In religion, however, anything goes, which is fine. What is unpleasant is that those who attempt to apply the rules which apply in other subjects are often called intolerant.

It is not intolerant to press believers and non-believers on any matter. I am not talking about abuse or insults, merely that we should be able to expect intellectual rigor when debating these matters. After all, theology and literary criticism with respect to religious texts are serious disciplines represented at many respected universities.

It is intolerance when we are told to be quiet out of respect for someone's supernatural beliefs (or lack thereof).

quote:

---

It is intolerance when we are told to be quiet out of respect for someone's supernatural beliefs (or lack thereof).

---

Religion touches people deeply, at an emotional level. After all, we are talking about the possibility of eternal life... and who wouldn't want that? What might take place in Physics is that things can be shown as unworkable or to go against well tested 'facts' that have served man well. With religion there isn't really an acceptable way to test anything, and by acceptable I mean a way that all can agree to. So what do you have left?.... Belief. It doesn't have to make sense to be believed either, and who would want the safety and comfort of believing you might have a chance for eternal life to be stripped away... why, how dare anyone even attempt to do such a thing...

Truth by definition is a compliance with facts. Religion does not agree with facts, so religion thus (by definition of truth) is false (=untrue, or wrong).

Religion is just a mythology and collection of superstitions. Incerting gods (Zeuses, Allahs, etc) in gaps of personal knowledge to explain what a PERSON does not know. Yet the correct explanation often is just a high school textbook away.

But of course, if you don't pay attention to facts and logic - then anything goes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
Alex: I disagree in this respect. The religions that currently exist are still here because they do not conflict directly with facts. They may be unproven but they are as yet undisproven, provided some flexibility be allowed in interpretation. Hence an argument to stereotype theists as anti-facts fails because it simply is not true. When religion comes into the realm of science, then scientific facts can often be brought into the discussion, and may be used to disprove the particular dogma. But literalists that do so do not represent the majority of religious people. The majority respect facts and follow religion in terms of moralistic choices and philosophical speculation, which is not science's field.
Though it runs counter to occarum's razor, this is, as noted not absolute and hence your argument is not valid. I think that in a free and public forum, you can not force people into discussing things they do not wish to. It's a debate, not an interrogation. Private faith cannot be attacked in this way as a matter of principle. Generallised discussion can be done if there is a reasonable point to be made, with a two sided discussion (ie. not I'm right, you're wrong). If X expresses an opinion about his faith, then he opens the debate and the discussion is valid.
But then again each case must be judged pragmatically. Do you have examples of this intolerance?

-------------
"....this will be one battle we will regret. Mark my words..."
FZ 11/14/2002

---

You addressed Alexander, but my point, a simple one, is that if I press a believer into stating their case in a coherent manner, it is not done out of a desire to belittle or demean or insult. Even in matters of theology and religious matters, we should expect good scholarship.

It is not intolerance to demand high standards, it is treating one's opponents and debating partners with respect.

I know alot of things I come up with to question Christian faith usually insults a good many. Whats the saying, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.(Unless you go to IHOP, where the use artificial liquid egg)

Feelings will get hurt. Honestly, I commend the christians who hang around these forums. Atleast they are at a point where they will read the words of heathens.

if i understand correctly, N Quire is trying to find out not only what someone believes, but why...bottom line is, someone can believe that pygmy goats and pink faeries mated and created life as we know it if they choose too...however, because a great majority of people on this earth realize that it is quite absurd, those who believe in the mighty King Pygmy Goat and the Queen Pink Faerie as our rulers will get made fun of at the very least...

i personally do not see anything wrong with the discussions of WHY people believe in what they rightfully choose to believe, as everyone should dig down deep for themselves and find out what they core beliefs are...

i do see it very wrong when certain members of this forum insult and degrade for why and what others choose to believe, as this lends NO credibility to the one tossing the insults...

while at the same time, i also do not think this forum is the place for preaching beliefs either, rather a place to share ideas and ultimately reach out and try to understand one another and possibly learning something new because of an open mind...

quote:

---

After all, we are talking about the possibility of eternal life... and who wouldn't want that?

---

i agree, anyone who claims to absolutely know that eternal life does or does not exist, is also claiming to be the biggest fool...

went down the hill, the other day
my soul got happy and stayed all day

quote:

---

i do see it very wrong when certain members of this forum insult and degrade for why and what others choose to believe, as this lends NO credibility to the one tossing the insults...

---

But what exactly is insulting? I can think of plenty of ways that one could view the christian god as a complete and udder moron. That statement alone probably infurates most all christians here, and could be taken as a personal insult. However, it is my right to point out my beliefs in which mankind has allowed itself to be fooled throughout our existance by an elite few so to speak. It is insulting to say that god is synomous with ignorance, in which god is used to explain the things we do not know.

So it is quite easy to insult a person, without even really trying to. This is why if you go to a chat room entitled something like Christian vs Atheism, you will not actually be able to have a conversation. The christians cut and paste entire chapeters worth of bible, while the atheist usually have them all on ignore. Nothing is accomplished this way, really.

And it is sad, that a person takes things I or others may say as an insult, when in reality, I'm just voicing my opinions and ideas which I've speant a good deal of time thinking on, and some of my and others arguements are quite sound. The soundness is where the insult comes into play, as the closed mindedness preached in churches and sunday school teaches the individual that anything which disagrees with the bible is wrong, period.

Maybe you should make another sticky thread so we can all just apoligize in advance.

i believe that everyone who is intelligent enough to post in these forums, and carry on debates in the manner that they do are capable of figuring out when they cross the line of insulting and merely being involved in a challenging debate...

went down the hill, the other day
my soul got happy and stayed all day

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexander:

Truth by definition is a compliance with facts. Religion does not agree with facts, so religion thus (by definition of truth) is false (=untrue, or wrong).

---

Alex

There are numerous religious books filled with religious facts. For example the recent (1997) books of Joan Carroll Cruz.
Can you give the title of a book with FACTS of your belief, QM , GR etc. ?

I mean FACTS, like the pendulum of Foucault, or the facts described by Cruz, no blabla . Cruz gives many, can you give one?

Morp

quote:

---

Originally posted by morp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexander:

Truth by definition is a compliance with facts. Religion does not agree with facts, so religion thus (by definition of truth) is false (=untrue, or wrong).

---

Alex

There are numerous religious books filled with religious facts. For example the recent (1997) books of Joan Carroll Cruz.
Can you give the title of a book with FACTS of your belief, QM , GR etc. ?

I mean FACTS, like the pendulum of Foucault, or the facts described by Cruz, no blabla . Cruz gives many, can you give one?

Morp

If someone will tell the truth give him a horse

---

Unless you believe in conspiracy theory, you have to take seriously the number of brilliant people working in QM, string theory, loop quantum gravity, plus those such as Roger Penrose and Julian Barbour working independently.

What they are looking at and what they are trying to understand is more than amassing a list of static "facts". At this level of thinking and research they are dealing with probability, with process and change.

Also, much of the thinking is ahead of what can be confirmed experimentally. The reason to take it seriously is the fact that it takes place in serious universities with serious reputations where serious work has been done before (the sort of work that wins prizes and funding and which builds reputations). The work is built solidly on the foundations of previous scientific thought, is subject to peer review and is willing, when experimentation or more elegant theories arise, to change its conclusions. The inquiry is therefore about more than picking up facts as you would stones in a field.

If writers such as Cruz, who deal with miracles, were subject to the same pressures and demands, it would be childishly easy to pick holes in their ideas about the miraculous. But scientists do not really bother with such stuff; they already have a pretty good idea that the miraculous operates outside the level of established laws, is not willing to be reviewed and invesitgated scientifically and will not change its perspective as a result of scientific results and pressure.

Cruz is therefore operating in a very soft field and is writing for believers. She thus has much more licence and freedom to say anything she likes. No one dealing seriously with research into theoretical physics is for one moment going to divert their time to look at supernatural miracles. It would be considered a waste of time and money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by morp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alexander:

Truth by definition is a compliance with facts. Religion does not agree with facts, so religion thus (by definition of truth) is false (=untrue, or wrong).

---

Alex

There are numerous religious books filled with religious facts. For example the recent (1997) books of Joan Carroll Cruz.
Can you give the title of a book with FACTS of your belief, QM , GR etc. ?

I mean FACTS, like the pendulum of Foucault, or the facts described by Cruz, no blabla . Cruz gives many, can you give one?

Morp

If someone will tell the truth give him a horse

---

Unless you believe in conspiracy theory, you have to take seriously the number of brilliant people working in QM, string theory, loop quantum gravity, plus those such as Roger Penrose and Julian Barbour working independently.

What they are looking at and what they are trying to understand is more than amassing a list of static "facts". At this level of thinking and research they are dealing with probability, with process and change.

Also, much of the thinking is ahead of what can be confirmed experimentally. The reason to take it seriously is the fact that it takes place in serious universities with serious reputations where serious work has been done before (the sort of work that wins prizes and funding and which builds reputations). The work is built solidly on the foundations of previous scientific thought, is subject to peer review and is willing, when experimentation or more elegant theories arise, to change its conclusions. The inquiry is therefore about more than picking up facts as you would stones in a field.

If writers such as Cruz, who deal with miracles, were subject to the same pressures and demands, it would be childishly easy to pick holes in their ideas about the miraculous. But scientists do not really bother with such stuff; they already have a pretty good idea that the miraculous operates outside the level of established laws, is not willing to be reviewed and invesitgated scientifically and will not change its perspective as a result of scientific results and pressure.

Cruz is therefore operating in a very soft field and is writing for believers. She thus has much more licence and freedom to say anything she likes. No one dealing seriously with research into theoretical physics is for one moment going to divert their time to look at supernatural miracles. It would be considered a waste of time and money.

================
Should I hit it
with a hammer?

---

N_Quire,

We were discussing about facts, not about Cruz. I gave that name only as an example but there are many more.

We know many experiments of famous scientists of the past confirming scientific theories, like the Magdebourg spheres of von Guericke, Fizeau's optical experiments, Marconi's radio transmissions,etc. I asked an experiment or fact confirming your beliefs. If you cannot give one you should avoid accusations like the above.

Morp.

.

quote:

---

Originally posted by morp:

There are numerous religious books filled with religious facts. For example the recent (1997) books of Joan Carroll Cruz.
Morp

We were discussing about facts, not about Cruz. I gave that name only as an example but there are many more.

We know many experiments of famous scientists of the past confirming scientific theories, like the Magdebourg spheres of von Guericke, Fizeau's optical experiments, Marconi's radio transmissions,etc. I asked an experiment or fact confirming your beliefs. If you cannot give one you should avoid accusations like the above.

Morp.
If someone will tell the truth give him a horse

---

You raised the question of Cruz and I attempted to deal with it. Even though you used Cruz as an example of your point, you now say that Cruz was not the point.

If you want to find out all the ways in which QM or any other theory has a value in explaining things (what you might call facts), it is a simple matter to go to the CERN website, and indeed many others. and find out which of the ideas are confirmed by experiment and which are not and remain speculative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by morp:

There are numerous religious books filled with religious facts. For example the recent (1997) books of Joan Carroll Cruz.
Morp

We were discussing about facts, not about Cruz. I gave that name only as an example but there are many more.

We know many experiments of famous scientists of the past confirming scientific theories, like the Magdebourg spheres of von Guericke, Fizeau's optical experiments, Marconi's radio transmissions,etc. I asked an experiment or fact confirming your beliefs. If you cannot give one you should avoid accusations like the above.

Morp.
If someone will tell the truth give him a horse

---

You raised the question of Cruz and I attempted to deal with it. Even though you used Cruz as an example of your point, you now say that Cruz was not the point.

If you want to find out all the ways in which QM or any other theory has a value in explaining things (what you might call facts), it is a simple matter to go to the CERN website, and indeed many others. and find out which of the ideas are confirmed by experiment and which are not and remain speculative.

================
Should I hit it
with a hammer?

---

N_Quire

I said, no blabla, a fact. Not two, only one.
We live in Old Europe. It is bedtime now. I'll see tomorrow if you found a fact that supports your beliefs.

Good night.

Morp

As you said, no more such blabla in the future please....

went down the hill, the other day
my soul got happy and stayed all day

quote:

---

Originally posted by morp:
[quote]Originally posted by N_Quire:
[quote]Originally posted by morp:

There are numerous religious books filled with religious facts. For example the recent (1997) books of Joan Carroll Cruz.
Morp

We were discussing about facts, not about Cruz. I gave that name only as an example but there are many more.

---

Morp, you're a hoot. You wheel out an old carthorse called Joan Carroll Cruz who writes about miracles. You call that facts. Then you say you didn't really mean to talk about Cruz, you meant something else. I have told you already, if you want to find out the ways QM works in the lab, go to the CERN website and check out the details. It's not even difficult.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:
[quote]Originally posted by morp:
[quote]Originally posted by N_Quire:
[quote]Originally posted by morp:

T

Morp, you're a hoot. You wheel out an old carthorse called Joan Carroll Cruz who writes about miracles. You call that facts. Then you say you didn't really mean to talk about Cruz, you meant something else. I have told you already, if you want to find out the ways QM works in the lab, go to the CERN website and check out the details. It's not even difficult.

================
Should I hit it
with a hammer?

---

N_Quire,

I agree with you, I am a hoot and Cruz is an old carthorse.
But the discussion was about what Alexander said about facts . My claim is there are far more well documented religious facts than Alexander or you can give about your QM.
I give you once more two examples.

When Fresnel presented his wave theory of light to the French Academy he was told his theory was absurd because according to it there would be a bright spot in the center of the shadow of a disk. The experiment was done to show the absurdity of his theory but the bright spot was there.

In 1917 , at Fatima, thousands of witnesses, many of them non-believers, saw "the miracle of the sun" .

Hundreds of similar facts can be cited in favour of classical physics and of religion.

None can be given in favour of your beliefs. You can not hide this scientific truth behind the big back of CERN.

Morp

went down the hill, the other day
my soul got happy and stayed all day