No need. You've demonstrated your inability to address anything substantive about these topics, with the 30 or so points you've skipped over so far due to complete inability to respond.
Your pithy little conclusion won't change the reality, reviewable by anyone. You don't know terminology, you don't know the theoretical structures involved, you understand neither the philosophy of science, nor science itself.
You know that whatever it takes, your "science" must protect you from reality and the evidence within it you prefer to run from. Fortunately, you can't damage religion, and you can only damage science to a limited extent, before you get naturally deselected. Fair enough.
To have any scientific value, it would first and foremost have to be repeatable, falsifiable and make predictions that will come true without fail.
This is flatly untrue. Stop misrepresenting and damaging science.
There is, like it or not, a great deal that is in the scope of science that is not directly testable. QM Interpretations, for one. Most any anthropological conclusion, as the circumstances are not replicable. Domains where results are, and can only be, statistical, and not "every time", such as sociology. I know you want a personal definition of science that just happens to match precisely what you need it to, to feel you can exclude theism. If you wish to simply be wrong about science, feel free. Don't damage others' understanding, however.
Logical Positivism has thoroughly addressed this, running aground decades ago with a very systematic attempt to frame science, and reality, in the context of notions like "everything is falsifiable, or else wrong, or at minimum unsupportable". It was an utter failure, and you repeating this course (along with your favorite atheist thought-leaders) will likewise result in failure. That battle is over. "Is Beethoven a better composer than Mozart, or vice-versa?" Frame that scientifically, and answer it. Or, recognize this along with a vast number of domains you encounter every day, is outside of the scope of science. This is why I find it difficult to credit you with honesty--it is literally impossible that you apply the same criteria to religion as you do to your other thoughts every single day. You are attempting to make science synonymous with epistemology. It is not.
Never in the classical mechanics.
See, here is the issue. You make claims representing science that neither science would accept, nor are even logically coherent. How do you know this? Psychic powers? You see, presumably you consider me someone rhetorically applying theological assumptions to science--that I'm saying such things as "a theory means a theory" because I'm attempting to weaken some assertion. No, in fact, this is derived entirely from my secular science education. If someone stood up in the classroom and announced, "we shouldn't be calling these 'theories', we should be calling them 'facts'"... they would have been laughed out of the room, and not for theological reasons, but because this violates and misrepresents the basic nature of science. We explicitly -do not know- what observations will be made in the future, or new observations regarding the distant past, and to claim otherwise is to introduce -psychic assertions- into the core of science. Yet, this is precisely what Dawkins, Hitchens, Nye, Tyson, and the rest of their crowd do on a regular basis, for political and philosophical, not scientific, reasons. You can with the smallest effort find statements by all of the above which are based on untestable inference, not science. So, agreed, first thing is the baseline of what constitutes "evidence", and what constitutes "science".
Your current notions of both, are simply wrong. Testability is a scientific positive. Falsifiability is a positive. However, these do -not- scope science. Logical inference from data and tested knowns are also validly in the domain of science, and to deny this would be to chop away so much of science it would be unrecognizable. As well as stopping future science at the root, since formulation of a hypothesis -always- precedes formulating a test for it, by definition. You are suggesting "science" may not include its own established methods--which absolutely include a scientist thinking something is likely true based on inferential assumptions of his knowledge domain, -before- a test can be performed or can even be defined. That's the reality. "Science" is indeed happening there, even when it isn't testable, and that interim period can last decades. Still science.
As for the 6000 years, you'll have to provide some basis for saying snakes could not evolve another characteristic in that time frame. Such propositions regarding a great many organisms are regularly proposed, such as the Peppered Moths example I already gave. Nor are you providing a biological rationale why it is not possible. Perhaps it's a certain incredulity on your part of evolutionary mechanisms that is resulting in this conclusion, I don't know. What I do know is, this point being correct or not, does not advance a refutation of theism, as theism is far broader than Young Earth Creationism. You're giving me a red herring to chase. I decline.
You cannot verify or falsify a great deal of science, vast amounts of which is, nonetheless, peer-reviewed. I presume you then no papers regarding the various Interpretations of QM are peer-reviewed, since which is accurate cannot be empirically verified?
You have a purely imaginary notion of science and most of the core attributes of it. Feel free to start with answering any of my first response, and show a basic understanding of what "evidence" apart from "proof" is, what QM agrees is possible, what a theory means, or... just anything. Failure to understand what "peer reviewed" means is simply an additional failure of your scientific non-knowledge.
Just even basic, I mean the most basic level of coherent thought and baseline honesty allows it to be clear that because I say something is an analogy, I am not saying everything is an analogy. You see clearly how stupid that claim otherwise is, no? Yes.
I have made no assertions of "proof", so try to avoid conflating "evidence" and "proof". Any thought you have following that is likewise irrational. Do we have "evidence" of aliens and Bigfoot? Indeed we do. Very poor evidence, and, as you well know, nothing for them remotely approximating a multiple-PhD authored, peer reviewed study as published in the Lancet. As -one- source of theistic evidence. People err and people lie, true. You have given no reason they would in this case. In no other case can you dismiss hundreds of eyewitness reports with a smarmy "people lie", either.
It doesn't translate into our normal space... so, then, quantum computing is an impossible lie? There can be no macro-scale effects of quantum behavior? Do tell, how you know this. You can make a killing in the market short-selling these companies. You can spend the money in this universe that, according to the only viable position left to you, is -entirely- a macro scale effect of quantum behavior. Perhaps it doesn't exist, then?
I have made no claim it happened in 6000 years, I am in the camp of theistic evolution. Again, point at whatever Straw Man you wish, your generalized dismissal of theism does not in any way logically follow. And, in fact, evolutionary evidence has shown such changes in far less than 6000 years, Peppered Moths happened in 50 years, according to mainline evolutionary theory. But if the topic is religion, oh, then no, that's an impossibly short timeframe.
Is there a topic somewhere you can address honestly or correctly?
Check the study, the experiences are complex and well beyond "white light". It is wholly unrealistic, if you check the actual experiences, to dismiss them as simple brain failure.
And if you read the study, and assert otherwise, you indeed also know you are lying. It's manifestly obvious it is evidence, as much so as any other example of "evidence". Note, as well, that you have an alternate explanation, does -not-, in this case or any other whatsoever, mean it is not evidence for the original scenario. At best (from your perspective), it is then evidence for -both- possibilities. Pointing out the guy whose apartment has the smoking gun has a roommate, does -not- change the fact it is still evidence against the suspect.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Rather sums it up. You may choose that he actively asserted God's existence rather than simply keeping quiet about his lack of belief, but I'll apply reason instead.
And, I think it unlikely he would. Even for the time "heresy" (perceived corruption of Christian belief), would be more problematic than atheism (outright denial of Christian belief).
Well, we'll have to summarize here, since you are, to my view, not treating the material honestly and are doing the standard goalpost shifting to "proof" when "evidence" is what is at hand.
You made the positive claim, that religious people are "delusional". It's yours to back up. And in that, I won't copy your disingenuous demand for "proof", simply your own claim that you had "evidence to the contrary". Evidence will be fine. You have provided none of your assertion.
It is not my assertion that all people experience an NDE, particularly given that there's a range of what can be considered to constitute "death" from a scientific perspective, and it's only the spiritual definition that would be determinant. That it happens at all is remarkable. You know this to be notable. You know this is evidence. If you say otherwise, you know you are lying.
If, in fact, you check actual history and the documents of the religion under discussion, you will find there is no significant difference between what people considered "natural phenomenon" then, and what we would consider such now. We simply have more causal details. They did not think every instance of lightning was God's direct intervention. How life and death and aging "normally" worked was very clear. What they would say was a miracle then, and what things we would say were a miracle now, are exactly the same. This is the case even if we stipulated miracles don't exist, and again, this is the facts of the matter (historical, this time), of your parroted revisionist Dawkins/Hitchens non-history. We haven't "gotten smarter" about this, there is no evidence of any transition between what was "natural" then and what was "natural" now. Feel free to read the book to verify as a historical matter, since although you may choose to reject the content, you can't reject the writing as reflective of the perceptions of people as of that time.
"God of the gaps" is an entirely fallacious argument, by the way, and entirely so on the atheist side. It is internally logically nonsense, as constructed as an very poor argument of what theists do, which we don't, and only the atheist by throwing the claim is doing. No theist says the false dichotomy of "either the event is entirely supernatural, or we understand it". All supernatural events would have a material, natural component to the causal chain, and modern understanding those causal chains in more specific detail on a physics level alters nothing. As we progress in time, we do not move from "everything must have been a god doing it" to "now we know the material specifics, which excludes a god as an original cause". There is no such false alternative, in reality. Whether a supernatural agency did X or not, knowing more physics does not address that question. That false dichotomy is all yours, and the "intellectuals" you parrot.
And no, it in no way a requirement I prove it to you--that would be equivalent forced conversion. In other words, you absolutely do not want what you claim you want, "proof".
So, anyway, though I could just reread some Dawkins to get all the content of your brain, for you personally, I suggest reconsidering these before you get inevitably Naturally Deselected and irrelevant to this and every discussion. Your move.
No, again, this is peer-reviewed, quantified, eyewitness evidence as provided by among the most respected medical journals in the world.
It is not anecdotal. It is a peer-reviewed study of the phenomenon. By your standards, even aside from that, no court case is ever valid, because all the witnesses are simply giving "anecdotal" evidence. It does not work like that. "Evidence" does not mean that.
As for the snake, firstly, I thought you were making a claim of evidence toward an actual philosophical position of wide scope, e.g. "God does not exist, and the belief is a delusion". If you are simply claiming evidence Genesis is an allegory, state that.
Regardless of that question, you are presenting as "evidence" simply a reiteration of the same basic premise--that there are no supernatural events. That is simply an unproven assertion, which, to be systematic about, science does not even address--except insofar that Quantum Mechanics verifies absolutely anything can happen, as a matter of basic physics, it's simply a matter of probability. The Newtonian physics that you seem to be relying on for your determinations, likewise, has no mechanism to even possibly demonstrate it accounts for all possible phenomena--in fact it is the very nature of any scientific theory that it is permanent left open to new observations by which to inform the theoretical model. Where is your evidence it didn't happen, since science itself says you can't make such a determination?
So, yes, I understand you're merely parroting Dawkins (I assume you can comprehend how 'parrot' is being used here), with this "delusion" characterization, but given that neither you nor he are actual authorities on psychiatry, and the ones who are (contrary to random Wikipedia self-appointed authorities) say directly that your usage of the word is scientifically wrong, I suggest reconsidering its rhetorical effectiveness. Along with your simple restatement in different forms that "supernatural things don't happen". Feel free to present your evidence for that premise, because that covers the entirety of what you are asserting.
Along the way, you might want to examine, personally, exactly why you don't focus on the fact that the text you are addressing asserts that snakes originally had legs, and then lost them, a biological progression only recently scientifically verified. You prefer to focus on "things I haven't seen don't happen, and somehow contrary to all science that means they can't happen and we know we will never see them". And you prefer to not make the slightest effort to formulate a preferable alternative within the context of what may be a) allegorical, or b) performed by other means. I have not the slightest expectation that assuming it is not allegory, the snake moved its mouth and used some snake vocal cords to speak. People even of that day would not write that down as if it were naturally plausible as a common occurrence. The snake is stated as the material presentation of an angel, that is, Satan. A form of spiritual, or mental, communication seems far more reasonable as to how the communication transpired, consistent with how it happens everywhere else in the bible. Nobody thought a burning bush had vocal cords, either.
You seek the view you consider most implausible as to what the intent of the story is, and then further insist on the least plausible, personally made-up specifics for you to simply claim would have to be the case for it to happen. Why do you do that? It shows not the least intellectual honesty, or even scientific integrity, for that matter.
Mainly not a delusion by virtue of being true.
But yes, to state your position accurately, per the DSM, any viewpoint that is held by a majority of one's culture cannot be a "delusion", by definition. This is not limited to religions.
It can be wrong, it cannot be a delusion. Using delusional definitions of "delusion" does not alter this.
Waste not, get your budget cut next year.