John Cuthber

Yes, I dare say it could. What do you think the effect on consumption of alcohol would be if people somehow thought it was "safer"? What would the overall effect on health be? I fear that you would reduce the incidence of one comparatively rare condition but increase the number of other deaths and injuries from alcohol. It's a bit like saying the best way to make cars safer is to remove the driver's seat belt and put a 15 cm spike on the steering wheel instead of the airbag.

The obvious issue with that "logic" is that a pink car is also evidence for the suggestion that all crows are green. And yet the two hypotheses are mutually exclusive. It is not possible for both the statements " all crows are black" and "all crows are green" to be true. Proof of one would be refutation of the other. Yet there's this bizarre notion a that a lot of entities like pink cars that are neither green nor black non-crows is "proof" that all crows are black and that all crows are green. That's plainly a fault. So reductio ad absurdum- the pink cars tell you nothing about the blackness of crows (as common sense suggests).

Why do you think this? Are you relying on actual physics here? If so, please explain it. Also, in most refrigeration systems the working fluid is circulated and vapourised. How do you propose to vapourise the nanoparticles?

More so on one side than on the other. (For those seeking evidence, check the thread on the Republican party having lost it's collective mind) It is not clear to me why anyone thinks brain surgeons need to be either educated or bright. Dexterous, and able to follow the directions left by other perhaps. It's not as if the idea is new or high-tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trepanning

Well, I had a quick look at the seven points you raised. 1 The Florida ministry doesn't understand that the tax payer has made the decision not to fund religious groups. Nobody told them they couldn't help the homeless and hungry as their faith expected of them- they just aren't allowed to use the taxpayers' money to do it in the name of God. That's fair enough- God doesn't pay taxes, nor was hHe offering to pay for the advertising 2 Billy Graham (whose church is known to be uncommonly rich- even as churches go) is upset that they have to pay taxes. Well, so what? So do I. And, unlike the church, I don't get to treat most of my income as tax exempt. So, again, that's fair enough- why shouldn't his church pay its dues? Render unto Caesar... as some bloke once said. 3 A group were allowed to carry on reading the Bible, but still felt they had been treated unfairly. Nope, not being allowed to read it might have been unfair. There was a valid question about what they were doing- someone asked that question. It was investigated. They were allowed to carry on doing it. Yet they portray it as if they were persecuted. Are they dishonest or dumb? 4 this one is interesting. I have some sympathy for the bakers who declined to bake a wedding cake for a couple because they are gay. However I personally think that the damage to society caused by intolerance and bigotry is so great that it overrules business decisions like this. If, for example, he had refused to bake a cake for a couple because they were black, would you consider that reasonable? If you accept that racism is simply wrong, then so is bias against gays. You can't cherry pick which prejudices you are allowed to share. In any event, it's not "picking on" religion to tell religion not to pick on others. it's simple fairness. 5 This is obviously nonsense; it says "the troops are no longer even allowed to privately oppose gay marriage." well, plainly nobody would know if they were doing it privately. Again, it's not "picking on" religion to tell religion not to pick on others. it's simple fairness. 6 The government charges the church to use its facilities- in just the same way that they would charge any other business to do so. It also stops the church monopolising the resource. Again, that's perfectly reasonable- but the church sees it as persecution. 7 finishes by saying "If there's a lesson here, it's that when Christians refuse to back down, we usually win." Yes, really- the church puts the story forward as an example that they are persecuted, even though they won. So, to answer your second question. Yes I dismiss the topic. It's like asking "Are lions picked on by mice?" They obviously can't be, because the lions are the ones in power, and every time you try to find an example of this "picking on" them, it turns out to not be true.

Why? What good will it do?

The thread, as a whole, may be short on value, but some of the points raised were voted up. They must have been seen to have some value to be worth rep points. So far, I have yet to see anything like evidence that religion is actually picked no (exploited, perhaps- but that's different from being bullied). So the thread could have been closed at any point by simply pointing out that the answer to the title question is : No.

The religious are not being particularly ill treated by Right Wingers (the reverse seems more likely to me). It is the atheists who are getting at least some of the grief from the Right. Fox news doesn't exactly celebrate atheism.

Is that point of view called ignorance? As for "But what meaning does "1 mole of O2 or 6.022*1023 O2 Atoms" have if the universe as we conceptulize it is infinite?" ​well... do you understand what " one dozen eggs or 12 eggs" means? Because (apart from your mistake about atoms and molecules) that's pretty much the same concept as "1 mole of O2 or 6.022*1023 O2 Atoms molecules" A dozen eggs is a dozen eggs, whether or not the universe is finite or not, and no matter how we conceptualize it. And the importance of a mole of oxygen might simply be that it will keep you alive for a while. The really neat thing about science is that it still works whether or not you understand it or believe in it. Anyway, while I'm happy to forgive you for playing devil's advocate, I'm rather less happy to have you tell the world that I can't visualise things because I don't have a religion. So, either support that allegation, or withdraw it. (I remind that the forum has rules about answering criticism of points you raise)

By whom? Who is in a position of power or other authority and is picking on the religious? What do you mean by "picked on"? Do you consider it to be "picking on them" to ask them to justify their actions?

So, he doesn't understand science? I can't say I'm surprised; he doesn't seem to understand economics either.

No we can't.

This whole tread is silly. It is the small and weak that get "picked on" and since religions are in the majority and have been granted power by governments, that's not really going to happen.

Not that it matters much, there are atheist groups http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21319945 they may well be a bunch of awful people but, even then they don't really represent most atheists. Most of us carry on our lives of not bothering to get together with other non sax playing, non golfing non theists.

If such an entity existed, he would, of course, present his evidence to the scientific community and we would test it and, if it were valid we would all accept that there's a God. However, in every case when someone makes such a claim, it turns out that they can't do it. They are never able to provide actual evidence that stacks up. They turn out to be "mistaken".

Fair point, but I'd say it was still about a hundred times easier to measure the weights of some solids and liquids than the pressure of a gas sample. And the requirement for thermosetting a liquid filled pycnometer is a bit les challenging too. Realistically, "white spirit" is the right answer here.

And now for something completely different: the Republicans party losing it's collective mind- live on TV. https://www.facebook.com/HuffingtonPost/videos/10153449869891130/

If you can actually do this "I would measure the human voice level of 20'000 men. " then the problem goes away. Just look at the genome of the highest pitched 5% and the lowest pitched 5% Those men will be the unusually low and unusually high ones whatever frequency "normal" might be. ​There are still problems with measuring a single frequency for speech- you would need to take some sort of average. Also, the physics suggests that bigger men will have lower voices. If you don't allow for that, you may find genes for height, rather than anything specifically to do with voices.

How fortunate the n that there is no evidence of that happening (or, at least where it does, it's got nothing to do with atheism). Where do you see atheists persecuting religion (or anyone else for that matter) because they are atheists?

Since waitforufo seems to have missed the point of the cartoon things like this are worth spending the money on- even if there is no human driven climate change. If we also save the planet that's a free gift. Now, how does that look like a bad idea to anyone? Well, it's bad news if you are in the business of selling oil or if your friends are in that business. So, perhaps we should look at the people who are suggesting that we ignore climate change and see if they are in those categories. Gosh!

It's roughly a thousand times easier to weigh liquids than gases.

Just for a start, much, if not most, of the gold dug out of the ground has been buried in the ground again. It is now buried in places like Fort Knox. So, from the point of view of the V A belts, nothing has changed. But, even if we had done something different with it, why would you imagine that the gold might affect the belts in any way? How could it do so? What connection is there between the metal on the ground and the belts in the sky? Unless you cangive convincing answers to those questions (and others) nobody is going to pay you any attention; nor should they.

And, there go the goalposts again. Did you think we wouldn't notice that there's a difference between "God is a theory" and "theory of a universe with a God."?

You say "My point is that many atheists can adopt dangerous ideologies." as if the two notions of atheism and communism are related. Is that what you think, and if so, why? Let's face it, Christ was a socialist so, if you are looking for links to communism, the place to look is as likely to be a religious commune as anywhere.

As fa as I can see, any religion is based on faith and we can do better than that; we can base our beliefs on evidence, logic and observation. So, even the best faith-based religion adds nothing.