Surely this is no different to the 'German village' and the 'Irish village' on the Epynt ranges in Wales?

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I seem to recall there is a church there too.

Just what I was thinking too….
I suspect that there were one or two mock-ups of British towns, maybe with churches (ideal for snipers), in the Communist-bloc.

I'm sure whichever soldier came up with the idea for fitting domes to the range to make it more realistic(!) didn't think very much about all and certainly not if it was going to be offensive.

It's a bit daft of the army to go along with it, but hardly the greatest crime in the world.

-Will there always be at least one follower of islam who will be offended by anything?

If the domes were a different colour would it make a difference?

(Edit: Somebody in our office pointed out that using green paint wasn't that surprising as the army must have a lot of surplus green paint at the moment 😉 )

You shouldn't need evidence to support a faith-based religion.

The nature of a faith-based religion is that there isn't any evidence, otherwise there would be no need for the 'Faith'. Of course, the more faith one has (and the less they question their faith) the more virtuous the follower is.

In reality, I suspect that most followers will be looking hard for evidence in order to justify their faith, and some do claim to 'see' it.

-If there was convincing evidence found to justify any religion there would be blanket coverage in the news media and it would be around the internet in minutes. 'Miracles' would be very popular, it is just a pity that so few take place nowadays compared with days of the Bible.

How many people would accept the finding of a court against them without any evidence?

Would countries ever go to war on the basis of praying about it?

One thing for sure – he was not a tall nordic blond

God is an Englishman though, so he might have been 😉

When it comes down to it, people believe in a god because they want to, despite the lack of any evidence and choose to ignore inconvenient discoveries made by mankind.

They adhere to (some of)the rules of a religion for a one or more of the following:

indoctrinated fear('what if it just might be true?')
A feeling of helplessness
Belonging to a social group

These debates always seem to descend into nonsense.

The 'scientific'/enquiring/open-minded approach is to increase understanding of the universe and everything in it as time progresses. The various principles that are thought to be 'correct' allow us to create such things as telephones, television and medical care that would not be possible had people not researched these 'scientific' things and designed equipment that make use of them. The various principles do link together, they're not just a few random ideas. Fairly complex physics is involved in fairly common equipment.

The 'faith' approach is to believe, without any evidence, that god made everything because that is what was said in the 'good old days' of more ignorance, before mankind had learned what it knows now and that 'science' is wrong to question things. If everybody took this approach, we would still be in the good old days.

Having decided that a god made everything, various religions have taken this and made up ceremonies and rituals based upon ignorance, declaring them to the only way to eat meat, conduct relationships, punish sinners or please their version of god.

ps. ignorance [??gn?r?ns]
n
lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant

How many people fully understand the workings of, for example, an iPhone?

Does one person's ignorance of the workings of that technology provide evidence of a 'higher being'?

Here's a question:

Would you prefer to jump from a cliff with a hang-glider that had been designed by someone with knowledge of accepted engineering principles of wing design or one that had been designed by somebody without technical knowledge but a lot of prayer?

There is no proof that god doesn't exist.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that god does exist.

For many people, god/religion forms the basis of their culture and, importantly, their social life. I suspect that for many people, questioning this religion too much could result in a big change in their outlook, and so their life, and they would prefer to maintain the status quo.

It is interesting that 'the church' in the UK is rapidly ageing (as fewer and fewer younger people are involved). How long before the number of regular(not once a year at Xmas Eve, for tradition) attendees falls below the minimum required to sustain all of the infrastructure?

But if science can't account for this simple-seeming hole in one of its central theories, how can the rest of science be taken seriously?

Are you serious?

Scientific understanding increases with time. It is not 'true', but is correct to the best of our understanding until it is refined further.

There is no evidence for god(s) or religion. If religion can't account for the simple-seeming hole in one of its central theories, how can the rest of religion be taken seriously?

No because you try and belittle peoples opinions on an internet forum

I discuss issues like this in the real world too. Is smoking crack compatible with religious teaching?

Off-topic slightly, but you know the big bang? A big explosion/implosion of gas and whatnot?

Where did the gas come from, what caused it to contract/explode?

nobody knows, but does that automatically prove the existence of the 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit', Allah, The Hindu gods or any other deities?

Your life sounds like a barrel of laughs

Why? Because I ask questions and don't take everything I was told as a child at face value?

Would my life be better if I believed in an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent creator with a very ambiguous good book?

'Science' is updated when new evidence is observed or discovered. It is in iterative process.

If you don't take the bible literally then it isn't so daft. Some people just like looking down from their high horse.

This always puzzles me. If the Bible isn't to be taken literally and parts of it are not considered true by many Christians, then how reliable is it as a historical source? If the 'scripture' is unreliable, then what exactly IS the basis of Christianity? Then again, how important are the various man-made dogma and traditions of the various churches?

If there is no reliable worldy guide to christianity, there must be another way. I understand that some people have a (at least one-way) personal hotline to god and speak in tongues etc.

Maybe some double-blind testing should be carried out? Or would testing god immediately invalidate the test?

As an intelligent church-going person I know said,
"It's all okay if you don't question it TOO much"

If you started quoting leviticus to defend your views you'd not get much credibility from anyone except far right lunatics.

…but it is part of the BIBLE, non?

My vote is for a single seater or Lotus 7 replica (Westfield/Caterham etc.).

medieval mumbo jumbo should have no place in todays society

It doesn't – that's why no-one uses those parts of the bible.

Haha. The 'scriptures' are there to back up any argument

-which bits you use depends on your argument….
😆

non-elected,toothless throwback

The C of E who spend a lot of time arguing about females or homosexuals taking senior positions?

The Lords is the upper house of the country. You fail to see the relevance of church senior managers being given seats?

Archbishop of Canterbury=more followers than Labour party Consider yourself getting off lightly

How many people voted for the Archbishop? 9,562,122 voted for Labour last time.

"Seems to me that children are taught to be Christians."

We were when I was at primary school in the 80s, although I remember one of our more inspiring teachers suggesting that 'the creation', 'noah's ark' etc. were not necessarily correct. ie. not true.

Geronimo,what special consideration is it that we get?

By 'you', do you mean the religious in general or a particular faith?

Fairly fundamentally, as above:

The archbishops of Canterbury and York and the bishops of Durham, London and Winchester are by tradition always members of the House of Lords. The remaining 21 places on the Bishops’ Bench are not fixed, but are occupied by those English diocesan bishops that have served the longest.

The Archbishop of Canterbury certainly gets a lot of air-time to express his views considering that his followers are so few in number.

Interestingly, Tony Blair only got around to 'converting' not long after leaving office. Why was that? (Incidentally, when the pope died, the UK news coverage of the events was incredible in its quantity, so RC is presumably not too much of a problem for the UK public. It may have been a quiet news week though)

In some cases, workers are allowed to wear different uniforms on religious grounds.

There is, of course, the old chestnut of sikhs and motorbike helmets.

We are advised to treat people as they would like to be treated ie. special treatment, not treat everybody in the same way, resulting in people (especially in the public sector) being worried about causing offence at every turn and not being 'inclusive' enough.

All religions are looked at in schools now,not just Christianity.

So, as above, if (CofE)Christianity is viewed as the only one -by twist of historical fate involving Henry VIII- worthy of the monarch and a guaranteed seat in the Lords, then how can other faiths be considered other than as inferior/wrong?

Don't get me wrong, I've no issue with people having a private faith, but, as untested theory, religious faith of whatever kind should have no bearing on the laws of the land.

Let's secularise the country and remove the church's (and any other religion's) influence.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

For those religious folk on here who wonder why people have a go at religion:

From our first stages of state education we are taught to believe in Christianity and have acts of worship.

In the UK we are also brought up to believe that the C of E is the 'right' version of that particular medieval monotheistic religion and its bishops are given seats in the Lords. Roman Catholicism is now tolerated up to a point, although not a good choice if you want to be the monarch or possibly the PM.

The Bible is an ambiguous, disparate collection of violent stories and touchy-feely parables intended to control the masses. Different denominations place emphasis on different parts.

Each Church has a lot of suspiciously man-made ritual and 'tradition' that can change substantially over the years.

We are now also taught to 'respect' all 'faiths' -despite the one-true-way nature of the CofE being the established church.

'Faiths', no matter how ludicrous/sexist/anti-contraception/homophobic/unpleasant/cruel to animals, are given special consideration and must not be criticised for fear of offending the supposedly mighty religions.

There is no basis for any of these religions, other than ignorance, superstition, fear of upsetting a creator, fear of death/the after-life and maybe meat preparation in a hot desert in the middle ages.

Enquiring minds do not get satisfactory answers to their questions because there are no answers.

I enjoyed my visit to Wisconsin.

It's very flat, but it's good for huntin' and fishin'.

I wouldn't drive to the coast from there though -in any direction.

On the bottle I had, Slime was recommended only for dirt bikes, which may *actually* mean tubed tyres.

I'm not sure how it affects wheel balance when travelling at speed.

but, lets be honest, neither god nor the bible said anything against contraception.

ah, but the Bible isn't necessarily believed by Christians…

Church Custom & Tradition sounds distinctly man-made to me.

Since our knowledge of the Christian god is limited to somewhat contradictory remarks scattered throughout the Bible the scope of belief is unconstrained.

Heresy!

It is all about 'faith'. Fact shouldn't be allowed to interfere with that…

If Christians don't believe what is written in the Bible, then what exactly do they believe? What is their point of reference?

Ireland (ignoring recent recession) is a much more affluent place that it was (Celtic Tiger).

Forgive me if I am wrong, but many Irish catholic people used to have very large numbers of children (compared with the UK)? This is no longer the case.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster seems to think that a reduction in the number of children is a result of 'solving poverty'. There may/may not be a link, but I suspect that the reduction in the number of children is actually achieved through contraception/birth control rather than abstinence through long hours at the office….

Thankfully they don't appear to brave doing any door-knocking where we live.

Where my folks' live, however, they turn up mob-handed very frequently.

A mate of mine (who, it is fair to say, was slightly un-hinged) once answered the door to them and asked him about his beliefs. He replied, "I am Jesus!" and kept repeating it. They took offence and backed away. They were still telling him that they hoped he would be saved when they were in the road. Apparently he was still shouting after them when they had given up and were walking briskly out of his cul-de-sac.

Poor JWs, but you do have to ask why they do it.

Religion, man -just say no.

Quite simply it's the best car I've ever owned. It's very quick (don't listen to silly petrol heads who've never driven a good diesel),

What about driving a good petrol?

The programme has re-awakened the enthusiasm for physics that I had as a 17 year old A-Level student, rather than the jaded 30-something I an now.

It would be great for interested children.

Although I am aware of much of the content, I've learned a few things and it is very well produced.

Get rid of BBC 3 & BBC 4 and put more good programmes like this on BBC2.

That's awful to have crashed so soon. The crash bungs did appear to work though.

On reflection, were you possibly slightly too close to the car that did the 'emergency stop' in front of you?

Just wondering, as I'm always looking for ways to improve my riding/safety and I'm quite wary of people stopping in front of me, having once had a car brake in front of me and me locking my front wheel.

I've an engineering degree from an old uni (late 90s).

It was very theoretical and maths-intensive. It may have been an age thing, but despite being fairly capable, inquisitive and interested in technical things, to be quite honest, I didn't enjoy the course much at all. I did pick up a lot of information and various concepts, but I didn't like the very academic way that the course was implemented.

FWIW, I'm still a fan of Engineering, but have never found an engineering job I'm that happy with -I'm certainly not fulfilling my potential.

As above, there are a lot of meetings and documentation.

From what I've seen, Site Engineers on construction projects seem to have jobs that keep them busy, but a lot of hassle when progress slips.

-If I was you (or if I had my time again), I'd do medicine instead.

Of course men and women are generally different.

Women all over the world complain about their men-folk's untidiness and lack of thought and conversation. Men all over the world complain about women's mystical complexity and nagging.

There are always people who are different to the norm though.

What you generally find is that (cue sweeping generalisatons) women tend not to have hobbies like blokes do

There is some truth in that. In a given group of people, I suspect that more blokes will be interested in doing things either not-relevant-to or outside-of 'the home' and less so on physical appearance , whereas more women will be more interested in home-based (nesting?) activities or shopping.

Again, there always exceptions.

Brabham BT46

Yes, that is a large down-force increasing fan on the back.

Strangely for a man who hates the USA, Osama always wears a US Army surplus Woodland Camo M65 jacket and sports a ZZ Top beard.

martinxyz

when i leave the house on the bike i dont go over 2k with the revs so nobody moans..

..and stick to 2k for the rest of the ride :O)

Aren't you riding this though?:

The Royal Family do not, in any sort of practical terms, rule or govern the country.

The Royal Family are not elected or in position based on merit and are not held to account.

-However, we the people of the UK & NI, fund them and are probably supposed to be deferential towards them.

The 'tourism' argument is weak. Having a pseudo-fairy-tale monarchy to bring in foreign punters is not justification for an unequal society. Tourists would still visit anyway -more dependent on the value of sterling, though, I'd suggest.

Arguing that an elected head of state would be somehow worse than an un-elected male (or female with no brothers), divinely-appointed leader of a church I've never belonged to & who was either born to rule (or inherited their position in line to the throne when her uncle abdicated because he wanted to marry a divorcee ) is nonsensical. 🙄

To all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister is the leader/figurehead of the country, whatever ancient 'Royal Protocol' might decree.

ps. The In-Laws wanted to watch the queen addressing us, her loyal 'subjects', at Xmas so we, unfortunately, did.

What made me laugh was when she suggested that,
"at this time of year we should look to those less fortunate than ourselves"
-For the queen, that would be just about everybody…..

"Got My Mind Set on You" -cover version released by George Harrison in 1987.

…written by Rudy Clark and originally recorded by James Ray in 1962.

The negative aspect is that many of the essential elements of PRINCE2 can be omitted sometimes resulting in a PINO project – Prince in Name Only

😆

In my not so humble opinion, trousers with lots of pockets are the way forward, it saves carrying a man-bag.

5.11 do good cargo pants.

Are you bike-ist?

In some cases I think I'd prefer a neighbour who rode a bike
to his early shift than drove a car

The Avensis may be a reliable minicab, but completely bland and uninspiring.

Infinitely better than a Puma for a family man though.

It's definitely falling out of favour at the moment, I think the industry is going through a bit of a backlash against ridiculous over documentation and specialisation.

Let's hope so.

I looked into Prince2, but it didn't seem to be any great shakes. The public sector is awash with 'practitioners' I believe.

The mother has all the logic and right to know the identity of both killers. That right is hers and her alone. The memory of her child is hers and she is the only one that can forgive the murderers. Unless you want to " medically erase" her mind to make her forget?

What?!?

In the UK the state 'punishes' criminals. It is not carried out by the families of victims. If one of the men (presumably the other one has not done similar) who has been released on licence(rightly or wrongly) has committed a recent offence it is very unlikely to have affected the mother of their earlier victim. What does it have to do with her -or any of us? I can only assume that the parole board are doing their job correctly.