John Cuthber

I'm asking for religion to hold to the same standards as science. Claims should be based on observation logic and evidence. That is consistency. Just as soon as someone comes up with evidence for God, we can look at that evidence properly. Surely we ought to hold the "big questions" to at least the same standards as we hold criminal trials. If they can't justify their point of view "beyond reasonable doubt" there's no reason for us to pay particular attention to religious believers and their opinions. Religion will deserve to be taken seriously, just as soon as it shows that it's actually (or at least, probably) right. Until then it's something I can dismiss just the same way that I dismiss the idea of fairies in my garden.

This is rather like the old chestnut about absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If, after years of looking at lots of experiments, none of which refutes a theory, it is reasonable to say that the evidence supports the theory. Stirctly, what you have to say is that the evidence doesn't falsify the theory. The point remains that the decision on whether or not to accept (strictly speaking, provisionally accept) the theory is based on the evidence. Let me know when you find some actual evidence for God (or, if you like something that is inconsistent with His absence)

There is no evidence that we even might be wrong about it in general. The only uncertainties are how bad will it be and what can we do about it. Twenty years ago you would have had a valid point- the uncertainties were much greater, but now there just isn't any reasonable doubt left. image from http://cleantechnica.com/2015/07/31/human-climate-link-still-97-nope-99-video/

Because, if we don't spend it on saving the world, the clear prospect is that there will not be many more years of women and bikes. Did you think that was a serious suggestion? Also, the cartoon doesn't suggest that global warming is a hoax. Once again: did you really think that was a serious suggestion?

No. It will not. The idea is just plain silly. Much of the money will be spent on people doing stuff. That will mean that they can afford to raise their kids and that they can buy stuff at the local store so the owner and staff of that store benefit and so on until you realise that the money doesn't just "evaporate". Even if all you did was spend the money on a huge statue of Mickey mouse you would still keep a small army of concrete makers 9or whatever) in jobs and so on. The only way to absolutely waste money is not to spend it.

1 the definitions of evidence are readily available in dictionaries. Why are you pretending that it's not well defined? 2 Popper's best known assertion is that if it isn't testable, it isn't science. The tests are made against the evidence. So the idea that Popper didn't think science was about evidence is bizarre. 3 you also don't have an understanding of the phrase "in principle" but I do. How very unfortunate for you because reality can have an utterly unshakable intolerance of different points of view. For example, my point of view is that if you step out of the top floor window of a sky scraper you are likely to die. Reality goes along with me in practically every case where this has been tested. presumably, you hate reality for this lack of understanding of different points of view. Do you understand that some "points of view" are objectively just plain wrong? Should I tolerate someone who thinks it's a good idea to sell vodka to school kids, or am I allowed to be intolerant of that point of view?

Ho Hum. Theories of God and of science are both examined regularly in judicial courts. so, you are, in fact simply wrong. For example, DNA typing was checked out in court and found to be valid. The idea of "intelligent" design was tested in court and found to be balderdash. And the point I referred to was a pretty obvious one. You said that the definition of evidence was unclear. Well, no, it isn't. Really? You don't see why someone wouldn't do something evil on the basis of a lack of belief in something. You must have a very poor opinion of humanity.

A thought atom is an idea that you dreamed up and that, quite possibly, nobody else thinks exists.

When someone provides the evidence for the existence of God that will stand up in court , you will have a valid point.

I think you are mistaken- the definitions of evidence are clear enough- there just isn't any for God. Science has a very clear agenda- finding out what is supported by evidence. There's nothing intrinsically elitist about it. Anyone can do an experiment and, if it overturns a previously held belief in science then science will cough, splutter swear a bit (we are human, after all) and, eventually, accept the truth. If, on the other hand someone shows religion to be wrong, or even just says that it might be, they risk getting killed for it. Now, remind me- who was being "picked on"? Oh yes, I remember now- the ones who kill the unbelievers. Did you think that through before you asked?

Not a problem. Just as soon as there's some evidence for God we will be happy to consider it coolly and rationally,. Until then I will treat it like the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden- i.e. not worthy of serious thought.

It is being.

Did you read the bit about not answering this ?

Well, that would be this bit "So why are we spending tax money on climate change or climate change mitigation?" and, we have been building nuclear stations for ages; the belief at the time was that we were heading for an ice age. So I don't see why this particular nuclear station is anything much to do with climate change. It may be a sensible way of ensuring power that's not dependent on the weather or, like the first nuclear stations, it might be to do with ensuring plutonium (and possibly tritium) supplies for weapons. I'm not even sure if the data show that nuclear power is carbon neutral, once you take decommissioning into account. It's still a bit dim to be paying another country to do it.

Why do you think air reflects light?

Sensie, What do you think happens to dead plants if they are not eaten?

You can do something similar using primes and multiplying them- but adding n^2 is probably easier.

Whatever your opinion may be on the role of nuclear power in the future energy supply, having a new reactor built largely by a foreign (and not altogether friendly) government is frankly bloody stupid. Who needs stuxnet when you wrote the control software? However, it's nothing to do with the thread topic. Perhaps you might like to start one for it.

Yes, I know it's used as a model. My colleagues use it as a model- for anthrax. Now, imagine that I was looking to find out how to get anthrax to form spores. I could simply ask my colleague- because I work in the sort of place where we do that sort of thing. (Don't worry- it's perfectly civilised- they even have a facebook page but, since my ideas don't always align with theirs I'm not saying whom I work for) Now imagine I'm some deranged bomber who actually wants to know how to weaponise anthrax, but doesn't work in a lab. Well, I guess I could post on a web site "How do I kill lots of people?" And, with just a little luck the people whose job it is to worry about that sort of loony would come and arrest me before I caused any trouble. So, imagine I'm just slightly brighter than that- I realise I can't ask about anthrax because it would set off every alarm in the security services. So I will ask about a different bug- but one which is similar enough that, if it works for B Subtilis, then there's every chance it will work (or at least be a good hint for) B anthracis. I'm not saying that's what this guy is asking about. But it's probably not a good idea to answer the question because (1) he might be a terrorist and (2) someone else, who is a terrorist might see it and cause havoc. And, anyone with a reasonable need to do it would be able to ask one of their peers.

Reminds me of this

Given the normal day to day variations in the weather, how you are feeling, the crowds etc, I suspect that the error in measuring the lap distance is too small to worry about. If you add things like hills, I don't think you need to do a better measurement. If you stick to a small number of routes then you will be able to watch how your lap times improve. Also, a quick thought for anyone thinking of going running:remember, however slow you are, you are still lapping the guy who isn't moving.

If the guys in the black helicopters are not looking carefully at this thread I'm not sure they are doing their jobs properly. Who needs the instructions for getting spores of the second cousin to anthrax, but is in an environment where they have to go and trawl the web for that information?

You explicitly didn't ask my opinion; but you posted it on a discussion site where I'm a member. So I'm perfectly entitled to give you my opinion, especially since you saw fit to insult my ability. As has been pointed out at length elsewhere, atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour and not collecting stamps is a hobby. So. No, in fact, I don't have a religion. Now; let me know what it is that I can't visualise as a result of that. It hardly matters. If you can't get to grips with the idea that I have no religion, what is it that I can only visualise because my "religion" is in a box marked "atheism"?

But the memories in both Johns are stored as arrangements of chemicals and cells in their brains. If those are identical then their knowledge will be identical. Both will know what H2O is.. If they have different experiences than they will become different. but that's not the point. The question is, when they are created and identical, is the copy conscious?

when I raised the issue I set up a thought experiment that's completely impossible. I specified that the electrons were all copied and that's impossible because of quantum mechanics. I'm not concerned that it's impossible in practice. I'd like to know what would happen if, in some way, it could be made. Now, if I was saying that you could only study consciousness by making this model then it would be a problem. But I only introduced the idea to show that you would need to show that consciousness was something outside of reality for it to be impossible to study. Since it is real it is open to study. Peter may not believe it, but the fact is it must be possible to study it simply because there are people who do study it. In the real world of medicine, people do measure it. Your point is like saying nobody studies sexuality because you can't get a test tube full of it. Meanwhile, the research goes on.