Iota

But then in comes Islam to fill the gap that Christians leave. The sooner the Middle East is Westernised, the better.

There's a free online course running ATM by Stanford University http://online.stanford.edu/course/how-to-learn-math-for-students-s14 It teaches how to learn maths, and it's brilliant, so anyone who's learning maths at ANY level, give this a whirl. It doesn't take long, you have until December 14th to complete it, and if you do complete it, you are sent a certificate of excellence from the uni, which looks good on a CV or applying to uni etc. There's no obligations to complete it, it's free, simple and extremely useful. I recommend it strongly to anyone studying maths.

Haven't tried the other tests yet, but for the first 4 I score exactly the same as you did on all of them.

Unfortunately this condition excludes all truly religious people immediately. They're almost without exception incapable of doing this, with respect to their own beliefs.

I was about to explain myself further, because what I said previously seems to have gone straight over your head, but then I noticed your reputation of -142 and decided I'll go by my wits and take that as an indication, that I may as well not bother.

It's one thing to be opposed to religion, as many are. It's another to just throw it in peoples faces, and say if they don't accept it they're ignorant. You've put forward no respectable arguments for your position and can't expect to be taken seriously, in fact your argument stance could be likened to that of a religionist as it stands: "I don't like religion because I don't believe in God" - (who cares?) "Religion doesn't help society at all" - (absolute statement, false by definition) The benefits religion brings to society are outweighed by the harm done by religion; is a better statement, which can be argued rationally. As for keep If you have a problem with that then go ahead and be ignorant. keep that to yourself, there's no need to be insulting to others in your argument.

This is the key information. The fact that throughout Earth's history there's been occurrences of increased CO2 in the atmosphere leading to decreased ocean pH (usually on a more severe scale caused by mass volcanic eruptions etc. given), but there's no reason to doubt the occurrence of this phenomenon. Seeing as trends of a drop in pH in various oceans Worldwide is being observed as pointed out by swansont, it should be clear that the melting of the icecaps isn't countering the CO2 rise. Besides that, there is CO2 trapped in the ice caps, so when they melt, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

You're undermining the universe. Saying the answer is some imaginative entity is both unimaginative and extremely limiting, and the bias towards that concept in yourself and for example, those who conjure up religions, obviously comes internally. As imaginative/concious organisms ourselves, we try to project that onto the universe. You're not even tapping into the surface of the possibilities, and we can't... because we know nothing yet. A primal imagination would be a boring answer if you ask me. Not only that, it would only require further explanation.

I'm a Christian! Why are you a Christian? Because I worship a Jew, I'm almost a Muslim, and I'm almost an atheist.

Most of these religions not only relinquish responsibility, but also cannot wait for this World to end and ruin, so that their 'God' will return.

Sad to see that any concious thought in your mind has been hijacked and replaced by blind fear and superstition. Terrible fate.

Thanks, I'll go worship God in that case. I'll pray to Thor every night.

If X is an atom which makes a single bond with O, then 2 of Oxygen's electrons are made unavailable, because a single bond is the sharing of two electrons. This means there are now 3 lone pairs of electrons around the Oxygen atom non-bonded (6 electrons available for bonding). Note: the negative charge on XO-. This is because Oxygen likes to make 2 bonds to be stable by sharing 4 of its electrons (2 of its lone pairs, each bond = 2 electrons "shared"). Mg and Na will bond ionically (through electrostatic attraction) with XO-, to balance the negative charge. Na+ and Mg2+. NaXO can be made or Mg(XO)2. Because XO- has a negative charge of -1, it can bond to Na +1 stably in a 1:1 ratio. Mg however has a charge of 2+ (+2 charge), and so TWO XO- (-1 charge x2 = -2 charge) molecules are required to bond stably. Hence, Mg(XO)2. (I can guess at some gaps in your understanding of how electron valency and the different types of bonding work; look into the periodic table and how it's set out, and research the different types of bonding.)

Ahah.

Sounds like God's just opposed to us fixing the problems he's left us to rot with for millions of generations. He's an imbecile.

Thanks I'll give it a look! Agreed, there is absolutely more than one reason behind it. I just feel these things are believed so vividly, to the level of paranoid schizophrenia, hence the fear aspect being so strong.

Incorrect again. If you actually pick up a Bible and read it (I'd advise against it in your case) you'll notice that 'God' says slaves must serve their owners. God endorses slavery, having a master.

Something I'm definitely interested in finding out. I think over and above the fact it's comforting (the promise of heaven), the way religion really grips and ingrains itself in the mind is very simple, fear. The threat of hell, and they knowledge that God is omnipresent. This means you constantly have something to be afraid of, and that something is free-thought; thinking out of line. It's a total and constant surveillance of your mind, by the very thing that promises to torture you for eternity if you don't obey it.. Religion's success at propagating, IMO, is the fact it preys on the minds of the naive- primarily children, and the fact that it can easily last out throughout adulthood. Adults therefore implanting religion in the minds of children, each generation, and repeat. It's a very effective method. As a child you're susceptible because you lack knowledge, common sense, rational thought process and wisdom. Once you become an adult, and gain knowledge, common sense, rational thought process and wisdom, most of the time that isn't enough to shed a person of religion. Because the person in question won't apply these attributes to religion; because religion doesn't allow you to, out of fear. Common sense and fact are applied to every aspect of your life, every corner of your mind, EXCEPT for one corner of your mind- that's where religion resides. That's how it makes itself immune from questioning, from challenging; how the spell remains unbroken. Take this as merely another analogy, and not a serious part of this discussion; seeing as anecdotes and analogical comparisons aren't a real part or focus of my argument, except in the generic sense, and therefore holds little value. But I think it could be helpful to imagine religion is a virus in this respect also. The immune system protects you against pathogens (harmful micro-organisms)- the same way rationality 'protects' the mind against nonsense and falsehoods of all sorts. The problem is, viruses hide themselves in the cells of the host, meaning the immune system can't see the threat, because it's hidden within the normal body, and therefore the threat isn't detected. Religion does something similar in this respect, by sheltering in itself somewhere where the mind's 'immune system' won't attack it. If you overcome that defence, you can cure viruses. If you overcome that defence, you can cure religion.

This should be posted under the Homework section in future. Also you should show some working out of your own to show you've at least given it a shot yourself/ to show us what you understand. Here's the way to approach this question: You have a 2:1 ratio. So, 2 parts milk, 1 part water. In total you have 3 parts. Those 3 parts add up to make 60 litres. To find how many litres 1 part is- 3 divided by 3= 1. Therefore 60 litres divided by 3 = 20 litres, which is equal to 1 part. Water is therefore 20 litres. You have 2 times as much milk as you do water, so 20x2= 40 litres. There are 40 litres of milk. You then need to make a ratio of 1:2... that is, 1 part milk, 2 parts water. This means you need to make there be twice as much water as there is milk, JUST by adding water. Try work out the finish from there and let me know how you get on.

Cheers. I know of it, I'll look into it further. Even if they change religion, they're still subscribing to religion. The accuracy of the analogy remains unchallenged by this proposal therefore, wouldn't you agree? Yeah good point. Perhaps then, I should have looked to discuss the apparent comparatively more effective propagating properties religion has over other memetics. Political ideologies for example: much more rarely do parents feel the need to force a political ideology into their children's minds from a young age. People will often make their own mind up on which ideology they prefer by their own rationales, and will often switch between ideologies in their lifetime using the very same method of rationality. Rarely do people feel they are forced to subscribe to a political ideology, as they do religion, nor do they feel obligated to make others share their political beliefs. I'd say religion is far more viral in character than over other memetics, not just because it's better at propagating, IMO. But also because of the nature by which it's spread, i.e. by obligation by the "host". Persons seem to feel they MUST spread religion, and they must NOT believe anything different.

Slaves don't have to worship their owners. Nice God of yours by the way, jealous and proud of it.

For those interested I'd like to discuss the idea that, in at least one respect, and the one I'd like to concentrate on- religion behaves like a virus: because it spreads. It spreads from one host to another; it is an idea that can be put into a person's mind, and will end up in the mind of many others. It can be said to control the host for its own gain (to spread to more people), although it may sound foolish to suggest an idea can have its own motive or agenda- that is, to spread. It is much like a gene in that way, which again, cannot truly have a motive or agenda, but whose purpose is undeniably to replicate, and in the case of viral genes, to spread. Do you think this analogy is fair or accurate?

A population controlled by religion is much more easily controlled by government.

I have a solution then: we'll implant it in your left hand.

Very well explained, yes I can see that now, cheers mate.