XPost: alt.postmodern   
   From: Abx45Dfh@jjh76g7856gh.com   
      
   "Zap"  wrote in message   
   news:f785476c.0402180513.6dc45ee0@posting.google.com...   
   > hmz... this reminds me to something I wrote not too long ago.   
   > First I wrote an article about the Nihilist Jihad... it doesn't get   
   > more radically sceptic than that. Note the blatant contraditcion   
   > between Nihilism and the (religiously laden term) Jihad.   
      
   Nihilism IS a very religioud term -   
   ? wasnt the kind of things the SS got up to in eastern europw kind of   
   Nihilst Jihad?   
      
   > In MJ#6 there will be more about the Nihilist Jihad, and how   
   > ingeniously it uses (physical) terrorism to distract from a far more   
   > widespread movement that would make the powers that be soil their   
   > pants. Which they would if we hadn't made sure they constantly   
   > misunderestimated us.   
      
   The powers that be have given their power to the focus groups and thus   
   ensure themselves in perpetuity, any revolution thus becomes one against the   
   people - and so terrorism.  A neat trick.   
      
   >   
   > But I digress... without further ado:   
   >   
   > Science vs Religion: It's a draw   
   >   
   > I think scientific research always begins with a thesis, a couple of   
   > tets and ends with a conclusion right?   
      
   Or........ a hypothesis which is supported - but never proved by   
   experiment - and which can be disproved by experiment.   
      
   >   
   > Believers cannot possibly do proper research according to that process.   
      
   Scientists BELIEVE in axioms of logic and mathematics as well as  other   
   things - which then allows them to proceed.   
   Some other belivers - believe in say an all powerful God then procede to   
   think acordingly, neither will normally conclude that - in the case of   
   science - Logic is wrong - doesnt exist - or in the other that God doesnt   
   exist. They look for error elsewhere.   
      
   > Because their belief is in essence a conclusion already.   
   > I consider that to be merely a delta though. A thesis can include   
   > conclusions of previously done (and proven) work.   
   >   
   What is a delta?   
      
   > (pure non believing, rational) research cannot possibly do proper   
   > research considering religion either. Because most start with a   
   > conclusion as well.. but one that is always disjunct with religious   
   > research precisely at the point where the believer believes.   
      
   Its a big idea to assume the universe is rational.   
   >   
   > Therefore both can probably describe reality surrounding us including   
   > or excluding religion. It's merely reality with an irrational delta.   
   > And by irrationality I mean the belief part... the assumption without   
   > proof.   
   > If the rational and irrational are truely completely disjunct then any   
   > reality can be explained in a scientific *and* a scientific+religious   
   > way. Science merely a way to research the rational... religious the   
   > irrational world.   
   >   
   > I for one *believe* both are completely disjunct. Right now that is.   
   > Proof that they are is left as an excercise to the reader *sly grin*   
   >   
   Religion has a theology - which is surly rational, but i'm not sure where   
   science has any mysticism? Other than in its origins.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)