zapatos

No, I don't agree. I don't feel you can label someone delusional if they have not examined the belief, even if they are capable of doing so. Look at how many people come to this site with a complete misconception about how the universe works. Someone comes to this site and believes that an atom has a nucleus with electrons traveling in circular orbits around it, similar to the way the solar system works. They've believed this for years. Friends have confirmed it. They learned it from a person in authority. They never bothered to question it. Now they arrive at this site and learn that is not true. Were they delusional before they got to this site? I should have stated they are not comparable from a theist's perspective. The two are comparable to you, but then you've already examined the evidence. For a theist to think they are comparable, both must have evidence believed by some.

A better mystery is why someone hid the doors that the other two keys work. I wonder what is behind those doors?!?!?

I'm going to go with a dry sauna... http://homesaunakits-since1974.com/Sauna-Building-Aids/106-sauna-building-how-to-build-a-sauna.html

No, but I am an object in the universe that cannot be observed by everyone, so we could restate your previous post to say: "the universe looks the same whoever you are" does not apply for zapatos object.

If you are using 'whoever' to also mean 'whenever', than that is correct. But then again, it is true for all objects, not just Krauss Objects. Take me for example. Someone who lived only 100 years ago will never get to know me. And somone who will live 100 years from now will also never get to know me. So it is true that if you have the chance to get to know me, then you really do live in a special time.

It is good to know we have someone on this site who is qualified to decide what degree programs are credible. I don't know where these people got their degrees, but they all have at least a PhD. They are also all creationists. (I only copied about 20% of the list) http://creation.com/creation-scientists You might wish to stop digging the hole you are in before it gets any deeper. How do you think a researcher determines what to pursue next? Does he know what will be fruitful? Of course not. He chooses what, in his opinion, is likely to be a good area of research. Every single next step in research is done because it is the opinion of the researcher that this is the route to take. Every single interpretation of data is opinion. If no one ever gives their opinion in science, there will be no debate. If no one ever gives their opinion in science we will never know what the concensus is. It is absurd to think you can take opinion out of science. I think you should reconsider whether or not you are ready for a science forum.

The relative value of their opinion to observation isn't really the point. It is not as if we only have enough room in a thread for one or the other. If I am curious about whether or not it is likely that String Theory is ever going to amount to much, I will never know unless someone with expertise gives me their opinion. If I have to figure it out from observations and tests, I will never know as I'm not an expert in that field. If I want to know whether or not a used car is likely to be a good value, I ask my mechanic friend. I don't need him to rehash all his observations and tests he's done on that car model so that I can figure it out myself. His opinion is good enough for me. I don't understand why an expert's opinion is not something you would value.

So it is your opinion that experts should not give their opinion? An opinion is usually nothing more than what a person believes is likely, based on an interpretation of the facts. It is the expert's opinion I value the most. Aren't you in the least bit interested in the opinion of a cancer researcher when it comes to the likelihood of a new drug's efficacy? The President want's the general's opinion on whether or not an operation is likely to succeed. He doesn't want a comparison of our tactics versus their command of the high ground. Note: Added this last sentence after SamBridge responded.

I didn't realize that with maturity your desire to state your opinion or show emotions diminished. If the 'experts' no longer state their opinions or show emotion here, I'll just go back to reading text books.

Well, as we think it really is, based on the data we were able to collect.

So the scriptures are false. That is a lack of evidence of god, not evidence that god does not exist. If I'm unable to address the question of 'how God can set Himself a task...', how does that make me delusional? Admitting there is a paradox would seem to make me seem more sane. I imagine 2000 years ago, the 'nutters' were those who did not believe in God.

I'm happy to look at it from the perspective of a more general use of the term delusional. Even under more common use, in order to consider someone delusional it would at least require them to have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought. I imagine a significant portion of the theist population does not have the ability to do that examination, and a significant portion of those who do have the ability, have not bothered to do so. Therefore calling a theist delusional is an extreme generalization. Regarding comparisons of God to the tooth fairy and the like, I don't feel that is a good comparison. No one of any maturity claims the tooth fairy is real. There are no historical documents, schools, artifacts, ancient texts, or other (however tenuous) evidence supporting the existence of the tooth fairy. I feel a better comparison would be to that of the Loch Ness Monster, or Bigfoot. Not much better, I know, but at least there are adults seriously examining the situation.

For myself, I like to argue about it because I have the desire to feel confident that my opinion is well founded. But if others wish to not examine it, I think that is completely acceptable approach, for the reason you mention. Correct. It would put the divine source of that information into serious dispute. That is, it would tell you it was probably not divinely inspired. How do you reach the conclusion then that God doesn't exist, rather than the writer's of it were gullible, or liars, or had an ulterior motive?

If I write a scientific paper on dark energy, and the paper is thoroughly debunked, is that evidence that dark energy does not exist?

If I understand correctly, a delusion is a belief despite evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence to the contrary?

Since evidence seems to be so important to you, can you provide the evidence that theists are delusional?

If you are referring to individual fruits (e.g. an apple) and vegetables, then I would say that it does not make sense to categorize them as male or female. Would you categorize an arm as a 'female' if it came from a woman? If you are referring to plants and trees, then yes, as Moontanman said some are male, some are female, some are both. Also note that a plant part that is a result of a fertilized flower (e.g. apple, pea, green bean, etc.) is a fruit.

Blood sausage and scrapple are also pretty disgusting. I don't even like to read about them.

When I eat okra it makes me think that is what it would be like to eat a cat tongue. When I eat brain it makes me think that is what it would be like to eat, well, a brain. Too ripe bananas gag me. I LOVE tomatos. I'll eat them any which way. During the summer I'll often cut up three or four tomatos, grab the salt shaker, and eat away. I even drink the juice that remains on the plate when I'm done.

Mmm Mmm. Making me hungry! I didn't actually see an argument in all of this for more funding for NASA.

And you refuse to use words as commonly defined.

"God did not create our universe." That is quite a bold statement. Can you back it up at all? And if you would, can you please explain what you mean when you say 'God goes against every piece of science ever known to man'?

It has been a while, but... Assembly is not machine language and therefore not understood by the machine. It must first be compiled or assembled into machine code to be used. Assembly is just much closer to machine code than, say, Java. Machine code is developed in conjunction with the microprocessor. Microprocessors can only read the machine code developed for that family of microprocessors, not for some other microprocessor family. A player piano analogy... The composer is the software developer The sheet music the source code The punch machine to create the piano roll is the compiler The piano roll is the machine code The player piano is the microprocessor The player piano can play the piano roll because that is what it was designed to do. It expects the holes in the paper to be formatted in a predetermined way. The piano reads the hole, which is simply an instruction to play a predetermined note. The microprocessor can read the machine code because that is what it was designed to do. It expects the instructions to be formatted in a predetermined way. The microprocessor reads the code which is simply an instruction to perform a predetermined action.

I guess anything travelling through the air is more accessible than anything travelling by wire, but wireless is not very risky as long as you set it up properly. Here is something to look at: http://compnetworking.about.com/od/wirelesssecurity/tp/wifisecurity.htm If you have encryption turned on at home, not many people are going to be able to cause you harm. If you connect your wireless device (e.g. laptop or iPhone) at the local Starbucks via their public hotspot, even I could listen in.