ARmy Rumour SErvice

**hellsbrink** · 17-06-2012, 18:51

Well, if y'all would actually give an honest answer instead of hiding behind some generic bullshit about how you happily ignore the bits in your "Bible" you don't like and believe in the bits that are guesses and interpretations of mistranslations of interpretations of something Hans Christian Andersen wouldn't even make up, I wouldn't need to ask the same question, would I.

In other words, why is your mutual wankfest with others who believe in fairy tales and imaginary beings more valid than the mutual wankfest of the supporters of Bin Laden's interpretation of Islam?

Just answer that simple question clearly and simply, if your brain can get around the matter of the majority believing that it's all a load of borrocks.

**Mugatu** · 17-06-2012, 19:43

Originally Posted by Higgs_bosun

Yeah ok... but do you think that on balance the contributions of science are better or worse than contributions from religion?

Science, without doubt.

**BoomShackerLacker** · 17-06-2012, 20:54

Originally Posted by hellsbrink

Well, if y'all would actually give an honest answer instead of hiding behind some generic bullshit about how you happily ignore the bits in your "Bible" you don't like and believe in the bits that are guesses and interpretations of mistranslations of interpretations of something Hans Christian Andersen wouldn't even make up, I wouldn't need to ask the same question, would I.

In other words, why is your mutual wankfest with others who believe in fairy tales and imaginary beings more valid than the mutual wankfest of the supporters of Bin Laden's interpretation of Islam?

Just answer that simple question clearly and simply, if your brain can get around the matter of the majority believing that it's all a load of borrocks.

WankFest 2012 will be held in Birmingham this year.

Check out this video on YouTube Bin Laden:
THE RICK ASTLEY VIDEO MEGAMIX - YouTube

**BoomShackerLacker** · 17-06-2012, 20:55

Originally Posted by Mugatu

Science, without doubt.

I doubt doubt.

**Screw_The_Nut** · 17-06-2012, 23:24

Originally Posted by Mugatu

Science, without doubt.

Science what, exactly? Are you having a stroke, old chap?

**Mugatu** · 17-06-2012, 23:42

Originally Posted by Screw_The_Nut

Science what, exactly? Are you having a stroke, old chap?

There is every likelyhood!

**Higgs_bosun** · 18-06-2012, 02:05

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

Kierkegaard: 'If you label me, you negate me' comes to mind.

Was he the bloke who said “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ?

**Dashing_Chap** · 18-06-2012, 05:51

Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker

I doubt doubt.

If you really were a doubter as I am then you'd be less likely to make a blind leap of faith for what is clearly a myopic neurological condition and instead embrace uncertainty as being the true balance of nature and life.

Physical law abides by probability, there is no certainty. Christ was nuts and Mo was deluded, if they really were God we'd all be certain about it. They were just continuing the long line of crackpots who've existed throughout history. They still exist in the modern age too, Wako TX being a perfext example. The only reason they had any credibility in the past is due to the gullibility and ignorance of primitive shepherds. In an age of superstitious nonsense and a complete lack of general education it's unsurprising people took them at face value.

What's more disturbing is that in the 21stC supposedly educated and intelligent people still do.

**Padre** · 18-06-2012, 08:08

Greetings DC,

Never quite sure which side of the fence delusion lives myself. One one side we find those who believe in a creator whilst on the other there are those who can believe that the right chemical, in the right combination (and those combinations placed with others in the correct order) came together by chance and hence we have man! Mind you if they did we can confidently await a new Shakespearian offering from the room full of monkeys (which must by now be long overdue).

Physical laws (by which I assume you mean gravity, Boyle et al) abide and exist by logical, reason and observation (sounds a bit like the definition of orthodoxy that). An idea of how something occurs is postulated and then by empirical means a theory is developed and this finds itself expressed as an hypothesis. The hypothesis is tested and played with until such time that confidence is gained (and many rejoinders, surrejoinders and other 'polite' examination and dialogue have been enacted). At this stage probability is lost and assurance is gained and we have ourselves an law (which by scientific definition is something constant, hard and fast).

The problem with religion is that whilst many might claim 'there is no God', the (scientific/rational) requirement here is to take this hypothesis and make it a law. Faraday stood on a great many issues whereby others claimed he was wrong and his invitation is the same as the invitation from those (rational) people who believe. "By all means, feel free to prove beyond doubt there is no Creative force otherwise known as 'God'

As for Waco )I always want to put a 'k' in). There will always be people who are barking enough to start, and follow, such awfulness. Then again, look at the writings of many Christians (from day one - before they were national news) and you will see that those who know the genuine spotted the false extremely quickly. It's a bit like a treasury training facility in the US I visited some time back. Loads of people just sitting handing banknotes until, by touch alone, they could tell what was fake.

For me the biggest problem isn't Christianity or world faith but those who have made science their god and whose believe in a science god that has given us so much, etc, etc. Mirrors the sociological model of religion in that primitive minds ascribe 'godness' to natural happenings.

ps. Still haven't quite gotten over the day the Bohr-Rutherford model I was confident with was labelled as 'rubbish' by my tutor as he brought out of the box quantum concepts, transition levels and other models that made core and shells look naive and simplistic. We all, rightly or wrongly, put our faith in things, theological and scientific, and there will always be those, theologically and scientifically, who are snake oil salesmen, but one rarely sees people remove their faith (or question) science, do we?

It's the curse of the enlightenment project.

Pax

**Koschei** · 18-06-2012, 10:36

Originally Posted by Padre

For me the biggest problem isn't Christianity or world faith but those who have made science their god and whose believe in a science god that has given us so much, etc, etc. Mirrors the sociological model of religion in that primitive minds ascribe 'godness' to natural happenings.

And who exactly has made science their god? You're trying to portray science as a competing ideology instead of what it is - a method of acquiring knowledge.

Originally Posted by Padre

ps. Still haven't quite gotten over the day the Bohr-Rutherford model I was confident with was labelled as 'rubbish' by my tutor as he brought out of the box quantum concepts, transition levels and other models that made core and shells look naive and simplistic.

I'm sure we all remember that one, and it's a prime example of how scientific theories are modified as more evidence becomes available. Electrons following fixed orbits in simple shells give way to clouds of probability and our understanding is improved. I've never seen groups of Rutherfordian fundamentalists sticking their fingers in their ears and insisting that theirs is the one true atomic model.

Originally Posted by Padre

...but one rarely sees people remove their faith (or question) science, do we?

Of course we do - otherwise your tutor wouldn't have corrected your Bohr-Rutherford atomic model and we'd still be explaining things in terms of phlogiston and the ether.