John Cuthber

The heat capacities are a red herring too.

Tar, rather than talking about redundancies where you work, or your abilities as a psychic, why not address the real issue. How could a society without morals hang together long enough to create a religion? Stop wasting time with off-topic red herrings like "But how are you going to get them all to follow the Golden Rule." Incidentally, most social animals have non-verbal communication skills that benefit the group- sometimes at the expense of the individual. They have , in that lose sense, morals. Yet they have no religion: horses do not ponder the creation of the universe or the likelihood of an afterlife. So your example argues against your point,rather than for it. How could a society without morals hang together long enough to create a religion? Stop trying to bullshit us and either answer it or accept that you are wrong.

Yes and no. If you used anhydrous HF then you would (possibly) get UF6 (I rather suspect you would get a fluoro-uranyl fluorosilicate of some sort) In aqueous solution you would get a different mess. Frankly, if you know that little about chemistry I'd advise against working with uranium hydrofluoric acid: it's rather toxic.

The heat has to go somewhere. In principle it's possible to make that "somewhere" the rest of the room or something so it doesn't do any harm. http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/optical-filters/shortpass-edge-filters/heat-absorbing-glass/2403 But a better solution would be to replace the halogen lamps with LED ones. Putting a 20 dollar filter in front of each lamp is probably more expensive than replacing them

"Obviously John Cuthber has been able to logically define clear moral standards based on just one thought from the Bible "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Good job. Perhaps you can straighten out the Ukraine and North Korea based on such a scheme. Perhaps not." Nice soundbite, but poor logic. If all the people in North Korea (including the loony in charge) actually followed the idea that one should "do onto others as you would have them do onto you." do you not think that would essentially solve their problems? Incidentally that school plaque says the honour code came from the school founders, rather than their religion. It seems a sensible enough code. Anyway, I'm still not religious and I still have morals.

Uranium glass contains typically 1% or so of uranium (presumably as a silicate). The rest is glass (hence the name). So, at best the acid might leach uranium from the surface of the powdered glass, but most of it would be stuck inside the grains of glass. You won't get that out unless you dissolve the glass somehow. That's why Enthalpy said "Last time I had HCl in glass it didn't dissolve it." Frankly, if you know that little about chemistry I'd advise against working with uranium: it's rather toxic.

"The glass I just grind up into powder, than wash it in HCL to dissolve the uranium oxide." What uranium oxide?

A good fraction of the people mentioned in the Quran are mentioned in the Bible too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_persons_in_both_the_Bible_and_the_Qur%27an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_persons_mentioned_by_name_in_the_Qur%27an The stories of, for example, the creation are pretty similar. I pointed out that Hitler may have lied, not just about his faith, but about other things too. He's dead. We can't check. Who cares? He, in at least some ways, was backed up by the Pope at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Pope Am I now going to see an argument break out about whether or not the Pope was Catholic?

Let's face it, Alan has lost the argument. Among other things, he lost it when he said "Bin Laden was most definitely a Muslim" There's genuine debate about that. And, since Islam follows largely the same scriptures as Christianity, whatever you say about one group can be said about the other. I'm not ( as Alan seeks to assert) some sort of authority on the scriptures. It's just that I have access to the internet, and a search engine finds stuff for me. This is not some arcane understanding or deep truth, it's just reading the words. That's still not as funny as claiming that the Roman Catholic Church is "a tiny segment of the Christian community". I'm going to be giggling about that one for a while.

You are doing a Masters and you can't spot this? What is the definition of a concentration gradient. What changes during exercise?

"To suggest that Hitler might have been indifferent to Judaism, is to ignore the records of history, he hated the Jews and thought of them as subhuman entities on the level of apes," Are you saying that on the basis of what Hitler said? If so, you should apply the same logic to the other things he said- for example his many references to God. "And why do you persist in posting all those irritating Wikipedia links some of which are not edited or verified as accurate, must I just swallow what is on that website as the gospel truth (for lack of a better phrase)" do you remember posting stuff from wiki in post 144? Why are you allowed to cite it, but not me? "Again you cherrie pick a tiny segment of the Christian community" LOL "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with 1.2 billion baptised members." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church As you say "Go back and do a little research before making such a nonsensical remark!" And, re "John if someone said to you that the sun rises in the east at dawn, you will come up with some inane suggestion that it does not! Yes Hitler is dead!!" http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Multiple_exclamation_marks

Well, I plainly didn't get them from the religion (so anywhere else I might have got them is OT but never mind that for the minute) I didn't get them from my community or family with whom I disagree on many issues. So Where else did I get them? Are you suggesting the sears' catalogue?

"Are any moral values that the caveman would come up with, under those circumstances similar to what you are talking about, in terms of inate, prior religion, morals?" The volcano had a "right" to be angry because..." is a moral judgement. And, in your scenario it's a prerequisite to religion. ""Religion has yet to catch up with quite a few aspects of morality." Like, for instance?" Gay marriage, Contraception. Killing infidels. Did you think there was a shortage? "You are here with no particular religion, but take the peices from each that suit you." Utter bollocks. I derive practically all my views on the matter from the notion that one shouldn't inflict on others what one wouldn't choose for ones'self. "An individual does not have to believe in a particular god to have morals, but he/she must believe that someone else cares how they behave" Nope, I sometimes act in ways that nobody else will really know about, and my ideas of right and wrong apply to those to. You seem very sure of yourself- to the extent of claiming to know what I do and what I believe. It's a pity since you keep getting it wrong. "Religion provides such a sounding board and common set, and has been providing it for many a century." And, if it were the source of morality, we would still have slaves.

Do you realise that you have yet to answer my points about the requirement for morals before there can be enough of a society to found a religion? Also, we change our morals (for whatever reason) and those changes precede the comparable changes in religion. Religion has yet to catch up with quite a few aspects of morality. So we plainly don't get our morals from religion. Who cares, I'm still here with morals and no religion. So the answer to the OP is still yes; you don't need religion to have morals. Nothing you say will change that simple fact.

How do you figure that our morality has anything to do with our religion which in my case doesn't exists and in many people's cases includes the legitimacy of slavery? Our current view of what's right does not include keeping slaves. It used to The religion didn't change. the morality did thus it is clear that the morality did not come from the religion (which was used as a "reason" to continue the slave trade). If our morals were derived from our religion then they couldn't change (because the religion is written in a Big Book). "If morality can be had, without religion, who do you figure will make the final call as to whether your behavior has been good, or bad?" Society- of course. One thing's for certain. It won't be religion because they would still have us stoning adulterers and such. Seriously, if you think that morals come from religion, how come we now have morals that differ from religion?

I guess it's progress to go from this to this But this "A human mind can not have something in it, that did not come from the world" is still nonsense. Like unicorns and God there are plenty of things in the mind that are not in the world. one of them is morality. And this "But since religion and morals have the same source, it is either God or man that has provided them." is irrelevant Morals and religion may have the same source, in that they are human constructs, but who cares? Spaceflight is a human construct, but it's bizarre to say that it is the cause of religion. It's clearly possible to have morals without religion. I do. End program.

"Any religion you cite, was predated by the ideas that created it. The ideas had to come from someone's mind." Notable among those ideas is the concept of morality. So, there's no question that morality turns up first.

"Disagreed, in the sense that if morals already exist, without religion, you would not be able to find a group without them." And I can't find such a group; so you have just supported the idea that religions are caused by morals, rather than the other way round. From time to time you might get small groups without morals. They won't last. Other than that, are there any groups without morals? "Certainly the morals that religion promotes are sensible and workable (for the most part) or they would not take hold in a population." Nope, that's the wrong way round . If religion opposed the morality of the community, the religion would never start. "I am presupposing there is no God. I am presupposing there is religion, and working from there, in a logical fashion, to understand the role that religion has played in forming our morality." Again, you are putting the cart before the horse. Without morals you can't have a society. and (as I have explained before- though you seem to have ignored it) you can't have a religion without some sense of moral society. The proto-priest says "I will intercede with the Almighty to make your crops grow, as long as you feed me and provide for me" And one of two things happens. in a society with morals they accept the deal. In an amoral society they hold a knife to his throat and tell him he's damned well going to intercede and, when he's finished, he can get his own dinner. Religion isn't possible in a society without morals.

I'd not even try to do that conversion. There are other materials from which you could make benzene much more easily. Also, messing about with dichlorobenzene and hot catalysts is a potential recipe for making PCBs On a related note, something like this http://www.researchgate.net/publication/229666203_The_hydrodechlorination_of_chloroaromatic_and_unsaturated_chloroaliphatic_compounds_using_a_nickel_boride_reagent might give a clue. The material is solid because of two factors, the aligned dipoles of the C Cl bonds and the van der Waals forces. The former must be significant, because the other two isomers are liquids.

"Darwinism, and Christianity are mutually exclusive of each other" The church doesn't think so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution Or, from another denomination here http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/medical-ethics-health-social-care-policy/darwin/malcolmbrown.aspx "Nothing in scientific method contradicts Christian teaching" or even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution And, if that's a significant part of the reason why you think Hitler was an atheist, you might want to think again. Of course, Hitler is conveniently dead so nobody can ask what he actually believes. All we can do is look at what he wrote. And, since Hitler talks quite a lot about God in his writings, many people would come to the conclusion that he believed in Him. But, in the same way that people can read that the Bible cites Christ as saying "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." and believe that Christ meant "The laws have changed" those people might believe that Hitler wrote about God because he didn't think God existed. Other opinions may vary. Interestingly, all the so called evidence for Hitler's "atheism" doesn't actually include Hitler saying (or writing) that he doesn't believe in God. The stuff that he did write indicates that he did believe (of course he may have lied when he wrote that - he's not known for his honesty. Perhaps he was quite indifferent to judaism, but needed a scapegoat for Germany's problems).

He certainly talked a lot about that God he didn't believe in.

The mixing of water and alcohol is exothermic. Good luck disentangling these effects. However, if you start with (separate) ethanol, water and CaCl2 and you end up with a mixture of all 3 the energy released must be the same no matter what order you mixed them. Incidentally, it's possible that alcohol doesn't mix with a concentrated solution of CaCl2 in water. It doesn't mix with aqueous solutions of MgSO4 or K2CO3.

But the evidence from our ancestors is that morals (of a sort) were there before religion. Otherwise religion could never have got started.Imagine the first proto-priest saying "You should worship God because He created the universe" And getting the reply "So what?" There's only some basis for that worship if there is a morality that says we should thank people who did things we like. The formwork analogy is a good one. But you have transposed the roles of religion and morality. You wouldn't be able to set up a religion in a group of people with no morals.

Two minutes and thirty-two seconds is not "in perpetuity" I presume you have no actual evidence.