.
You can view the list and vote here:
Currently, as you might expect, Lord Mandy and Tony B Liar are out in front.
Posted on: 19 August 2009 by graham55
The jug-eared loon who goes by the name of Prince Charles. Total w*nker and the biggest hypocrite in the world. God save us if he should ever become our sovereign.
G
G
Posted on: 19 August 2009 by Jet Johnson
quote:Originally posted by Diccus62:
Dawkins gets my vote though I tend to agree with much of what he says. Mandy was running a close second
Dawkins gets my vote ....Jeez Diccus and You a Humanist!
Honestly I don't get this common criticism of Dawkins ....all around the world million's of people (many apparently sane) of all religious persuasions put forward the most staggeringly unlikely claims of the existence of some type of "God" and yet it's Dawkin's who gets the flak basically for being eloquent in how he explains such beliefs are pants!
...Bad tempered at times? yes ....does he enjoy media attention? yes ....smug? nah, not for me!
Posted on: 19 August 2009 by Jet Johnson
quote:Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
Sting is definitely a good call.
My personal nomination is probably going to get me in trouble; it is large chunks of the output of Radio 4 with particular emphasis on those desperately self-satisfied little quizzes (where the same old bunch wallow in mutual self-congratulation at just how funny they are) and with an honourable mention for Gardeners Question Time which just makes me want to pour Paraquat over the entire Home Counties.
There, got that off my chest.
Bruce
I would have nominated Tony Blair without hesitation but I'm just trying to blot him out these days.
No I'm sorry criticising Radio 4 is simply not on old chap ......for wireless smugness personified look no further than The Saviour Of Radio One
Chris Moyles .... a heaving lump of self congratulatory vileness...and I thought The Hairy Cornflake was bad! ...jeeez I'd bring DLT back tomorrow if it meant the demise of the loathsome Moyles!!
Posted on: 19 August 2009 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Prince Charles and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh are not smug, they just *are*. Charles was a very early pioneer of matters green, and Phil is delightfully un-PC.
God Bless Him.
God Bless Him.
Posted on: 19 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
quote:Originally posted by Jet Johnson:quote:Originally posted by Diccus62:
Dawkins gets my vote though I tend to agree with much of what he says. Mandy was running a close second
Dawkins gets my vote ....Jeez Diccus and You a Humanist!
Honestly I don't get this common criticism of Dawkins ....all around the world million's of people (many apparently sane) of all religious persuasions put forward the most staggeringly unlikely claims of the existence of some type of "God" and yet it's Dawkin's who gets the flak basically for being eloquent in how he explains such beliefs are pants!
...Bad tempered at times? yes ....does he enjoy media attention? yes ....smug? nah, not for me!
It depends what you think religious faith is and what ought to come from it.
Reading the Holy Scriptures will give a liberal minded person a very clear idea how life is best lived - with generosity, love [especially for those one would not obviously love], honesty, social responsibility, and so on for the general good of the society in which the individual lives, and therefore also for the individual, who necessarily will benefit for the improvement that results in society.
Dawkins is so smug in his view of seemingly deliberate misunderstand of what purpose religion might serve, for the faithful, ... and my goodness his smugness refuses to countenance that in the absolute majority of cases religion serves to underline the ability of the imperfect [in every case] human individual to do the right thing under pressure, where he or she might buckle without some extra moral bolstering from a greater good ... a philosophy that allows any who embrace it to see beyond their own precise need of the second and look outside themself, for the betterment of all, including, ultimately, themslves ...
The whole anti-religious debate is hedged with hubris and mis-construction and the peak of smugness [self-satisfaction] in this deliberate mis-construction is the Right non-Reverend Prof. R. Dawkins - founder of a singularly non-spiritual but never-the-less absolutely faith reliant belief system.
ATB from George
Posted on: 19 August 2009 by Clay Bingham
George
Bang on. Very perceptive and very nicely written.
Bang on. Very perceptive and very nicely written.
Posted on: 19 August 2009 by Jet Johnson
...I guess George this subject could (and has previously) have a thread which would lead to another 50/60 postings or so. I accept where you are coming from and that you obviously believe that having faith is the cornerstone of how people treat each other, ie with respect, love, honesty etc.
The elephant in the room though (ok in MY room) is that if you simply don't believe that ANY sort of diety has ever existed ..that Jesus simply didn't exist (at least not as the "son of God") and that there simply isn't anything "out there" what-so-ever you can't wish "it" to be exist just to be able to follow "it" and live a caring existence.
I and millions of other non believers have no need to base my actions on "the Holy Scriptures" to know how life is best lived. I don't believe in the holy scriptures!
...So whilst you may find it impractical (!) we non believers have to use our own inner moral code to decide what is appropriate in regards to how we treat others (call it an innate instinct to do the right thing if you like)
in the absolute majority of cases religion serves to underline the ability of the imperfect [in every case] human individual to do the right thing under pressure,
.... Sorry George but that simply isn't true. ..look around the world in which we live and tell me that religion (in it's many differing forms) empowers people to do the right thing? it does sometimes and sometimes .....well sometimes religion has caused some of the most horrible wars ever fought in the history of humanity!
Why would I "buckle without some extra moral bolstering from a greater good" when I am convinced there is no "Greater Good" in the sense as you mean.
...Meanwhile back at Prof Dawkins .....he simply doesn't "believe" (ok he strongly DOESN'T "BELIEVE") therefore he is castigated for having that lack of belief and not having any doubt (although as written on the london bus posters his actually feelings are that there "probably" isn't a god) Yet the people who dislike him so much do so because they feel his "non faith" stance is too absolute and rigid!!! ....this from the religious community who have never had anything else other than an rigid and absolute stance!
...And I still don't believe he's smug either!;-)
The elephant in the room though (ok in MY room) is that if you simply don't believe that ANY sort of diety has ever existed ..that Jesus simply didn't exist (at least not as the "son of God") and that there simply isn't anything "out there" what-so-ever you can't wish "it" to be exist just to be able to follow "it" and live a caring existence.
I and millions of other non believers have no need to base my actions on "the Holy Scriptures" to know how life is best lived. I don't believe in the holy scriptures!
...So whilst you may find it impractical (!) we non believers have to use our own inner moral code to decide what is appropriate in regards to how we treat others (call it an innate instinct to do the right thing if you like)
in the absolute majority of cases religion serves to underline the ability of the imperfect [in every case] human individual to do the right thing under pressure,
.... Sorry George but that simply isn't true. ..look around the world in which we live and tell me that religion (in it's many differing forms) empowers people to do the right thing? it does sometimes and sometimes .....well sometimes religion has caused some of the most horrible wars ever fought in the history of humanity!
Why would I "buckle without some extra moral bolstering from a greater good" when I am convinced there is no "Greater Good" in the sense as you mean.
...Meanwhile back at Prof Dawkins .....he simply doesn't "believe" (ok he strongly DOESN'T "BELIEVE") therefore he is castigated for having that lack of belief and not having any doubt (although as written on the london bus posters his actually feelings are that there "probably" isn't a god) Yet the people who dislike him so much do so because they feel his "non faith" stance is too absolute and rigid!!! ....this from the religious community who have never had anything else other than an rigid and absolute stance!
...And I still don't believe he's smug either!;-)
Posted on: 19 August 2009 by Colin Lorenson
I was been brought up properly, with the ability to think and reason for myself.
I don't need any religion to tell me how to think, how to know what's right and wrong, or how to treat people honestly and fairly.
I'd nominate as the smuggest, most self-satisfied and sanctimonious buggers just about any senior clergy in the CoE.
However I'm not picking on the CoE. I hold all religions in equal regard. None
I don't need any religion to tell me how to think, how to know what's right and wrong, or how to treat people honestly and fairly.
I'd nominate as the smuggest, most self-satisfied and sanctimonious buggers just about any senior clergy in the CoE.
However I'm not picking on the CoE. I hold all religions in equal regard. None
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by Mat Cork
Has anybody mentioned Jeremy Pacman? ...awful.
The Dawkins debate is interesting - I'm a big believer in everybody believing what they want, as long as it doesn't result in war etc. I do find Dawkins argument interesting, and I think his questioning approach to religion is overdue...but he is a smug, unpleasant sort. He's an old boy of the school where I live and we had the unfortunate experience last year of being in the pub with his entourage - words can't describe.
The Dawkins debate is interesting - I'm a big believer in everybody believing what they want, as long as it doesn't result in war etc. I do find Dawkins argument interesting, and I think his questioning approach to religion is overdue...but he is a smug, unpleasant sort. He's an old boy of the school where I live and we had the unfortunate experience last year of being in the pub with his entourage - words can't describe.
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by droodzilla
quote:...Meanwhile back at Prof Dawkins .....he simply doesn't "believe" (ok he strongly DOESN'T "BELIEVE") therefore he is castigated for having that lack of belief and not having any doubt (although as written on the london bus posters his actually feelings are that there "probably" isn't a god) Yet the people who dislike him so much do so because they feel his "non faith" stance is too absolute and rigid!!! ....this from the religious community who have never had anything else other than an rigid and absolute stance!
...And I still don't believe he's smug either!;-)
My main objection to Dawkins is that his understanding of religion is not nuanced enough to qualify him to announce its demise. He constructs a straw man idea of religion, according to which its just bad science, so it's no surprise that he has no trouble demolishing it. But what purpose does this largely futile exercise serve? Does it advance our understanding of the relationship between science and religion at all? I'm afraid not. It's a bit like people who, in attempting to defend their faith, make the counter-accusation that science all boils down to faith in the end, nothing's certain, it's all subjective, and the like. Anyone who really grasps how science works would never make these simplistic claims (which isn't to claim that science *does* give us certain knowledge, of course). I guess on the whole, I have mixed feelings about Dawkins, as I find the debate interesting, and must be grateful to him for provoking it - it's just that the level and depth of the discussion isn't very inspiring.
I wouldn't call Dawkins smug, but he can come across as rather arrogant sometimes.
Cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by Kevin-W
quote:Originally posted by Jet Johnson:
...I guess George this subject could (and has previously) have a thread which would lead to another 50/60 postings or so. I accept where you are coming from and that you obviously believe that having faith is the cornerstone of how people treat each other, ie with respect, love, honesty etc.
The elephant in the room though (ok in MY room) is that if you simply don't believe that ANY sort of diety has ever existed ..that Jesus simply didn't exist (at least not as the "son of God") and that there simply isn't anything "out there" what-so-ever you can't wish "it" to be exist just to be able to follow "it" and live a caring existence.
I and millions of other non believers have no need to base my actions on "the Holy Scriptures" to know how life is best lived. I don't believe in the holy scriptures!
...So whilst you may find it impractical (!) we non believers have to use our own inner moral code to decide what is appropriate in regards to how we treat others (call it an innate instinct to do the right thing if you like)
in the absolute majority of cases religion serves to underline the ability of the imperfect [in every case] human individual to do the right thing under pressure,
.... Sorry George but that simply isn't true. ..look around the world in which we live and tell me that religion (in it's many differing forms) empowers people to do the right thing? it does sometimes and sometimes .....well sometimes religion has caused some of the most horrible wars ever fought in the history of humanity!
Why would I "buckle without some extra moral bolstering from a greater good" when I am convinced there is no "Greater Good" in the sense as you mean.
...Meanwhile back at Prof Dawkins .....he simply doesn't "believe" (ok he strongly DOESN'T "BELIEVE") therefore he is castigated for having that lack of belief and not having any doubt (although as written on the london bus posters his actually feelings are that there "probably" isn't a god) Yet the people who dislike him so much do so because they feel his "non faith" stance is too absolute and rigid!!! ....this from the religious community who have never had anything else other than an rigid and absolute stance!
...And I still don't believe he's smug either!;-)
Jet
Unfortunately, one of the biggest shortcomings of the pious is that they believe they have a monopoly on virtue. All of us who do not subscribe to their beliefs are somehow lost and incapable of doing the right thing.
Worse still, they seem to believe that anyone who rejects their various creeds is somehow illiberial, or not open-minded. Unlike the god-botherers of course.
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by Kevin-W
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Reading the Holy Scriptures will give a liberal minded person a very clear idea how life is best lived - with generosity, love [especially for those one would not obviously love], honesty, social responsibility, and so on for the general good of the society in which the individual lives, and therefore also for the individual, who necessarily will benefit for the improvement that results in society.
George
I'm sorry, but that is just rot. The so-called "holy" scriptures are a repository of all manner of hatreds, bigotries and petty proscriptions. If you feel that is a manifesto for how life is best lived well... up to you I guess.
That's one of the big problems I have with the books of these malign desert monotheisms - we live in a world, a Universe, that is quite incredible, and often beyond our comprehension; rather than attempting to explain any of this, or providing some sort of framework which aids comprehension of ourselves and our relationship with each other, the world and the Universe, these religious books seem to provide guidelines on little else apart from putting down women, beating up homosexuals and excoriating/killing those who don't happen to share one's own set of prejudices.
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
quote:these religious books seem to provide guidelines on little else apart from putting down women, beating up homosexuals and excoriating/killing those who don't happen to share one's own set of prejudices.
Where in SS Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John do you find any of these odious ideas proposed?
Chapter and verse will do.
Until such time as you can show where the Messiah proposed these notions, kindly stop refering to contributions as rot without evidence.
It is rather un-Christian.
ATB from George
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:...putting down women
Putting them down can be hard, picking em up harder still.
Jesus, the Buddah, Marcus Garvey etc all seem to foster fine 'human' values...and I've no problem at all with them, or their followers. My issue is confined to folk who use religion for the promotion of bigotry towards any race, sexual orientation or valve amp user.
I don't know what constitutes a good muslim, christian, buddhist or jew...but I do know what a good human is. You're most likely to find good humans in any group, walk of life and especially a good pub. Amen.
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by Exiled Highlander
Mat
Great post.
Jim
Great post.
Jim
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Where in SS Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John do you find any of these odious ideas proposed?
Do you limit the definition of "holy scriptures" to just the gospels? Other scholars differ with you on that.
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
Of course not, though the liberal mind will certainly know that the reporting of the words of the Lord in the Gospels may be taken as rather more significant than the Old Testament missive of, for example, take an eye for an eye.
You do not need to to be a genius of morality to work that one out! Even I can work it out!
Whoever Jesus was [and opinions may differ], what was his message? Tell me that please, and then show me where He proposed the odious sugestions that Kevin-W supposes are what Christianity is about.
I am not an Evangelist, or even particularly fine Churchman, but I know what is good and bad - not least because of a deeply Christian education ...
Please don't try to dismiss what you clearly have only a selective grip on.
Show your superior grip on the subject [of Christianity] by showing that I am wrong to defend the great good that pure Christianity promotes ...
ATB from George
You do not need to to be a genius of morality to work that one out! Even I can work it out!
Whoever Jesus was [and opinions may differ], what was his message? Tell me that please, and then show me where He proposed the odious sugestions that Kevin-W supposes are what Christianity is about.
I am not an Evangelist, or even particularly fine Churchman, but I know what is good and bad - not least because of a deeply Christian education ...
Please don't try to dismiss what you clearly have only a selective grip on.
Show your superior grip on the subject [of Christianity] by showing that I am wrong to defend the great good that pure Christianity promotes ...
ATB from George
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
Of course not, though the liberal mind will certainly know that the reporting of the words of the Lord in the Gospels may be taken as rather more significant than the Old Testament missive of, for example, take an eye for an eye.
You do not need to to be a genius of morality to work that one out! Even I can work it out!
Whoever Jesus was [and opinions may differ], what was his message? Tell me that please, and then show me where He proposed the odious sugestions that Kevin-W supposes are what Christianity is about.
I am not an Evangelist, or even particularly fine Churchman, but I know what is good and bad - not least because of a deeply Christian education ...
Please don't try to dismiss what you clearly have only a selective grip on.
Show your superior grip on the subject [of Christianity] by showing that I am wrong to defend the great good that pure Christianity promotes ...
ATB from George
First off, don't presume to know that my grip on christian doctrine is clearly selective (something you really have no clue about), then sign off "all the best". It's very poor form.
You apparently subscribe to some sort of selective christian doctrine yourself - the sort that can cherry-pick the obvious good from the scriptures yet write off the bad as "less significant" (to whom, I wonder? to the old testament god that made such pronouncements? I bet that particular 1/3 of the holy trinity would be downright hurt to know you play favorites like that).
Honestly, you and jesus may be <crosses fingers> "like this", but I don't think you understand your own religion very well. Prove me wrong. Embrace the entire canon of christian scripture - and I mean all of it (apocrypha, book of mormon, gospel of marcion, gnostic gospels), not just the bits that make you feel all warm and fuzzy - then come back and tell me how benign it is, in message and in its effect on the course of human history.
Despite your assertion to the contrary, you've established yourself as evangelical, and somewhat amazingly willing to ignore the parts of your own bible that you find offensive. I'm sure as hell not about to try and talk you into acknowledging the words and teachings of your own old-testament sky daddy. That's between you and him.
Still, since you're apparently on a psychic wavelength, do go on and tell me more about my grip. What's my background as a religious man? In what ways am I living my life contrary to the great good of pure christianity?
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by munch:
This is going down the two things you dont talk about down Pub road.
Religion and Politics.
Well spotted.
George, the room (and all the souls in it) are yours. Proselytize at will. I'm out.
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by u5227470736789439
Dear Jayd,
I look at the ethos, and not every detail.
Too much detail, and you loose sight of the wood for the trees!
If you want to face me with some of the Old Testament, then I will say that it is to be taken with a pinch of salt in some cases.
The point is the message of trying to love thine enemy as thy friend, to be generous, to be fair, to be honest, to attempt to overcome the tribal instinct to hate those different to one's self [Parable of the Good Samaritan] and so on.
Yes of course you can make a monkey of it with some of the rarer bits of the Old Testamant, but is that what it is about?
I happen to think not, and so do those much more serious Christians whom I have discussed this with also ...
I am capable of judging my own moral actions, and if this means I take some of the Holy Scripture more seriously than some other parts that does not make a me a less Christian person, for we can only as individuals attempt to understand what it is we are presented with - even with very good and informed help from experts, called Priests, Vicars, Bishops and so on.
But it is easy enough to pervert the intention I am sure, and that really is a terrible form of cherry picking.
First off, don't presume to know that my grip on christian doctrine is clearly selective (something you really have no clue about), then sign off "all the best". It's very poor form.
I actually do not presume anything, but for discussion's sake one has to work with the evidence offered ...
And I still wish you all the best, from George
I look at the ethos, and not every detail.
Too much detail, and you loose sight of the wood for the trees!
If you want to face me with some of the Old Testament, then I will say that it is to be taken with a pinch of salt in some cases.
The point is the message of trying to love thine enemy as thy friend, to be generous, to be fair, to be honest, to attempt to overcome the tribal instinct to hate those different to one's self [Parable of the Good Samaritan] and so on.
Yes of course you can make a monkey of it with some of the rarer bits of the Old Testamant, but is that what it is about?
I happen to think not, and so do those much more serious Christians whom I have discussed this with also ...
I am capable of judging my own moral actions, and if this means I take some of the Holy Scripture more seriously than some other parts that does not make a me a less Christian person, for we can only as individuals attempt to understand what it is we are presented with - even with very good and informed help from experts, called Priests, Vicars, Bishops and so on.
But it is easy enough to pervert the intention I am sure, and that really is a terrible form of cherry picking.
First off, don't presume to know that my grip on christian doctrine is clearly selective (something you really have no clue about), then sign off "all the best". It's very poor form.
I actually do not presume anything, but for discussion's sake one has to work with the evidence offered ...
And I still wish you all the best, from George
Posted on: 20 August 2009 by Chris Kelly
Back on topic....
Is there a "collective" sub-category? If so, I vote for "hybrid" car drivers.
Is there a "collective" sub-category? If so, I vote for "hybrid" car drivers.
Posted on: 21 August 2009 by scottyhammer
caravanners
Posted on: 21 August 2009 by Mat Cork
Micheal Palin, Stephen Fry and Billy Connolly.
Posted on: 22 August 2009 by scottyhammer
billy connelly ?? i dont think so!
Posted on: 22 August 2009 by Lark
quote:Originally posted by Mat Cork:
Micheal Palin, Stephen Fry and Billy Connolly.
Doesn't say much for me, that trio are some of my favorite entertainer/ presenters
I'm pretty smug today, been for a lovely run in the country, listened to some great music and just had a great bowl of French onion soup. Life is good today.
Cheers K