John Cuthber

"I ask those that are posting 'attacks in the name of religion', what is your motivation for posting these kinds of things? People come to this site and make statements and/ or ask questions. I sometimes comment on those statements or answer the questions because I want to inform the people who post, at least as far as I can. So if someone posts the assertion very doubtful assertion that "God doesn't exist, but the religion has benefit" I'm inclined to respond and point out that , at best, the assertion is one-sided. Religion has a very clear downside to it- (unless you think killing people is a good idea). If someone had started a thread saying "Photons are attracted to the North pole of a magnet". I would have pointed out that the evidence shows that they are wrong. Do you think I should treat assertions about religion differently? If so, why? What is special about ancient myths and creeds?

Call the first child Ab. Call the second one Abab. Call the third Ababab. Let me know when you run out of names.

I keep buying new ones (and it's a long time since I was at college).

One of the entry requirements is "The application should be typed, and filled out in comprehensible English." Also, since he has to get off his head before he can do this and the rules exclude things that might be harmful, he isn't going to get far. BTW,does this forum have a policy on publicising videos that promote taking psychoactive drugs?

I have known a couple of people who called themselves witches. I didn't think it was necessary to kill them. What was different about the killers in the case referred to is that they did believe that murder was the right option. That sort of belief is religious: as it happens it's a clearly defined part of the Christian faith (albeit a widely ignored one). Since witchcraft doesn't really exist, any so called evidence for it is a matter of faith, not fact. Oh, and whatever the story is with this couple, do you remember Moontanman's video? It's not like this behaviour is a one-off.

You seem to have missed the points that: 1 Nobody involved in the killing was in any way involved in witchcraft 2 The Bible does encourage killing people who are labelled as witches. Also since the Wiccans only got started recently, they can't have a lot to do with it. They are certainly not the ones referred to in the bible.

Actually, I think he may have just proved he doesn't read things properly. Though that's hardly news as he failed to read the bit of the video where it told people where the quote was from.

I'm quoting this part of an oldish post about entropy to see how it fits with newly published information. http://www.nature.com/news/the-unavoidable-cost-of-computation-revealed-1.10186 There really is a link between information and statistical mechanics. And, BTW re."If New Atheists are allowed to make any assertions about God then even I should be allowed to make theological or metaphysical assertions about God. ", the only assertion I make about God is that there is no reason to believe He exists. (And, BTW, I may be an atheist, but I'm not that new.)

Until we have a vaccine the point is moot. It may be possible to make some sort of vaccine that works for the insects but not people. In addition it might be easier to vaccinate lots of insects that don't have other things to do and/ or the total quantity of vaccine might be smaller and cheaper.

A collection of amino acids and small peptides.

Having said that, the questions you raise are perfectly valid. What would really be neat would be to add some sort of anti malarial, or better yet a vaccine, to the feeder.

"Dear , Is there any chemical which can activate bacterial action on digester( Contains mixture of Water and manure) and also enhance the production of Biogas from same input." None that I know of, but it's possible. Check the literature. "Further more, is there any use of sodium bicarbonate which is the product of biogas purification by passing it through Caustic soda solution." Sodium bicarbonate is a marketable material, but not a very profitable one. Also you would need to ensure quite high purity before you could sell it. Probably the best thing to do would be to boil the solution of sodium bicarbonate to make a solution of sodium carbonate which will absorb CO2 as long as it's cold and under pressure. "How can i know that Caustic solution is no more to remove further gas so i can recharge the solution of NaOH." The easiest way would be to measure if CO2 is getting through it. But none of this really makes sense. It's easier to not bother. The CO2 won't stop the gas being used as a fuel in most processes.

Do you understand that getting, for example, a weeks worth of drug in one dose would be bad for you? Do you realise that making a "slow release" version of a drug into an "immediate release" version is the same sort of thing?

Lets just count up how many things you got wrong there. For a start, here's the headline from that news story " Couple jailed for Kristy Bamu killing" So, it's clear that not just one person was involved. So this "The mentally unstable person killed " starts off wrong by not noting that more than one person was involved. It then contends that the perpetrator was mentally ill. That's quite likely- but what about the other one? " killed someone who they thought was religious (witchcraft)" No, they killed someone they though was a witch, in accordance with the teachings of their Bible. Exodus 22: 18 if you want to look it up. Now, the important thing to realise about witchcraft is that it's not real, so it can not be a valid reason to kill someone. The evidence of witchcraft was that he wet his pants. "Has the persecution of religion become it's own religion?" No religion was being persecuted. A small child, probably rather young to have well informed religious views, was killed by a couple of adults who did so because that's what the Bible says to do. "Or does believing someone is religious mean you belong to a religion? That would mean we are all religious then unless religion doesn't exist at all in which case what are we talking about and there is still no evidence." Where did that come from? Is it just a random rant? "I don't understand how rejecting religious belief systems (atheism) can condone or not condone murder. Are there conditions other than the one I've mentioned?" Simple, the fact that I don't believe in God doesn't affect my view on the morality of murder any more than the fact that I don't believe in Father Christmas. Why would it?

"Thank you for providing the source. " You are welcome- it wasn't difficult. It was , for example, given in the video quite clearly. "Furthermore the video provides no context of the material to which it quotes." Well, sort of. It does point out the exact place you can find the origin of the quote (though you somehow managed to miss that, which is puzzling. Did you actually watch the video?). I grant you it doesn't, for example, reproduce the whole book of psalms. On the other hand, in exactly what context does this "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones Against the rock." sound like a good thing? "Are you suggesting that we should go around looking for dirt and then proclaim it as other's truths?" No, but I think it's a very good idea to look at other peoples' "truths" and see just how dirty they are. Just out of curiosity, do you think we should permit the teaching of ideas like "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones Against the rock."? Also, just to clarify, atheism doesn't actually offer an opinion about anything apart from the existence of God. It doesn't condone murder but it doesn't actually condemn it either. On the other hand, as given in that text above , (at least some) religion is quite happy to kill people. I'm best acquainted with Christianity's version (and by extension Judaism and, I think, Islam too). They say things that many of their self asserted followers probably don't actually agree with. How about this 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. I realise it's a bit of a cliché, but it's still raises a valid point.

It's entirely likely that he will harm others too which worries me a great deal more than any harm he might do to himself. Since he seems dead set on doing this (and I use the term deliberately) I guess the best we can do is think of a less daft method. Does anyone know if you can refine mercury electrolytically?

So theology is allowed to make any statement it likes, provided that the statement can never be tested. Sounds like a total waste of time.

Does anyone else think so?

The video refers to psalm 137:9 which is part of the Christian and Jewish Bibles. Though that's hardly the point. And you seem to be deliberately missing the real issue. Religion does condone murder: atheism doesn't. However that's not the same as saying that all murder is due to theism.

You have missed my point. If you have not given us enough information to invalidate any patent then you have not given us enough information for a reasonable discussion. You should just wait until the patent is granted.

Aman, if, as you say, you think the explanation you have given is a good enough basis to critique your ideas then it's good enough to invalidate any patent. So you might as well explain, clearly, exactly what you are talking about.

Those murders were committed by people who believe fervently in something that simply isn't true. Believing in things that are actually true will not lead you to commit murder. Questioning things theat people tell you won't lead to to kill people. Learning to think for yourself won't either. It simply isn't part of atheism to kill people, but it is part of religion. That's why religion just isn't right. Here's a nicely illustrated example. Let me know if you find atheists making that sort of suggestion. Come to think of it, don't bother telling me. Just report them to the police.

When he says "I offer proof for the skeptics of astrology" he's not quite right, however the fact that people like him believe it is some sort of evidence for the skeptics' point of view. What he doesn't seem to have done at all is offer evidence supporting astrology.

Don't do it at all.

Yrreg You need to look very carefully at this "The reason is because the concept of God as the creator of heaven and earth cannot be rebutted at all. So they resort to making God sound ridiculous" and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum If one looks at the idea of God and shows it to be ridiculous then actually that is a rebuttal of the existence (or, at least the nature) of God. If you can't or won't see that then you are on the wrong forum.