So people who get the "unlimited long distance at no extra charge" cell phone plan who talk on the phone 12 hours a day should have their calls dropped?
What? There's a constitutional right to MySpace privacy? This ought to be good.
I have talked publicly about doing unususal things. My friends and I used to talk about the best way to dispose of a body while looking around the sporting goods section of Wally World. Does that mean a cop can begin an investigation?
Duh, yes! Are you really saying that a cop can't talk to you or ask to look in your car under those circumstances? And I did say "ask".
What if he finds a body nearby that was disposed of in a creative manner with no other evidence? What would the trial be like? Just because they heard me talking about body disposal and they found a body, does that mean I'm guilty?
Duh, no! You can be investigated based on circumstantial evidence, but not convicted based on it. If they needed proof before they could investigate, what's the point of having investigations? - You already have proof! Cops investigate lots of people, and the cops know that most of them will be innocent, but in your freaky world, the cops couldn't even ask you if you have a alibi.
Lets say I'm unpopular in school. To boost my reputation, I decide to blog about how I burned down a house. I got most of the details from $local_news and just made the rest up. Now, they always leave out details. Let'say I fill in $accelerant from last month's CSI. Just so happens that the real criminal got the idea from the same place. They have your claim, they have you knowing an unpublished detail. Will I be convicted?
Whether or not you're convicted will depend on what other evidence they find and how fast you stop being an idiot. Bragging about committing crimes will attract cops - duh! And if you do get convicted, you have only yourself to blame.
What if I have a pic of me testing a gravity bong with tobacco. Should my school (assuming I'm at least 18) be able to suspend me?
In my opinion, no. If it isn't school related, the most they should be able to do is inform your parents, and sometimes not even that.
What about if I post a chat log of me talking about BSDM with a 14yo girl? Just because there is text containing the claim that she is 14 does not, in fact, mean that she is 14...or even a girl. Should that open the door for a child-sex investigation?
Duh, yes, again! Are you really saying that talking about commiting a crime in public isn't a reason to look at whether you've commited a crime or not? Not convict, not arrest, not even probable cause for a warrent, but just investigate?
Who is to say that my blog is not a work of fiction?
You are! If it's fiction, state that clearly (like most sites, TV shows, and movies), and don't be suprised if the cops ask you a few questions when a real crime happens that mimics one of your stories. You don't have to answer, and they can't do anything but watch you (while you're in public) and ask other people questions until they have some sort of solid evidence.
Then why should they troll MySpace looking for, and opening investigations on, stuff that may or may not be true?
Evolutionists see their theory as the only allowable one in the game. The only one allowed to be considered by science.
If a creationist/ID theory was made that actually fit the critera of a scientific theory (call it X), many scientists would give it a chance. Sure, there are some "evolutionists" that would be blinded by their own prejudices, but not that many. The hard part would be that the many of the reasons for promoting X would be carried over from creationism/ID, so there would be quite a stigma to overcome.
It seems that no one wants to admit that there is a "second best" explanation.
What's the second best theory of gravity, angels pulling you down?
But seriously, there's Darwinian evolution vs puncuated equalibrium, gene swaping among early organisms vs single lineage, half a dozen models of the details of human evolution, arguments over the importance of different kinds of selection (natural vs sexual, etc). There's not a lot of argument over the validity of evolution, but there's plenty of competition within that framework.
Neither do most people. But John's wife really is cheating on him, Jill's friend isn't really that nice, and your God really isn't out there. (As far as I can tell.)
You want to view it as arrogance because that lets you off the hook of having to seriously consider the notion that I might be right.
On the contrary, I know you might be right - you're just not doing a good job of convincing me. Of course, you can't grant me the same courtesy, because you can't face the possiblity that I might be right. The idea that God isn't there is just to terrifying for you.
Do you really consider everyone who knows something you don't an elitist?
You're still doing it! I don't have a problem with people who know more than me, just people who think they do when they might not. You're implicity stating that you know and that I don't, and that is elitist. You aren't treating me as an equal that you disagree with, you're treating me as someone who objectively lacks knowledge.
I know I could be wrong about the supernatual, I know you might have knowledge that I don't have. But you don't seem to think it's possible that you could be mistaken. It's hard not to sound arrogant when you think that way.
I... and am certain... I'm also certain...
Again, what makes you sound arrogant is the fact that you're so frikkin certain that you're right. Doesn't God advocate humility? You jump from "I believe" to "I am certain" like there wasn't a vast difference between the two phrases.
it's reasonable to believe in God
I never set out to convince you of any such thing
Both of us agree that (at present) noone can scientifically prove or disprove the existance of God, but that's quite different than thinking it's rational or not to believe in God. As far as I know, that's what we were discussing. You feel that you have clear evidence that God exists, while my experience tells me that that kind of evidence can't be trusted. I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that.
I believe in God, for reasons that are very good to me, and am certain that if you wanted to find out about his existence, you would, but I'm also certain that he intends for there to be no way for me to provide any proof that "can't be just as easily explained by more mundane means."
I do want to know about God's existance, but the kind of evidence you're offering isn't enough for me. I can't turn off my skepticism any more than you can turn off your faith.
Hey, now! No reason to be making assumptions there!
Even toughest Texan knows that shooting yourself in the foot ain't macho, it's stupid. But later on tellin' the ladies you got shot in combat, that's genius.
You have a point, but I guess most of the "I can do everything" people I've met know that they can't actually do everything, while the people who think "I can't do anything" really can't think of something that they're good at. Or maybe I'm just comparing optimism with clinical depression rather than pessimism.
It is interesting to note how you would probably very strongly criticise a Communist government that suppresses speech in spaces it "owns" (that is, everywhere), but welcome such acts if they occur in private spaces.
In many philosophies, governments don't own public property, the people do. The govenment is just there to act in the people's interest - as in a power of attorney, an executor of a will, or a governing board for a trust or a corperation - and the govenment's purpose is to let us share the use of our group-owned property. I have the right to speak on my own land, and that includes public land (that I partially own), unless it interferes with other people's use. My speech on land I don't own is a completely separate matter.
hippies vs suits
Even if I agreed with most of your post, malls are for shopping. If they want to let people buy and sell but not protest or pass out leflets, I don't see that as any worse than a church that allows prayer vigils but not commerce. Even if they're public spaces, they're public spaces with a specific purpose.
in Finland malls can be very much a public space
So owning a mall means you are required to give people shelter whenever they want it?
Fascism is ok, as long as it's voluntary Fascism.
The whole point of owning something is that you gain contol over it. You have to be insane if you think that there's no difference between a private person not letting the Boy Scouts camp on their farm and the government not letting them camp at a public campground.
Great! Let me know where you're opening, so I can open a competing restaurant across the street. After a few interviews with local media neither of us will need to advertize, all the protesters and people on prayer vigils outside your place will need a convienent spot to get lunch (my place), and I could become a local civil rights hero. You meant your post to express bigotry, but all I see is an easy way to get rich, become famous, and at least appear to be a wonderful human being.
If things started as they are now, you're probably right. On the other hand if IRA style groups had been fighting each other for years, you'd probably be too distracted by the new guys with tanks, martial law, and strict cerfews to really care.
IEDs at police academies
Right - Nazis have taken over the US, killed people you know, and are imposing their own style of govenment on us - and Americans who are joining the police force to enforce the Nazi-supported legal system aren't legitimate targets. Sure.
Who's killing their own people? The big religious faction, the smaller religious faction, the ethnic minority, the people that just want the US to leave, forigners that want to hurt the US, the political party that used to run things, or the new groups trying to take power?
Dealing with my own kids, there are plenty of things that I tell them, but they don't understand.... Just like religion, there are many aspects of life that have to be experienced in order to be understood.
But you and I have roughly the same amount of experience (etc), so casting yourself in the role of a parent, and me as a child, is being elitist. Keep in mind that I think everyone (including myself) has what can be called benign delusions about all sorts of things - "my wife would never cheat on me", "my boyfriend loves me and isn't just trying to get in my pants", "everything works out for the best". I just feel that in one area of life I have stumbled into a perspective where I can see things a little more clearly than others.
Except that they haven't been making claims about all sorts of things.... My experience is that the results of those who do go looking are extremely consistent.
As for claims, sure they do - "prayer helps people heal", "blacks are immoral", "the earth is the center of the universe" - and almost all of the ones that can be tested were wrong. And every major disagreement has had religious teachers on both sides - crusades, slavery/abolition, abortion, democracy/monarchy, etc.
As for the results, they are consistent, based on culture - that's why religions are mostly geographically separate, with the major exception being migration. For hundreds of years after the Crusifiction not even the most devout, open-minded Zen Master or Buddist Monk received the wisdom of Jesus dying for our sins.
Both of these are examples of my main point - religious insight never seems any better than the secular insight around it, it hardly ever makes any unusual claims that have been verified as true, and when pushed it retreats to the shadows where we can't reach with science. All of these ideas, plus some others, have compelled me to believe that religion is based on quirks in the way people think, traditionalism and deep human desires, with a few other things to back it up. So, from my perspective, a person who is certain of the existance of God or ESP is depressingly like a person who is certain of the existance of Santa Clause or fairies. Their excuses for the lack of evidence sound the same, the strength of their commitment looks the same, and their intense emotions seem to feel the same.
If you want to convince me that it's reasonable to believe in God, you'll have to use something that can't be just as easily explained by more mundane means. And if that seems close-minded, well, that's what the creationists, hippies, and UFO abductees tell me.
My fellow war supporters, here's the situation - all of the reasons we gave for invading Iraq before the war turned out to be hogwash. Whether it was due to lying, incompetence, or (most likely) over-enthusiasm and spin by certain parties best left unmentioned, Iraq posed no signifigant threat to the US in any way. So how do we salvage our dignity? We have to make the war look like a humanitarian effort.
First - The image of the enemy - we have to make Saddam look as evil as possible. He can't be just another petty dictator, like so many others that we aren't fighting, he has to be Hitler. So give all the grusome details about the evil he's done, but don't put it in perspective to other places, or he won't stand out like we need him to.
Second - The image of ourselves - we have to make it look like the choice was between waging war and doing nothing - people will always go for a hands-on bad solution over a hands-off good solution. So the fairly effective inspectors and embargos should be dismissed as peacenick-hippie daydreams, and only then can a long, destabalizing war be seen as good. (Especially after our promises of a fast, painless war.)
Remember the idea we're trying to plant - something had to be done, nobody else had any better ideas, and by golly, we did something. And damn the consquences.
No to rain on your parade, but you just calculated how far the wind would move during the actual pulse, not how far off a rotating plane would place the beam using data it gathered much longer than a femtosecond ago:
Pulse is sent using data gathered a milisecond ago (10^-3), in the mean time nose of plane moves into airstream with a delta v (relative to the current airstream) of 36km/hr = 10m/s =>.01 m deviation, so end of 100m plane moves.01m => end of 100km laser beam moves.01km = 10m
Not horrid, but not exactly off by less than the wavelength of the photons being used.
How many Super Bowls have had commercials better than the game?
All of them. The only entertaining part of football is watching men of the most homophobic nation on earth get mesmerized by a bunch of sweaty, muscular guys in spandex jump on each other, grunt a lot, slap each other's asses and do what have to be the gayest victory dances ever.
That so many otherwise intelligent people are prepared to accept such circular notions is perhaps the strongest argument against evolution.
That's actually what I'd expect. Shouldn't a creature the recently picked up the ability to think rationally do it imperfectly, and not all the time? Shouldn't there be holdovers from previous types of thinking, like instinct and "emotional logic"?
The first vertebrates to move onto land weren't very good at it. I'd expect the first critters to use intelligence to be just as flawed.
No, god does not exist. He hasn't been here at all.
He has been proven to be true.
Sure, whatever. In the mean time, more intelligent religious people keep their god out of the realm of science. Every time god steps in there, he gets his butt kicked.
Nobody else can say their God walked the earth except Christians.
Every ancient religion had gods that walked the earth. Don't be silly.
That should be proof enough that God created everything.
No, that's proof that people are still as gullible now as they were thousands of year ago.
The circumstances in which this particular form of arrogance are warranted are vanishingly rare, though.
And I would say that in an area of life where there's no real consensus of any kind is one of those areas where novices should be telling the experts that they don't know what they're doing. Religion is clearly one of those areas.
You can define "real evidence" so that it excludes my evidence
You have real evidence that your thinking can change how you feel and what you believe, which isn't what I was talking about. Whenever religion and science (or secular thinking, or rationality, or whatever you want to call it) have had a publicly testable dispute, science has always won, hands down, end of story.
That's why I believe that your "intelligent, logical thinkers who've spend a lifetime studying religion" are just playing word games and pandering to emotion. For thousand of years they made claims about all sorts of things, and now that we're good at testing things they've been forced to only make claims about things that can't be openly (publicly) tested. That's a clear sign that they're just good at making things up.
No. It can be tested, and everyone is invited to test it.... It only looks that way to you because...
My results came back: "This is bunk". Other, similar types of searching for enlightenment have lead to hundreds of different answers. That leads me to conclude that we can't trust that kind of internal search for knowledge. That's why I think the word "delusion" is apt.
Isn't it weird that when people go on a search for spiritual knowledge, they almost always come back with the same answers their culture gave them? Isn't that a sign that this kind of search doesn't produce objective knowledge?
So it's more like saying... [you can] learn it at the same school I did
I know you're trying to be nice, and to share something that's made you happy, but it's a happiness based on pleasant fantasy.
It would be elitism if I were to say that you can't know, but you can if you want to.
It's the same condecending elitism that adults have when they tell kids "You'll understand when you get older". Even if they can get it later, you're still saying "I have it and you don't" and maybe even "I got it first".
Slashdot Mirror
So people who get the "unlimited long distance at no extra charge" cell phone plan who talk on the phone 12 hours a day should have their calls dropped?
What? There's a constitutional right to MySpace privacy? This ought to be good.
I have talked publicly about doing unususal things. My friends and I used to talk about the best way to dispose of a body while looking around the sporting goods section of Wally World. Does that mean a cop can begin an investigation?
Duh, yes! Are you really saying that a cop can't talk to you or ask to look in your car under those circumstances? And I did say "ask".
What if he finds a body nearby that was disposed of in a creative manner with no other evidence? What would the trial be like? Just because they heard me talking about body disposal and they found a body, does that mean I'm guilty?
Duh, no! You can be investigated based on circumstantial evidence, but not convicted based on it. If they needed proof before they could investigate, what's the point of having investigations? - You already have proof! Cops investigate lots of people, and the cops know that most of them will be innocent, but in your freaky world, the cops couldn't even ask you if you have a alibi.
Lets say I'm unpopular in school. To boost my reputation, I decide to blog about how I burned down a house. I got most of the details from $local_news and just made the rest up. Now, they always leave out details. Let'say I fill in $accelerant from last month's CSI. Just so happens that the real criminal got the idea from the same place. They have your claim, they have you knowing an unpublished detail. Will I be convicted?
Whether or not you're convicted will depend on what other evidence they find and how fast you stop being an idiot. Bragging about committing crimes will attract cops - duh! And if you do get convicted, you have only yourself to blame.
What if I have a pic of me testing a gravity bong with tobacco. Should my school (assuming I'm at least 18) be able to suspend me?
In my opinion, no. If it isn't school related, the most they should be able to do is inform your parents, and sometimes not even that.
What about if I post a chat log of me talking about BSDM with a 14yo girl? Just because there is text containing the claim that she is 14 does not, in fact, mean that she is 14...or even a girl. Should that open the door for a child-sex investigation?
Duh, yes, again! Are you really saying that talking about commiting a crime in public isn't a reason to look at whether you've commited a crime or not? Not convict, not arrest, not even probable cause for a warrent, but just investigate?
Who is to say that my blog is not a work of fiction?
You are! If it's fiction, state that clearly (like most sites, TV shows, and movies), and don't be suprised if the cops ask you a few questions when a real crime happens that mimics one of your stories. You don't have to answer, and they can't do anything but watch you (while you're in public) and ask other people questions until they have some sort of solid evidence.
Then why should they troll MySpace looking for, and opening investigations on, stuff that may or may not be true?
So they can find out if it's true or not! DUH!!!
If a creationist/ID theory was made that actually fit the critera of a scientific theory (call it X), many scientists would give it a chance. Sure, there are some "evolutionists" that would be blinded by their own prejudices, but not that many. The hard part would be that the many of the reasons for promoting X would be carried over from creationism/ID, so there would be quite a stigma to overcome.
It seems that no one wants to admit that there is a "second best" explanation.
What's the second best theory of gravity, angels pulling you down?
But seriously, there's Darwinian evolution vs puncuated equalibrium, gene swaping among early organisms vs single lineage, half a dozen models of the details of human evolution, arguments over the importance of different kinds of selection (natural vs sexual, etc). There's not a lot of argument over the validity of evolution, but there's plenty of competition within that framework.
Neither do most people. But John's wife really is cheating on him, Jill's friend isn't really that nice, and your God really isn't out there. (As far as I can tell.)
You want to view it as arrogance because that lets you off the hook of having to seriously consider the notion that I might be right.
On the contrary, I know you might be right - you're just not doing a good job of convincing me. Of course, you can't grant me the same courtesy, because you can't face the possiblity that I might be right. The idea that God isn't there is just to terrifying for you.
You're still doing it! I don't have a problem with people who know more than me, just people who think they do when they might not. You're implicity stating that you know and that I don't, and that is elitist. You aren't treating me as an equal that you disagree with, you're treating me as someone who objectively lacks knowledge.
I know I could be wrong about the supernatual, I know you might have knowledge that I don't have. But you don't seem to think it's possible that you could be mistaken. It's hard not to sound arrogant when you think that way.
I... and am certain... I'm also certain...
Again, what makes you sound arrogant is the fact that you're so frikkin certain that you're right. Doesn't God advocate humility? You jump from "I believe" to "I am certain" like there wasn't a vast difference between the two phrases.
it's reasonable to believe in God
I never set out to convince you of any such thing
Both of us agree that (at present) noone can scientifically prove or disprove the existance of God, but that's quite different than thinking it's rational or not to believe in God. As far as I know, that's what we were discussing. You feel that you have clear evidence that God exists, while my experience tells me that that kind of evidence can't be trusted. I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that.
I believe in God, for reasons that are very good to me, and am certain that if you wanted to find out about his existence, you would, but I'm also certain that he intends for there to be no way for me to provide any proof that "can't be just as easily explained by more mundane means."
I do want to know about God's existance, but the kind of evidence you're offering isn't enough for me. I can't turn off my skepticism any more than you can turn off your faith.
Even toughest Texan knows that shooting yourself in the foot ain't macho, it's stupid. But later on tellin' the ladies you got shot in combat, that's genius.
You have a point, but I guess most of the "I can do everything" people I've met know that they can't actually do everything, while the people who think "I can't do anything" really can't think of something that they're good at. Or maybe I'm just comparing optimism with clinical depression rather than pessimism.
In many philosophies, governments don't own public property, the people do. The govenment is just there to act in the people's interest - as in a power of attorney, an executor of a will, or a governing board for a trust or a corperation - and the govenment's purpose is to let us share the use of our group-owned property. I have the right to speak on my own land, and that includes public land (that I partially own), unless it interferes with other people's use. My speech on land I don't own is a completely separate matter.
hippies vs suits
Even if I agreed with most of your post, malls are for shopping. If they want to let people buy and sell but not protest or pass out leflets, I don't see that as any worse than a church that allows prayer vigils but not commerce. Even if they're public spaces, they're public spaces with a specific purpose.
in Finland malls can be very much a public space
So owning a mall means you are required to give people shelter whenever they want it?
Fascism is ok, as long as it's voluntary Fascism.
The whole point of owning something is that you gain contol over it. You have to be insane if you think that there's no difference between a private person not letting the Boy Scouts camp on their farm and the government not letting them camp at a public campground.
Great! Let me know where you're opening, so I can open a competing restaurant across the street. After a few interviews with local media neither of us will need to advertize, all the protesters and people on prayer vigils outside your place will need a convienent spot to get lunch (my place), and I could become a local civil rights hero. You meant your post to express bigotry, but all I see is an easy way to get rich, become famous, and at least appear to be a wonderful human being.
If you mention Aleph Null, God's Omnipotent Colon Bacteria help me, I'll ... er ... say something mean about you on slashdot!
I still have nightmares about that math class...
What a jerk!
That's not me, that's my clone!
If things started as they are now, you're probably right. On the other hand if IRA style groups had been fighting each other for years, you'd probably be too distracted by the new guys with tanks, martial law, and strict cerfews to really care.
IEDs at police academies
Right - Nazis have taken over the US, killed people you know, and are imposing their own style of govenment on us - and Americans who are joining the police force to enforce the Nazi-supported legal system aren't legitimate targets. Sure.
Or do you think they're all the same?
Neither really helps, but at least the dorky "gosh darn it, people like me" stuff doesn't get in the way like the "I can't do it" stuff does.
I don't get it, my nerd friends are all skinny.
But you and I have roughly the same amount of experience (etc), so casting yourself in the role of a parent, and me as a child, is being elitist. Keep in mind that I think everyone (including myself) has what can be called benign delusions about all sorts of things - "my wife would never cheat on me", "my boyfriend loves me and isn't just trying to get in my pants", "everything works out for the best". I just feel that in one area of life I have stumbled into a perspective where I can see things a little more clearly than others.
Except that they haven't been making claims about all sorts of things. ... My experience is that the results of those who do go looking are extremely consistent.
As for claims, sure they do - "prayer helps people heal", "blacks are immoral", "the earth is the center of the universe" - and almost all of the ones that can be tested were wrong. And every major disagreement has had religious teachers on both sides - crusades, slavery/abolition, abortion, democracy/monarchy, etc.
As for the results, they are consistent, based on culture - that's why religions are mostly geographically separate, with the major exception being migration. For hundreds of years after the Crusifiction not even the most devout, open-minded Zen Master or Buddist Monk received the wisdom of Jesus dying for our sins.
Both of these are examples of my main point - religious insight never seems any better than the secular insight around it, it hardly ever makes any unusual claims that have been verified as true, and when pushed it retreats to the shadows where we can't reach with science. All of these ideas, plus some others, have compelled me to believe that religion is based on quirks in the way people think, traditionalism and deep human desires, with a few other things to back it up. So, from my perspective, a person who is certain of the existance of God or ESP is depressingly like a person who is certain of the existance of Santa Clause or fairies. Their excuses for the lack of evidence sound the same, the strength of their commitment looks the same, and their intense emotions seem to feel the same.
If you want to convince me that it's reasonable to believe in God, you'll have to use something that can't be just as easily explained by more mundane means. And if that seems close-minded, well, that's what the creationists, hippies, and UFO abductees tell me.
My fellow war supporters, here's the situation - all of the reasons we gave for invading Iraq before the war turned out to be hogwash. Whether it was due to lying, incompetence, or (most likely) over-enthusiasm and spin by certain parties best left unmentioned, Iraq posed no signifigant threat to the US in any way. So how do we salvage our dignity? We have to make the war look like a humanitarian effort.
First - The image of the enemy - we have to make Saddam look as evil as possible. He can't be just another petty dictator, like so many others that we aren't fighting, he has to be Hitler. So give all the grusome details about the evil he's done, but don't put it in perspective to other places, or he won't stand out like we need him to.
Second - The image of ourselves - we have to make it look like the choice was between waging war and doing nothing - people will always go for a hands-on bad solution over a hands-off good solution. So the fairly effective inspectors and embargos should be dismissed as peacenick-hippie daydreams, and only then can a long, destabalizing war be seen as good. (Especially after our promises of a fast, painless war.)
Remember the idea we're trying to plant - something had to be done, nobody else had any better ideas, and by golly, we did something. And damn the consquences.
Pulse is sent using data gathered a milisecond ago (10^-3), in the mean time nose of plane moves into airstream with a delta v (relative to the current airstream) of 36km/hr = 10m/s => .01 m deviation, so end of 100m plane moves .01m => end of 100km laser beam moves .01km = 10m
Not horrid, but not exactly off by less than the wavelength of the photons being used.
All of them. The only entertaining part of football is watching men of the most homophobic nation on earth get mesmerized by a bunch of sweaty, muscular guys in spandex jump on each other, grunt a lot, slap each other's asses and do what have to be the gayest victory dances ever.
Then nothing is random, according to your definition. Even with a pair of dice you never get 13, and 7 is a more likely outcome than any other.
That's actually what I'd expect. Shouldn't a creature the recently picked up the ability to think rationally do it imperfectly, and not all the time? Shouldn't there be holdovers from previous types of thinking, like instinct and "emotional logic"?
The first vertebrates to move onto land weren't very good at it. I'd expect the first critters to use intelligence to be just as flawed.
No, god does not exist. He hasn't been here at all.
He has been proven to be true.
Sure, whatever. In the mean time, more intelligent religious people keep their god out of the realm of science. Every time god steps in there, he gets his butt kicked.
Nobody else can say their God walked the earth except Christians.
Every ancient religion had gods that walked the earth. Don't be silly.
That should be proof enough that God created everything.
No, that's proof that people are still as gullible now as they were thousands of year ago.
And I would say that in an area of life where there's no real consensus of any kind is one of those areas where novices should be telling the experts that they don't know what they're doing. Religion is clearly one of those areas.
You can define "real evidence" so that it excludes my evidence
You have real evidence that your thinking can change how you feel and what you believe, which isn't what I was talking about. Whenever religion and science (or secular thinking, or rationality, or whatever you want to call it) have had a publicly testable dispute, science has always won, hands down, end of story.
That's why I believe that your "intelligent, logical thinkers who've spend a lifetime studying religion" are just playing word games and pandering to emotion. For thousand of years they made claims about all sorts of things, and now that we're good at testing things they've been forced to only make claims about things that can't be openly (publicly) tested. That's a clear sign that they're just good at making things up.
No. It can be tested, and everyone is invited to test it. ... It only looks that way to you because...
My results came back: "This is bunk". Other, similar types of searching for enlightenment have lead to hundreds of different answers. That leads me to conclude that we can't trust that kind of internal search for knowledge. That's why I think the word "delusion" is apt.
Isn't it weird that when people go on a search for spiritual knowledge, they almost always come back with the same answers their culture gave them? Isn't that a sign that this kind of search doesn't produce objective knowledge?
So it's more like saying... [you can] learn it at the same school I did
I know you're trying to be nice, and to share something that's made you happy, but it's a happiness based on pleasant fantasy.
It would be elitism if I were to say that you can't know, but you can if you want to.
It's the same condecending elitism that adults have when they tell kids "You'll understand when you get older". Even if they can get it later, you're still saying "I have it and you don't" and maybe even "I got it first".
Fixed it for you.
To require a study to show that another radiation generator will do the same as another radiation generator is simply pandering to corporations.
Please look up 'gamma rays' and 'radio waves' in any intoductory physics book. You'll find it quite enlightening.