John Cuthber

Science does not affirm that at all. If you think it does, please cite some evidence (and please don't waste yet more time with arguments from authority). Otherwise stop making that false claim. I know the Ancient Greeks knew it was round, but older peoples thought it was flat. Since they are older, according to your argument, those older people were right so the earth is flat. Or do you realise that "old" isn't the same as "right"?

"Finally based on the fact that B12 is less than £1 a week to supplement i think its time we drop it from the charter." I presume that you intend personally to ensure that everybody gets their share delivered to them. Or are you still advocating mass murder? Water is pretty cheap too, but plenty of people die for the want of it. "So based on this information, which i will verify personally tomorrow by buying 300 supplementary tablets for myself. Then i think this issue of B12 will be disclosed, agreed?" Of course not. The price isn't the issue. How did you come to the conclusion that it was?

"Repentance properly understood does away with the karmic consequnces of past actions." still has no meaning.

Yes, there are.

"As you may know, PHOLEDs, which is short form for PHosphorescent Organic Light Emitting Diodes, can convert up to 100% of electricity into white light.." Nope, they can't.

"Look at this way, if you was a cow what would you want to do? keep being caged, watch your young die, being made massively overweight and having problems with muscular pain your whole life to then finally get murdered. (this is within regulation, regardless of behind the door cruelty and torture) Or would you say NO, ive had enough, kill me, and if all generations that follow are to be subjected to the same conditions, kill all my kids too, so they dont suffer?" Moo. I'm not a cow, so I can contemplate my future. So the question is meaningless, but designed to be emotive, rather than scientific. Why did you do that? Anyway, you can't sidestep the problem that way. Why do you want to murder the poor people?

"Of course the alphabets matters, it proves that a tradition worshipping a God had figured out the truth about this universe 5000 years ago" No, that proves it's old, not that it's right. Even longer ago they thought the earth was flat: doe that belief become any more correct when I tell you it's a very old belief?

Have you read this thread? there have been 3 pages of arguments. Karma doesn't exist so doing away with karmic consequences has no meaning: you can't abolish something which never existed.

"takes place whenever the result of an observation enters the consciousness of the observer" Wigner was unable to evince that, it was an opinion, not a fact. "You guys have underestimated religion and no matter how many times I say this you guys will never accept these facts of nature and its because you guys are deluded." No, we don't accept them because, like Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy, there is no actual evidence for them. Writing it in another alphabet doesn't make it evidence. "It doesn't rule out the possibility that we are actually in an immersive virtual reality, the external mind could easily make this empirical reality look real and hence it doesn't prove anything." It doesn't rule out the possibility that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, but it would be pretty stupid for me to believe in them too.

Yes, he is. They are the same. If you can prove otherwise you will not only advance your argument, but win a Nobel prize for chemistry. Bio-availability is another question. Derived very slowly is still derived. A quick search led me to this page http://www.thetoyzone.com/2009/33-most-deadly-substances-on-earth/ All but 5 of their top 55 are natural.

What would be the point of them killing their own meat after you decided to poison it? Did you forget what you had said at the start? You said "Okay so hypothetically speaking, if we could make it so animals become poisonous for human consumption" You are still advocating the mass slaughter of poor people and claiming that you are the one with morals.

No, they aren't. But why would it matter? You do know that petroleum derived materials and plant derived ones are the same , don't you? After all, petroleum is plant derived. Or are you one of the "natural is good, artificial is bad" believers who don't understand that most of the more potent toxins are natural?

It doesn't matter if Attila the Hun introduced the issue of Vitamin B12. Nor does it matter who knew about it. You still have to answer the point. How are you going to avoid killing people as you have suggested doing?

Personally, I prefer bacon, but that's not the point. No plant produces vitamin B12 so you are proposing to kill all the people who can not afford the synthetic material. Yet you seem to be claiming the moral high ground on the explicit basis of your own ignorance "What right does anyone have to kill another animal because you like its flavour? if ofcourse you dont need it to survive...." We could then look at the fact that, if we stopped farming most of the animals would slowly starve to death because it wouldn't be economic to feed them. Also, you overlook the fact that much of the world is covered in grass because that's pretty much the only thing that grows well. I can't eat grass, sheep can, and I can eat sheep. that's the only way that that ground can provide food for humans- yet you dismiss it without a thought.

Says you, and says you, respectively. Still no actual evidence ( though a remarkable misuse of the word "theory".)

Nope, just saying they are right won't get me to read them. You need to provide evidence, but all yo can do is quote old books. LOTR was, indeed, made up. So were the scriptures. Wigner is dead. Nothing which he ever said will detract from the fact that the mind is in he brain, as proved by the effect of drugs on the mind when they are present in the brain or that brain damage often affects the mind.

I really don't see the moral high ground in condemning all the poor people to death from vitamin B12 deficiency.

Today's logical fallacy is "begging the question" i.e. assuming the truth of that which you wish to prove. For examples "first they need to understand what the evidence from these old books are saying." assumes that those old books provide any evidence. They don't.

It's the weird use of a pronoun that got me worried. "The concept of relativity of motion was first introduced by Galileo...He used the Galileos ship thought" ( The missing apostrophe didn't help)

At the risk of being absurdly off topic, Irving was not even ten years old when Hitler and co died. He's not well placed to comment on how Eva Braun thought. And, to bring it back to somewhere near the topic. Immortal, you keeps citing old books and texts as if they are evidence. They tell you no more about God then The Lord of The Rings tells you about dwarfs. To continue to use them is an appeal to authority- it's no more sensible when you do it than when Iggy does. (Though at least you are not labouring under the bizarre misapprehension that I, in any way, condone the third Reich: it was shit and the guys who ran it were shits. It really doesn't matter what they ate nor why they chose their diet) "It makes perfect sense, according to the pagan mystery religions there is a Nous separate from the body and behind that Nous is the Intellect and behind that intellect is where the God resides." That's nearly consistent with my opinion that God is a figment of my imagination, just like the tooth fairy. He exists somewhere in my brain, but nowhere else. Where we differ seems to be that you think He created me, but I think we created Him. Also, I don't see why you think that understanding and the mind are separate from the brain. The evidence shows that they are part of it.

I got this far before it was aparently nonsensical "The concept of relativity of motion was first introduced by Galileo. In his principle of invariance he stated that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames. He used the Galileo’s ship thought experiment in his argument, among other arguments."

No. Some old books are on your side. They are not evidence. Please stop acting as if they are.

To be consistent, Christ should have stoned the prostitute That's what the law said and he said that he was not there to change the law. And I have news for you, people do collect taxes, declare wars etc. they do it by proxy, via a government. That's exactly what the government is for: to enact the will of the people. It may not always work well, but that is the whole basis of governement.

Moot point anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism And not repeating what is cited as Goebbels' propaganda isn't apologising for Hitler.

Same problem. Why was it only a local effect? Do you not realise that the sun is the sun? If there were two in China there would be two everywhere else at the same time. Everybody would see it. However reflections from clouds and lens flare would only affect one site. So, the evidence (taken together with all the people who didn't notice that they suddenly had two shadows, shows that there are not two suns. It's just some optical illusion. Incidentally, the site's rules expect you to answer valid criticism so I expect an explanation of the apparent gormlessness of nearly all 7 billion people on earth (Why didn't most people ever see two suns?) and some answers to this Meanwhile, back on planet earth. Does he explain who reset all the satellite TV dishes? Does he explain who redrew Galileo's pictures of the moon? Does he explain who rebuilt Stonehenge? If not, there's no real point watching is there?