John Cuthber

A couple of things, I will start with the easy bit Even if you say that there is some evidence for God (at least for some people) you still have to explain why people will put up with evidence for religion and base life-changing decisions on it when the evidence is so poor they wouldn't accept it as evidence for even the most trivial action in another context. You probably wouldn't convict someone of speeding just because another member of the public said "they were driving too fast". I also rather doubt that you are entirely convinced about which brand of soap powder washed whiter just because an advert told you so. Why the "special case" for religion that lets it get away with piss poor evidence? Also, to be honest I think the use of the word "broken" might be unhelpful here. Here's a rough draft of my take on the issues. Imagine a plough going across a cricket pitch. It's going to do a lot of damage, but it isn't broken. It's just not in the right place. Also, I can't run 100m in anything like 10 seconds. It's not that my legs are "broken" they just lack the training (as do my heart lungs etc). It's hypothesised that there's a part of the brain whose job is to look for "things that are happening because something or someone is making them happen" It's called agent detecting. It's very useful- it lets us hear a snapped twig and realise it's time to run away. On the other hand, it's not much use on its own. You would never stop "running away". There is another bit of the brain; its' job is to weigh up evidence and make use of past experience. Now imagine that you see "the world". it's complicated and it "does things" so the agent detection bit of the brain lights up and says "Something or someone has caused this". There are two ways the evidence processing bit of the brain can go. One way is to say "well, no human could have done all this- so it must be a 'superhuman' entity that's responsible" Another way would be to say "Actually, nothing in any small part of the universe is all that odd. It could be just stuff happening- in the way that the wind blows or drying mud forms polygonal patterns. OK the scale is huge but that''s all. Now my contention is that those with a background of thinking about complicated real systems are less likely to take the first route. I'm not going to make any friends by saying this but, I think the problem isn't that they are "broken": it's that they are "childish". Before you all jump on my head for saying that first think about how all the things that atheists liken God to ( Santa Claus, leprechauns, the tooth fairy...) are all things that we probably believed in as children. Next have a look at this thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66029-analytic-thinking-decreases-religious-beliefs/page__pid__674820#entry674820 If you are still unhappy, then I suggest you pretend I used the word "imaginative" instead of "childish". The "agent detection system" and the "evidence/ past experience weighing system" are not broken, just misused, and untrained, respectively.

Just before you die.

BTW, would someone like to explain to the scriptwriter/ librettist in that video clip that it should say "By rights she should be taken out and hanged"

I'm not joking, I'm happy to give people a chance to try. It's the other side of the debate whose proponents have to be closed minded. So here are the latest tries 1Anecdotal evidence 2Intuition 3Personal experience 4Scientific evidence 5Testimonial We all know of anecdotes and testimonials that turn out to not be true. Someone was mistaken or dishonest. That takes the edge off 1 5. The third type (personal experience) is evidence, but not from anyone else's point of view. Just because I know that I had chicken for dinner doesn't mean that I can convince you. So, it's not much use here Intuition isn't actually evidence at all. At best its the same as personal experience- but without the clarity of reasoning. So at best those 4 are all weak evidence; certainly not enough to support the existence of leprechauns. Would any of these convince you that leprechauns are real? 1 I have heard about leprechauns. 2 I have a hunch that leprechauns exist 3 I have met leprechauns or 5 I have a sworn statement from someone that they have met leprechauns They all look a bit thin really. So we are down to scientific evidence and, as Zapatos has pointed out, there isn't any scientific evidence for leprechauns. I therefore conclude that leprechauns don't exist. I can't be 100% certain of this conclusion but, let's face it, I'm not going to put a lot of effort into chasing the ends of rainbows looking for gold.

Feel free to take your time, I have been waiting 40 years for someone to offer any real evidence. Have a look here first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence so at least we are talking about the same thing

So, no evidence then. Seriously, how much of that could , for example, stand up in court? I'm not saying that the court is a particularly good standard, but it's somewhere to start. We have some hearsay, the testimony of a plainly biassed group who, at best have no first hand experience so, even if their statements are honest they are also hearsay... None of that would be recognised as evidence by a court. It would be laughed at if you put it forward as evidence in a scientific paper. So why is it considered "acceptable" as evidence for God? It's the same problem again. People who believe weird things are called loonies- unless their particular weird belief is religion, in which case it's acceptable. Evidence for the existence of God that would be dismissed as laughable anywhere else is deemed acceptable if its "evidence" for God. Why does religion think it has this privileged position?

Zapatos, How do you decide what's acceptable? Also, our hypothetical "leprechaun" believer presumably finds that the evidence for his belief is acceptable. But he's still clearly "broken" so that's not a valid distinction.

iNow, I bet that nobody answers this one. It would require a distinction between one imaginary thing (God) and another imaginary thing (leprechauns) . The two are logically equivalent- no proof or even decent evidence exists for either. The only difference is that one odd belief is very popular- and we all know that a million lemmings can't be wrong.

I have never seen any case of cancer where anyone could say with certainty what it was caused by. It's certainly very unusual for a direct cause to be known. However we do know that people who smoke tend to get lung cancer a lot more frequently than people who don't. We know that there are chemicals like benz alpha pyrene (BaP) in smoke/ soot/ tar that cause cancer in lab animals and we know how that chemical leads to cancer. And we know that BaP is present in cannabis smoke.

Is it true that radioactive elements contained within igneous rocks do not begin to decay until the magma from which these rocks were formed begins to cool? No. However the decay products can be left behind in the rest of the magma when the minerals crystallise out so, at the time the crystal forms there might be (for example) uranium, but no lead (or, at least, very little lead).

OK, so you knew that Einstein's belief in God was no more important than, for example, my granny's belief, just because Einstein was a scientist. After all, science hasn't a lot to do with religion. So why did you raise something which you knew wasn't true? Incidentally, re "I don't see much of another way to interpret the word "broken" or the notion that having a religion impairs your mental ability." My assertion would be that it was probably the other way round. People with impaired brains sometimes get all kind of odd ideas- like thinking they are Napoleon. We call this sort of thing psychotic. For some reason if their odd idea is that they have an invisible friend who made the world and could, but generally doesn't, do all sorts of supernatural things, we let it go as "religion". Why the difference?

I'm glad that you have realised why the fact that Einstein (who was noted as a scientist) was religious has no bearing on whether or not religion is actually true.

Nope, it started when someone made a mistake (which someone pointed out).

No, it's not beside the point to say that just because someone understands one thing does not mean they will understand another. It's well enough recognised to have been known in Roman times Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus Just because you don't like it doesn't stop it being true. And, WRT Villain's question: ask a five year old. "Bad" in this case doesn't need any complicated definition. If the cat stays near the fire it's because it thinks that cold is "bad". and WRT "Let me put it this way: Do you have statistical evidence to support the fact that religious people have inherently "worse" or damaged brain cells than non-religious people? " Yes, specifically the evidence is that they believe stuff that is a fairy tale, unsupported by evidence.

My point is that, at least in some cases, there is an impact on the benefits. One of the biggest problems with anti cancer treatments is nausea and vomiting. These problems can be so severe that they limit the dose of the treatment. Adding cannabinoids like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabilone to the treatment regimen can reduce the nausea and therefore increase the tolerated dose of the carcinolytics. That can make the difference between a successful treatment and an unsuccessful one. I'm not advocating smoking dope as a "treatment" for any and all cancer, but there are times when it is actually beneficial (albeit indirectly). And, of course, I agree that, if you were using it that way, it would still be better to swallow it than smoke it.

Oh look! A bunch of inevinced assertions used in support of an argument. "And chances are, that logical derivation never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law. And chances are, that evolved neurolgy and the human organism itself, never was, and never should be, the sole source of moral law. And chances are, that "learned" morality already has all sources of morality built in, so it cannot be the sole source either." It is sufficient, in most cases to consider (as your parents probably said) "What would happen if everyone did that?". If the outcome is bad, then the action is immoral. Most 5 year olds can just about manage this. I hardly think it needs a God to explain it to us. In any event, the "the chances are" without actually showing that the odds are calculable and as given, is a dressed up argument from incredulity. It is, in effect asserting " I can't see how it is not the case that...".

You could not take the anti cancer drugs and reduce your exposure even further. The point is not just that there is a risk, but that there is also a benefit. In particular, if cannabinoids let you keep taking the anti cancer drugs then they are a good thing. You can't just look at a risk in isolation.

That doesn't make sense. We know that there are plenty of great people in any number of fields who are "broken" in some way. For example it's believed that Churchill was depressive. Just because someone is a great physicist doesn't mean that they are a great theologist.

This rather ignores the fact that many drugs used in cancer treatment are in fact carcinogens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkylating_antineoplastic_agent If I have two options, one of which will statistically shorten the patient's life, but will improve their quality of life for the duration and the second will extend their life slightly, but make them feel like death warmed up, the choice isn't so clear (and I think the patient should make that choice). In any event this whole thread seems to be making a silly assumption which is that you have to smoke the cannabis to get an effect. I'm not saying that eating hash cookies is good for you but it's difficult to argue against them as part of palliative care in terminal cancer cases. It's also reasonable to include cannabinoid drugs in treatment regimens if the anti emetic effects (etc.) mean that you can deliver a larger, more effective, dose of the active carcinolytic.

Syntax is about the structure of sentences. To have any meaning there need to be sentences to study. As far as I know we are the only ones who naturally do this. Humans can tell the difference between "Man bites dog" and "Dog bites man", and also between "Man bitten by dog " and "Dog bitten by man" but I don't think any other life form can. The difference is syntax and I think we are the only ones who get it.

It isn't.

Nonsense.

I don't know about copper, but there are real gold compounds of that nature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium_auride http://www2.fkf.mpg.de/jansen/p150/english/aurides.html

If it exists it's a cupride http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUPAC_nomenclature_of_inorganic_chemistry_2005

Sounds like a whole set of bad ideas. Lots of mould/ fungi produce toxic chemicals that will contaminate the stuff. Since you don't know what they are it's going to be impossible to ensure that you remove them.