Strange

You may have looked at the words but, having found they disagreed with your faith, you dismissed the ideas without further consideration. I guess you are one of those who think that their faith trumps reality.

As is often the case, what you think is wrong: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Five-mental-disorders-genetic-links.aspx

Indeed, the rate at which he throws a variety of logical and rhetorical fallacies into his incoherent posts, suggests he has no idea how to carry on a rational discussion. (And, I suspect you are also correct in that he will see your and my posts as confirmation of his prejudices. And probably that we feel angry and/or threatened.)

I am not sure of any such thing. There is (currently) no way of knowing whether the universe is finite or infinite. As you are the one making definite statements, you are the one who has the burden of proof. But, despite that, I provided you with some information on the current state of knowledge, which you dismissed without even looking at it.

Traditionally, chefs have been men. It is only recently that a few women have been allowed to break into the professions. (And, until recently, midwives were almost all men.)

I'm not sure why you said this. You haven't previously claimed this, so why would you suddenly say you don't want to prove it? Nor do I. It is a discussion. As part of a rational discussion on a science forum, I (and others) are asking you to support what you say.

But is that different from measuring any other value? You can only measure the charge on the electron within certain error bounds and, as you say, we assume they all have exactly the same charge because it is quantised. I guess I was really asking if measuring the charge of a photon or neutron as being zero is any different from measuring the charge of an electron or proton as being 1 (or -1)?

More CO2 is not good for all plants. It will reduce rice yields, for example. Which, in case you don't know, is a vital staple for billions of people. Please stop repeating this false statement (aka lying). It is clearly not a single data point. We have millions of years of data from all parts of the world. And if you are just talking about the period where warming has been observed, we still have thousands, possibly millions, of data points. Thousands of researchers. Thousands of peer reviewed papers. Your opinions appear to be based on ignorance of the science. Unless you would like to cite the paper where a single item of data is used?

That "fact" is what you are being asked for evidence of. I see you have none, other than your personal opinion. (Can we assume you are close friend, if not a sock puppet, of evobulgarevo? He is equally irrational.) That is not very specific. And doesn't seem to be evidence of "many". I can think of one person who espouses views like this. I don't know if anyone takes him seriously. IF there is a story? You mean the one you have just made up? There is an entire multi-page thread based on one person complaining that atheists were mean to him once. And therefore all atheists are bad. You sound equally bitter. Presumably you have a specific atheist in mind? I certainly haven't heard any atheists (or religious people) say that. (Well, there was one annoying radio presenter in the UK who spent an entire program telling us how brilliant he was. I have no idea if he is an atheist or not.)

Indeed. Gater's unshakeable belief (presumably one based on religion) that the universe is infinite and eternal has no effect on whether it is or not.

Why can't we measure zero?

What is the difference? We can quantify it: zero.

You have already failed to provide any support for this claim. Don't worry, no one who claims this ever provides any evidence. Could you be any less specific? Maybe leave off the "Ted"? So you have no evidence to support your claim. Therefore it can be dismissed. Did I say that? No. I asked for a reference where Einstein said that "time is circular". This is the logical fallacy known as a "strawman argument". You mean, much like your unsupported opinion of the thought patterns of the average atheist. Nothing to see here. I don't think that pointing out your logical fallacies and/or lack of reading comprehension has anything to do with ego. It is the sort of thing I routinely do in engineering reviews and in forums like this. Another unsupported assertion. Why? What have I failed to understand? As I say, that is reasonable subject for discussion. But not what you originally said. No, I am saying it because you moved the goalposts. You originally said: But then you changed it to: So where does my ego come into it? And why would the unsupported comments of some unknown person in the Internet have any effect on my "self worth", anyway? And I am trying to engage in a discussion, but it is hard when your posts are full of logical fallacies and non-sequiturs. Some evidence to support that would be nice.

So it is just your personal opinion, not any sort of empirical fact. As someone said, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This seems to be the case with most of your arguments. If you preceded all of your statements with "I think, for no reason whatsoever, that ..." then it would be a little more honest. Rather than asserting your beliefs as fact.

Citation needed. He is not a moderator. Another important part of science is "attention to detail".

Irrelevant to (modern) science. No one claims that science does (or should) have "all the answers". So also irrelevant. A popular myth, but a myth none the less. Perhaps you would like to provide some examples to support this argument? This is a version of the etymological fallacy and is thus irrelevant. Citation needed. Really? I can't see anything in that quote about me or my thoughts. (Apart from which, this is the fallacy of argument from authority.) What possibilities? That theories that have been shown not to work might still be correct? Actually, science is open to these possibilities. They repeatedly test existing theories but some people go back and re-check rejected theories with new tools or new evidence. Er, no. That is not what I said. Perhaps you should read more carefully. Ah, so you point is that anyone discussing religion should be well-versed in theology. That is a reasonable argument. (And one I don't have a definite opinion on.) However, it is not what you said. This is know as moving the goal posts. Another logical/rhetorical failure.

Yes. By showing that some ideas don't work and others do. But this appears to be a non-sequitur. Not really, no. But this appears to be a non-sequitur. Of course not. But this appears to be a non-sequitur. Let's remind you of the question you were actually asked: You: And so I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology. Me: Why would a scientists need to be well versed in theology? You: Science needs to be well versed in everything it addresses, otherwise it's not science. Me: Does science study theology? You: <random, irrelevant questions> So, why do all respectable scientists need to be well versed in theology? It is not a subject that is relevant to them (apart, perhaps, from a small number of social scientists studying religious belief). Please try and (a) answer the question and (b) stick to the point.

You dodged the question again. Impressive. Why on Earth do you think you have offended anyone?

The only context I see is you propagating a common myth. (And, yes, I am a real engineer.) Does science study theology?

He says, dodging the question again.

You seem to be one of those who interprets any disagreement as people being upset or angry. How odd.

This is a surprisingly popular myth. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/left-brain-right-brain-myth/ That doesn't make any sense. Why would a scientists need to be well versed in theology? There is no logic or proof involved in that.

I have never met an atheist (or scientist) who thinks that. Atheists, for example? This seems to be a popular idea, but it has no basis in reality.

And even if he had access to data that showed his law of gravity didn't always apply (e.g. if observations could have been made of the precession of Mercury) he would have been stumped. Einstein's work depended on a lot more than just knowing that Newton's theory was "wrong" (but that was obviously a motivating factor). It required the mathematics of differential and non-Euclidean geometry, and so depended on the work of Monge, Gauss, Riemann and many others. It was also inspired by his own theory of special relativity, which depended on Maxwell's equations as well as the work of Lorentz, Poincare and others. So developments in science, as with any other area of history, depends on context, available knowledge, technology as well the work of individuals. Interesting article: I always assumed that Newton had used Kepler's observations to derive the law but apparently (I have lost the reference, I'm afraid) he didn't. But did later show that Kepler's laws could be derived from his law of gravitation.

It would take implausible amounts of energy to do it that way. You might want to take a look at this: https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/