John Cuthber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

Did it not occur to you that actually answering might help convince me that you are not trolling?

It's true. There is none so blind as he who will not see that the root of his faith has nothing to do with evidence. Now, apart from an old book, do you have any evidence?

So far, that's as close to an answer as I have received to my earlier question. I feel it is rather lacking.

They would need a lot of pills or rather big ones. To get 2500 Calories a day would take something like half a pound of fat (or roughly twice that weight of carbohydrates or proteins).

Re 1 Great! Now you just have to accept that the evidence we want is the only thing that can properly be called evidence (as opposed to faith, assumptions etc) Re 2 Yes, that's right we want evidence that deserves the name. Re 3 Who is "we" in this case and on what valid basis can you assume that you are operating on something "higher"? To me it's clear that it's much of a lower rank- it's superstition. re 4 Great, now you just need to accept the idea that you cannot reject the null hypothesis i.e. that there is no God. Re 5 So, no evidence then?

To a fair approximation threes grow from the tips of their branches. The trunks get thicker but not much taller.

No, but there's nothing that special about my gut bacteria. If the robot was looking for e coli it could find them in any mammalian gut. There's more e coli (by mass) in the world than people

I didn't move the goal posts. I just left most of them tacit. Which of those properties do you not think is applicable to the traditional view of God? (BTW, loving and beneficent are practically identical in this case anyway) My viewpoint is perfectly consistent. If you accept that God has the properties generally ascribed to Him (that's explicitly an assumption BTW) then He doesn't exist. And where on earth did this come from "Analogies are no longer acceptable for fear someone, somewhere may take exception?" I didn't take exception to your comment and I doubt anyone else here did. I was simply making a statement of fact. If it upset you that's really rather more your fault than mine. You raised the issue. So, rather than worrying about you seeing the same goalposts from different angles and claiming they moved or discussing my late mother (whose resemblance to a God is pretty superficial, even from my point of view), perhaps you would like to stop trolling and answer the point I raised. Why does God kill babies with earthquakes?

On this planet: however, your mileage may vary.

If you don't read then we can't discuss it. You didn't need to raise the issue, or make it personal.

Ho Hum. I guess you missed the other bit of what I said "If He exists then he's a bastard, not just for things that happened to me but to so many others too." Had all the babies who died in the last natural disaster (take your pick of earthquakes, plagues etc) been out playing ball and not doing their homework? It's not just me: it's everybody. It's not just that he didn't help me- it's that there has never been any sensible evidence in the last thousand years of Him helping anyone, and yet, that's said to be His job. He's either a failure or non-existent. Incidentally, since her remains were cremated on Friday, it's fair to say that my mother doesn't exist.

If, as He is usually portrayed, He were a beneficent God, you wouldn't have to ask. What I am saying is that: I was in trouble last week A beneficent, omnipotent God would have helped me (or He wouldn't be beneficent). He didn't So He can't exist. If He exists then he's a bastard, not just for things that happened to me but to so many others too. Yet all the religions say He's not a total bastard. So He certainly doesn't exist in the way He's portrayed.

It's a traditionally defining trait for Gods that they are omnipotent. Clinton doesn't end world poverty and suffering because he cant God doesn't because He's a bit of a shit, or He doesn't exist. But the "bit of a shit" trait there is at odds with the widely asserted characteristic of a "loving" God.

Justin, It is true that race is currently a deciding factor in the make-up of prison gangs. However if you segregated jails it obviously couldn't continue to be so. However, I know from personal experience (i.e,. the truth) that gangs can , and will form even where there are no racial grounds for such a division. I'm not the one doubting the truth here. The truth is that people form cliques. In prison those can become gangs. The gangs will still form so it's sensible for me to doubt that segregation will prevent gang violence inside prisons. When you say " All beings have a tendancy to go towards what they're familiar with. But I do agree that if that reason was taken that they would probably find a new one." you argue against yourself. And you also contradict yourself when you then says "I had the good fortune to grow up in an area where there were no gangs.". Well, my best guess is that there were gangs, but you didn't know about them. "To me a gang is a silly thing. I always thought that people need to stand on their hind legs like men instead of needing others to fight your battles for you, " That works just fine- until you come up against a gang who, for example, want to take your money.

Or copy the NSA in on every email you send, to save them the trouble.

The comparison with Bill is silly- nobody claims that Bill is omnipotent.

I'm trying to work out if that's a serious assertion or a parody.

What's new? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)

As far as I'm aware, humans are the only species who post stuff on discussion sites without bothering to do any research. If I'm right about that then this thread does display uniquely human behaviour. Now displayed twice.

I doubt that. They would find something to form "gangs" about. I grew up in an area where there were precious few people who were not white protestants- so they formed gangs about whether their parents were first generation immigrants to the town or not. And citing South Africa as anything other than example of how not to deal with issue of race is likely to leave you looking silly.

As far as I'm aware, humans are the only species who post stuff on discussion sites without bothering to do any research. If I'm right about that then this thread does display uniquely human behaviour.

Did you all read the bit where it says "I seek and desire Hg 196... which naturally.. is .15% of all naturally occuring mercury." So, just how radioactive is it likely to be?

If it was looking for species by weight it might have been more interested in his gut bacteria than in him.

It rather depends on roughly how much oil there is, and what else is present in the water.