John Cuthber

The UK has about 200 years' worth of unused coal reserves. Using them without breaching carbon dioxide emissions agreements is the problem. All cities are on islands; why don't you think London should be, and where else could you put it? Do you propose moving it to the Moon? Electricity is traded directly with the rest of Europe; the infrastructure for that exists. (At least most of) Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom. The UK is building windfarms and solar power stations. The UK's recent decision to get China to build a nuclear station here is bizarre.

Well, I don't get to vote on this because I'm not in his country, but I still think that a man who believes that is demonstrably irrational (there are old writings that tell us what the pyramids were made for, and they would be too small to be much use for grain stores- not to mention a stupid shape etc). What jobs are there where a lack of connection to reality wouldn't affect performance, and is the presidency one of them? It isn't the pyramids' purpose as such that is the problem here. The problem is a lack of critical thinking skills.. If he makes plainly dumb decisions about that, why would you suppose that he won't make equally dumb decisions about stuff that is important?

No, it does not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS An argument from personal incredulity was a logical fallacy back in 1600, just as it is today. They were using fake logic to back up their power back then, and I'm not sure anything has changed on that account.

What's the alternative? Given a choice between a boiler controlled by Windows and one with no controls at all, I'd go for Windows. Also, exactly what level of control does it have? Is it just an expensive timer switch or does it have total responsibility for all the control? If it's the latter then what incompetent moron forgot to add the safety valves and over temperature cut off etc.? And since any competent design would fail safe in the absence of a control signal, what difference would it make if that signal was from Windows? Are you hoping to demonstrate that some other operating system will work better? That's going to be interesting when the electrical power fails.

(1) So, it's not about religion or atheism is it? as you say "So I have reason to believe that it was about me. " (2) They are welcome to try; some have. I suspect that some of those who tried are no longer theists. It is easy for me to deflect that ridicule and point out that, from my point of view, they are acting like grown-ups who still believe in Santa Claus.

If you had told people that you believed there were fairies at the bottom of your garden, they would probably ridicule that idea too. It's because the idea is ridiculous. When they ridiculed your faith, did you explain to them that there were sound reasons for it, based on evidence? If not, do you see why they might think that your faith in the the sky fairy/ invisible friend you called God deserved to be ridiculed? What was picked on here wasn't religion but gullibility. People criticise daft beliefs all the time. Why should religious beliefs be exempt?

"That Aristotle guy "is noted for not actually doing science. He sat and thought about stuff then wrote down what he imagined to be the truth. That's (1) what distinguished him from scientists) and (2) the reason why he thought men had more teeth than women, and that the brain's function was to cool the blood. But when science started depends on what you call science. It's not really the point. The difference between a thousand year old natural philosophy text and a thousand year old religious text is when both are shown to be wrong, one of them gets superseded but the other is still worshipped. Also, (at least in the idealised version) in one case the person who showed that it's wrong is congratulated; in the other case he's threatened or ostracised.

For those who don't know, Mr Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party in the UK and he keeps being described as "unelectable" by the right wing media. He was, in fact, elected. (He beat three other leadership candidates and got more than 50% of the vote in what might have been expected to be a fairly even 4 way split).

Yes. have a look at all the reports that were posted of moronic Left wing candidates here. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/ The internet (which includes the members of this forum) has had plenty of opportunity to make them look as dumb as their Right wing counterparts. Those candidates who were left behind by this process "survived" the internet. Oh, hang on; none of those who got panned by the internet were from the Left. Odd that, isn't it? Feel free to add Left wing "lunatics" to the thread there.

Exactly what didn't you like and was it anything to do with the fact that they were atheists? For example, could you have experienced the same issues with people from another faith or members of different branches of the same faith?

The difference is that science is not still trying to pretend that the 2000 year old book is right. Religion, on the other hand has barely moved on. Incidentally, the practice of what we now call "science" is not a thousand years old The best you can do are the likes of Bacon and Ocam around 1300 so I'd like to see this " multitude of scientific writings from >1000 yrs ago "

Anything radioactive from Chernobyl that was volatile enough to get into the air easily has had decades to do so and so it will have been blown away Similarly, if it was light enough to get up to the plane, it will also be light enough to get blown off the plane as it leaves the contaminated area and land. Unless the plane got caught in a dust storm on its way through the contaminated area, I'd be happy to eat my lunch off the wings of the plane afterwards. The big problem will be that the local authorities are probably not going to be happy about you doing this flight (which is a pity, since it's quite an interesting idea).

Nope, that's not going to fly. You moved the goal posts. Nobody has denied that some atheists have harmed some religious people. that has been accepted all along. But that's not what the topic is asking about. It's not the irreligious picking on the religious- because for it to be that, they would have to do disproportionately or in the name of atheism. So, to get anywhere like showing that religion is "picked on", you have to show that it's religion that's picked on, rather than a handful of people who happen to be religious who are picked on. So do you actually have any evidence of that? Where are the atheists picking on the theists? (Please note that not all communists are atheists and not all atheists are communists so showing that communists picked on religion is not even close to the same as saying that atheists picked on theists.)

If they dissolve, they won't be nanoparticles any more. And, when the liquid evaporates at the valve and leaves the material behind, the valve will still clog up.

Word salad.

Do I have to put this in really big letters or something? What evidence?

I know how at least three different sorts of household refrigerator work. This is probably the commonest type where I live https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigeration#Vapor-compression_cycle and the diagram shows an expansion valve. That won't work when it gets clogged up with nanoparticles. So, how do you propose to solve that problem? And while you say " By mixing nanoparticles to the refrigerants heat enhancement is increases because of nanoparticles have excellent heat transfer characteristics." that's simply not always true. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01998595.2013.10769728 So, why do you think this will work?

Interesting, but not relevant. The question that forms the thread's titles has been answered, and the answer is no. Among the reasons for this are that your diet needs to supply you with enough energy to meet your body's demands and that energy demand depends on many things such as the weather. Since thee weather is not repeatable, the right number of calories isn't repeatable so the "best" diet isn't repeatable. For some reason you keep ignoring this fact. Why is that?

Hang on: there are two gravy trains. One is sponsored by the government (which doesn't have a strong desire to push the debate in either direction) and the other is sponsored by oil. Which on do you trust?

(1) As discussed at length, no you have not. You have, for example, put forward a set of 7 things that were said to be evidence of persecution of Christians. However, I showed that none of them was valid (others also showed this too in some cases) (2) you are welcome, but it's only going to work if you actually follow it. (3) It doesn't matter what people want- if you seek to win an argument, you need evidence. (4) Quoting stuff out of context will often make you look a fool. So, if you say "I don't know how widespread discrimination against religious groups is, but it does happen." then you have made it clear that you don't know about the subject. So, in this case I have fair evidence to claim that you don't understand the subject- the evidence is that you said so. However, you had previously, at least tacitly said that the statement was true. When you subsequently accept that you don't know if it's true or not, you have to accept that you lost the argument about the truth of the statement. And I know that's true from two sources, one of which is the (albeit informal) logic of the situation and the other source is long experience. (5) There might be an argument that Leninism is a religion, but it doesn't matter. the point is that most atheists are not Lenninists so showing that Lenninists persecute Christians is not the same as saying that atheists persecute Christians. (6) You have shown your refusal to face up to your own biasses and prejudices here. perhaps you should take some time to reconsider the flippant reply and think about how you are acting. Are you really acting in an impartial way here? (7) When I asked you to post evidence you say you already did- even though it has been pointed out that you are mistaken; what you posted wan't evidence. What will it take to get you to face up to this? (8) Read the title; there's a tacit claim there and you have repeated it explicitly. (9) they often amount to the same thing. And you did say "If it's OK with you I will stick around and learn how to win arguments." so it's reasonable to conclude that you do want to win them. (10) Good, albeit a bit late.

At the risk of going round in circles, what evidence did we reject? We did point out that some stuff put forward as evidence was wrong or simply had no evidentiary value but as far as I can see we have not rejected any actual evidence.

(1) OK I will help you learn by pointing out an important aspect of it. Make sure you have evidence on your side. (2)If you don't know something, don't claim it as truth. Otherwise you will lose the argument. (3) Leninism discriminates against other religions. (4) get a mirror. (5)Now, by way of practice at the best way to win arguments, perhaps you should cite some evidence for that claim? And, don't forget- you made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. If you can't offer good evidence you are going to lose the argument. So, sometimes, the only way not to lose an argument is not to start it.

He won the argument. The implication was that the discrimination against the religious groups was widespread. he found nearly as many counter example as you cited example and, since atheists are a small minority, finding nearly as many example of them as theists being victimised shows that the discrimination is more common in the opposite direction to that suggested. It is difficult to use a search engine to find examples of discrimination by atheists against religious groups. trying to do so brings up lots of pages like the one I looked at earlier. They don't actually show discrimination by atheists against religious groups. They show misunderstandings and dishonesty or stupidity by religious groups.

One interesting point about the bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. It would be just as discriminatory (and thus just as illegal) if a baker refused to make a cake for a couple because they were atheists. Tell, me Jagella, how would you feel about it if that was your wedding? Would you be happy to be discriminated against? Well, the law gives the same protection to atheists, gays and theists. You are not allowed to show prejudice against any such group. Why did the church pretend that this was discriminatory? Dumb, or dishonest? Incidentally, Phi for all, the board may have ruled in favour of the bakers who refused to make a cake with offensive verses because to produce it would be illegal. It might have been considered an offence under the laws regarding obscene publications (or even, ironically, blasphemy). (Cue lots of arguments about freedom of speech) If making the cake would have been illegal then the baker was legally right not to make it.

No. I said the reason they are lying is political. It's kind of hard to see how you can pretend that the Right wing's carbon policy (essentially- full steam ahead) is an environmental policy as such. I think it's more reasonable to describe it as naked selfish greed. But, never mind. Try to cite some evidence- you say there's plenty so it should be easy and the 99.99% consensus* are all involved in a conspiracy. * (or as you, for some reason, describe it "consensus"- what's with the quote marks ?)