John Cuthber

What? You don't buy flour, eggs, butter, sugar, meat, fruit and so on?

"Even the CIA was experimenting with psychic powers, and did so for years, until they finally realized they were wasting money on the modern day equivalent of witchddoctors. (Though they did do some interesting research on Scopolamine, which is more or less a perfect mind control drug." Which is true? It's a perfect mind control drug or the CIA wasted their money because it doesn't work. The truth can't be both. Incidentally, I understand that the answer is nearer to the "waste of money" end of the spectrum. They still take the trouble to "beat the truth" out of prisoners and that's only partly because they like hurting people.

"Must I list for you all the unspeakable crimes against humanity" No, just the ones that are not also undertaken by non-islamic groups. "This does not need a long protracted dialogue by many people to come to the conclusion that "In this day and age" Islam is the source of suffering of millions of people, two examples, Syria and Iraq." Indeed, but a slightly longer dialogue might find that the reason is not Islam per se, but the circumstances in which the people find themselves. If, through no action on your own part, you find yourself part of a group that is persecuted by, for example, a superpower you might feel you have no sensible alternative to join a fight that you didn't pick. "Suicide bombing just one example of what emanates from an Islamic culture." Or, then again, not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

Telomeres let the cell know when it's time to die. Most of the time, if people talk about cells that don't die, they are talking about cancer cells. I will stick with wrinkles thanks.

Possibly less dumb than whoever is taking the picture. There's no fence between the photographer and those teeth. However, I suspect photoshop.

DKDC It has nothing to do with answering the OP.

It's no joke.

And the smell of bacon can do the same for me. This whole thread seems strange to me. Deaf people have little idea what a phoneme is, yet they seem not to have any problems understanding things.

It might be quicker to list the analytical techniques that can't be used for this.

"Now tell me how photons are created in the sun? What is the role of gravity in this creation?." Nuclear fusion and essentially none respectively. Gravity just provides the bucket in which the reaction takes place. We can do the same thing without it http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/12/275896094/scientists-say-their-giant-laser-has-produced-nuclear-fusion or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor Your argument reminds me of the economic "theory" that the whole of society exists for the benefit of the people who empty the bins. We work so we can buy stuff that we (sooner or later) but in the bins, so the bin-men have work. We also pay taxes that pay the bin-men. We send our kids to school so they too can grow up to be part of the society which provides employment for the bin-men and so on. You can link practically anything back to these guys, but I doubt they really think they run the world.

"If you recieve a gift in life, and nobody in particular gave it, to whom do you ascribe the gift. Lady Luck, Mother Nature, a good soul, the Easter Bunny, fairies, Angels. What's the difference?" Among the differences is the issue of whether or not their purported representatives on Earth tell me to stone people to death for being people. That's the fly in the ointment with your argument. If I got my morals from religion, how am I able to say that religion gets morality wrong? If I got them by osmosis from society, how come I can judge society? How can our Prime Minister, whose upbringing, in religious terms, was probably quite similar to mine, believe it is acceptable to do what he does when I think it's abhorrent? Anyway, I'm still here with morals, but no religion. There's no way the OP is right unless you start messing with the definitions of the words, and if you do that you plingen the horbfugle.

"Except you discount religious ideas as being constituents of your own ideas of what moral behavior is." In much the same way that I discount the tooth fairy: because it's nonsense. So? "The truth that both ape and man are aware of, because its true." And, though you seem unable to grasp this, it's true without religion. Imagine there's a planet somewhere without religion, they might understand the merit of not hurting others because, in doing so, you invite being hurt in return. And I'm still here, with morals, but no religion. So it's still possible. Arguing that the original assertion in the OP is false is arguing that I'm not here. Do you not see why that seems a little foolish?

"Not every human society has a bill of rights, and a constitution that protects the rights of the individual, while simultaneously pledges the individual to a greater goal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" True, but those who live in a society lacking such provisions are likely to realise it's unfair. It's not relevant anyway. Morals are not always followed: so what? they still exist. "The protection of the weak is a strong common thread in the U.S. and this "idea" came from the Bible. As did tithing, As did doing onto others, as you would have them do unto you." Not really, the idea is documented as having predated Christ (and hence Luke) by nigh two thousand years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_Babylon I suspect that it's much older than that and predates history. It's obviously tricky to explicitly prove that, especially to someone who won't accept that its innate nature and existence in our ape cousins constitute evidence. Anyway, I still exist. I still have morals I still have no religion. (Please don't waste time pretending that atheism is a religion) The postulate in the OP is true based on simple observation. End program.

Kramer doesn't seem to realise that I can walk up stairs. The source of that movement can't be gravity because that works the other way. So gravity can't be the only source of movement.

If you dissolve salt (NaCl) in water, it splits up and you get a solution of Na+ and Cl- ions. It does that before any wires are put in or before there is any voltage.

So, this is an example of how, faced with new evidence, science changes what it believes happened. That seems rather better than the creationists' point of view.

"I am not in full agreement that morals must predate religion." Please yourself, but morality is present in us as babies and it's also present in our evolutionary forebears. Religion isn't. But it doesn't matter. The original post didn't ask about which arose first. The postulate is "You don't need religion to have morals." And I can prove it true by the simple expedient of existing. I have no religion, but I have morals. As iNow said, End program. (Unless, of course, you wish to call me a liar)

"But if morality is set by Forum rules and UN conventions, how is that morality that can be had in some natural universal, human way, without religion?" Did it not occur to you that the causation might be the other way round? AFAIK nobody needed to consult a priest when setting up this forum. "Either a person can come to morality by themselves, or they have to be led to it." There is evidence that we are born with a primitive sense of morals. We are, if anything, led away from it. One factor that might do that is belief in a deity who says "It's OK to kill the following groups of people...."

" Slavery, in and of itself, was not originally such a bad thing, " Yes it was. "I worked for a company for 24 and they no longer required my services and laid me off, killed me, said I was done...." Dead yet? No, OK that's better than slavery then. Gees, "Consider two villages that were at war; when one village is defeated, it may no longer have the ability to provide for its people. So what do the winners do" I considered that. I came to the conclusion that the war should not have been declared. In addition to the reduced death toll, it means I don't have to pretend that slavery is a good thing. Do you really thing there's a God up there who wants dead people + slaves? "If initially its "alright" to treat non-tribe members in a sub-tribe manner,..." it isn't "then racism is not without reason, and therefore no more immoral than slavery." That's consistent with the idea that racism is obviously wrong. BTW the site rules proscribe racism, so think carefully about how you reply to that.

OK, I own you, I'm tired of feeding you. I kill you. happy? Or do you think slavery means something else? I'm a wage-slave, but that's just a rhetorical term. It's wrong, even within it's own frame of reference.

The hole is just like a slit. Once the light has gone through it, it spreads out, by diffraction. That's my point. The pipe would need to be infinitely wide not to touch the sides of the beam. That's he point of a Gaussian beam profile.

I don't see any sensible doubt about the wrongness of slavery. Even by the standards of most religions, it's wrong. Have a look at what I wrote in post 25.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but it does. The end of the pipe behaves like a hole in a barrier so there's diffraction and, as soon as the light leaves the pipe, it starts to spread out. So, it doesn't have a well defined "direction" to change.

So you're just assuming that religion wasn't a part of society at some stage and then positing that people still had morals because they didn't die? Obviously, not If I was just assuming it was to do with our survival I wouldn't have mentioned the other reasons. Are you somehow unable to count to three or something? Pears, Are you saying that religion got it right when telling you where to get your slaves from?

Three things, if we didn't cooperate we would die out. we didn't die so we must have cooperated Our innate morals Our evolutionary ancestors' morals.