Strange

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+does+an+ATM+machine+work

Magic processors made by unicorns. Wiping your bottom. But it is pretty stupid to post your bank statements on line where anyone can see them. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Which+type+of+processor+is+used+in+ATM+machine

My disagreement is that you claim this is evidence for god. It isn't. I didn't say it was. I am trying to explain the difference between someone experiencing something and the existence of that thing. Maybe you are not bright enough to understand that distinction, I don't know. It seems pretty obvious to me. It is the difference between someone experiencing something and the existence of that thing. Sheesh. Stop lying. You said that no scientist would say anything as crass as you are: No, I didn't. It's not announced so immaturely, I don't think any professional would say it so crass like that. The research shows (supposedly) the universality of mystical/divine experiences and that these are the same as some drug induced experiences. The research does not show that god exists. So stop lying about it.

No you are not. Don't lie. You claim this is evidence for the existence of god. (That was the title of your first thread.) But you also admitted that none of these scientists say that it is evidence for god. (Just the universality of experiences.) So you are making up the "evidence for god" bit. That is not supported by the science. So please stop lying about it.

Again, you are struggling with your reading comprehension. I did NOT deny that people are actually having experiences of the divine. If you are incapable of understanding what people say (or you deliberately misrepresent it) then this exchange is doubly futile. Schizophrenics hear voices (which are absolutely real to them; not "in their head") but those voices don't exist. People experience the pleasure of looking at something beautiful but that doesn't exist outside their head. People experience the divine but that doesn't give "the divine" any objective reality. It is just something they experience.

You may be presenting legitimate science (possibly; if those two papers were published in credible journals) but you are grossly misrepresenting it by saying it supports your personal beliefs.

1. How do you know I am an atheist? 2.. Of course I could; I don't deny the existence of people "experiencing the divine"; I just deny that it is evidence for the existence of the divine as anything other than an entirely human experience caused by the operation of their brain. He didn't say "no forum". You often misquote people like this. Is it deliberate dishonesty or do you have genuine comprehension problems (perhaps caused by doing too many drugs)?

Reported as a sock puppet.

What do you think it is for? Reported for tolling. LMGTFY

Maybe they watch satellite TV in their coffee room. And they probably have GPS systems in their cars. Why don't you go and ask a bank? Where? Are they in areas that don't have access to wired communication? Why not use Google: https://www.hughes.com/who-we-are/blog/indias-example-using-satellite-networks-narrow-banking-gaps-can-work-throughout

I have skipped loads of this nonsense as it was getting too repetitive. But ... As far as I can see, none of the mods have taken part in this discussion so that seems a pointless observation. While I agree with the first part, it is pretty obvious (lacking any obvious to the contrary) that this "universal divine source" is just the normal (or possibly abnormal) operation of the brain. It might be time to call an end to this. The OP seems too narrow minded and and is unwilling to explain anything beyond just repeating the same thing endlessly.

It might not surprise you that the bank that did everything online was German and the one with piles of paper was Italian! Why do people talk in banks? For the same reason people talk anywhere. Why do you ask so many bizarre questions?

This bank handles that by doing an online interview - you have to show your ID (and email a copy).

One of my bank accounts must be relatively paper-free as I have only ever done things online. Another one involved signing 100s of pages of forms (some initiated on every page - even though I didn’t have time to read them all).

I have understood the research. But I don’t understand what you are claiming. So let’s summarise. We agree that: 1. People have mystical / religious experiences 2. These can (also) be produced by psychoactive drugs 3. The experiences people have are common across time and cultures Where we appear to disagree or be at cross-purposes: 1. I think these experiences are entirely explained by the activity of the brain (and they are similar in all cases because brain chemistry is the same in all cases) 2. You claim these experiences are evidence of god (a term which you refuse to define) but you also say that these experiences (and therefore god?) do not come from outside Correct? It almost sounds like we agree: these experience exist, they are common to all, and they only exist inside the head (ie the brain). But you choose to label these experiences as “god” and I can only shrug in response. If that is what you want to call it, go ahead. But then it seems your entire argument becomes circular: the evidence for “god” (ie mystical experiences) is that people experience “god”. Note: if I have still misunderstood/misrepresented you that is because you are bloody awful at explaining yourself. All you can do is angrily repeat yourself. You are unable to define what you mean. And then you insult people when they ask for clarifications. Blasphemy! Heretic!

You have to show that these experiences originate outside the brain. You have no evidence that is the case. Just your belief. I have grasped that. But the most plausible explanation is that these "complete mystical experiences" are created in the brain. You have presented no evidence that they originate outside the brain. You just believe that to be the case.

Go on then. What is this evidence? Yep. The brain will do that to you. No. It is just evidence for people having these experiences. This is getting old.

I would not disagree with that. The trouble is that there is no reason to think that this is not a result of brain function. Therefore it is not evidence for gods. The "universal divine source" appears to be The Brain. Unless you have some evidence that these subjective feelings come from somewhere outside the brain (and you don't) it is not evidence for your, or any other, god.

It depends. Servers will not use a GUI. Interactive systems might. No doubt they use many different versions of Linux or Unix. Why do you need to know?

They use Linux or Unix because they are reliable, fast, easy to maintain, etc.

Good. You should have no problem providing links to those studies then. Were they published in peer-reviewed journals?

Various types of Unix, various types of Linux, Windows, Mac OS, others ...

That is a rather vague question without a specific answer. But: Lots of different types and makes, running different operating systems and applications. Much banking software is written specifically by (or for) each bank. But they use a lot of off-the-shelf software as well.

I think the answer would be yes, unless it turns out that gravity doesn't work the same way at that scale (eg the breakdown of the equivalence principle as suggested in that paper). But, of course, neutrons would decay before they converged!

He has done that a few times. Which is ironic as one of the problems with his first thread was that it was copied without being in quotes!