User talk:Tolerance

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Tolerance! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Don't think we want balance if it means taking Iron Age myths as TRUTH. SusanG 13:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Respect and tolerance for religious views is all that I am asking for. I am confident that we can find common ground.

Sadly, I have NO respect for religious views. I'd better go off line before I start saying what I really think. AND SIGN YOUR COMMENTS ~~~~ SusanG 14:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I am able to respect all vews, even those I disagree with. why can you not do the same? Tolerence

Views != Facts that's why (!= means NOT EQUAL). On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. SusanG 14:16, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

You claim (I suspect) to believe in atoms. Have you ever seen one? Wise people and books tell you they exist and you have faith in them. do you believe we are so different? Tolerence 14:20, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, before Susan goes into full attack mode, I'd contend that the methods used to demonstrate the existence of atoms are more satisfactory than those used to demonstrate, say, fish oil tablets. Anyhow, we are certainly tolerant - we just believe that other things are wrong. We're not denying the sincerity in which said beliefs are held, just their veracity.--מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

What a load of crap. Ratwiki tolerant? Wake up Wikinterpreter. SHahB 14:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm bowing out of this discussion before I blow several fuses (and get stuffed Bohdan) SusanG 14:32, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

But people have faith is science because clever peopl tell them things are so. Take quarkcs, many people believe they exist only becase scientists say they exist. But not even a scientist has seen one. The bible tells me God exists, nobody has seen God either but I Know he exists.Tolerence 14:32, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Please tell me this doesn't have anything to do with the talk that's going on at the creationism articles which I've refused to read. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

'fraid it does.We've got a religious nutter person all to ourselves. :) SusanG 14:52, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm must say that, having read a little more of this site, it looks as though there is much work to be done. Yes NightFlare - we are discussing how best to present a Balanced Rational View of Creationism on those pages. Tolerence 14:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Rational and Creationism are two words that cannot be in the same sentence (unless it's Creationism is not rational of course) SusanG 15:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I see that you have a little to learn. You can't convince people by simple asertion. I Know the truth of what I follow, can you say the same about your Theories? Are they Perminant and Unchangin? Or are they different every day? Tolerence 15:16, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Ah, but if you know the truth of them, where is the faith in that? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

My faith in Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gives me the confidence to know. Tolerence 15:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

But if you know, then there is no room for faith. The one excludes the other. It's like Paul says - we see God 'through a mirror, darkly' - we can't be certain, and it is living and believing in a world of uncertainty that matters. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I disagree with your interpritation. We have evidence for our faith - the faith of things not seen.

I don't see how that helps. Delusional and paranoid people have faith (i.e., believe) that everyone's out to get them, but that's not evidence. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Such certainty precludes both faith and tolerence. Rational Ed^faith 15:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Вера же есть осуществление ожидаемого и уверенность в невидимом. SHahB 15:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Belief in the (alleged} reported words of a middle-eastern rebel priest of the iron age is another trait of simple-mindedness nutjobbery. Oh F***; Goodbye SusanG 15:30, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Censored. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 16:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

thank you

Thank you for your support on my talk page. Would you care to assist in reviewing some of the more erronesus artiqules?Tolerence 15:29, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think no one would object to fixing articles that are actually factually erroneous. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I shall certainly endevour to stay within the rules and guidelines of this site.Tolerence 13:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Patience

I see that I shall need much Patience to continue God's work here. But I shall not answer to Abuse nor sink to it.Tolerence 15:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Good for you. SHahB 15:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Sadly, I must go OFF LINE shortly. It would be nice to have some support from the Christian Majority which I am sure is quietly watching the debate. Would you consider a Colaboration to improve the quality of the religious artiqules?Tolerence 15:40, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Please consider staying off line - after all the internet is a direct result of Science and must be anathema! SusanG 15:55, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

If you have to edit any articles here then for Christ's sake use a spell checker. Your overall ignorance is embarassing. Sure you weren't homeskuled?  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 16:22, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

For who's sake? :-) SusanG 16:26, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It's not a term I'd ordinarily use Susan, but I was trying to appeal to his better nature and put the fear of God into him. I mean that's what it's for, isn't it?  Lily ^{Ta, wack!} 17:02, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I consider spelling to be less imporatnat than the Message. But I thank you for your concern. Tolerence 13:38, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You will find that spelling errors tend to decrease the impact of your message. The occasional typo happens to everyone, but a continually slipshod approach to spelling leads to the impression that you aren't taking what you are saying, or the people you are talking to, very seriously. The effort to get it right (or lack of it) imbues what you say with more notability. human 13:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

thank you for you advise.Tolerance 13:57, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you very much

It's always nice to see someone randomly drop in from the sky, as it were, and try to undo the hard work I've put in here for the last six months. Thank you and God Bless. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Heh, Heh, Heh. SusanG 16:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

What do you mean AKjeldsen? This user isn't welcome here? Danish supremacist... SHahB 17:43, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

All that tolerance, quiet discussion and erudition brought to nought by one wazzock! SusanG 17:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

All users are welcome here, more or less, as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them, does it? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

The word "wazzock" seems to get broadly used... while the odds of any of us being in close theological alignments with M. Tolerence are rather low, all the user has done is edit talk pages and express their concern. Namecalling is not an argument, it's less than no argument. It's embarrassing to those who might wish to argue "on the same side", and obnoxious and trivializing to those to who are being argued with. I don't think calling a first-day user who has not done anything wrong a "wazzock" really furthers any causes whatsoever. Anyone for Headless Chicken Mode? PS, re-reading, it isn't actually obvious to me, now, who is being called a "wazzock". Our new friend, M. Tolerence, or is Susan humorlessly referring to herself? Oh, the lack of inflection on my cheap "vision only" screen! human 22:17, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

It was addressed to AKjeldsen in response to his humorous comment. Stop being so self righteous Human. SusanG 22:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

As strange as it may seem, I'm gonna have to agree with Susan here. Kjeldsen is clearly a wazzock. SHahB 22:28, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Susan - try to indicate more clearly who you are namecalling if you don't want me to get on a high horse over it, 'k? human 23:07, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Susan, I'm a big fan of yours, but you need to back off from being so flat out insulting to Tolerance. It doesn't help 'our' side win any arguments (despite me agreeing in principle with your views), and finally I'll bet you wouldn't be like that in the flesh. DogP 14:46, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

As ever, I plead for tolerence.Tolerence 13:39, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Something you ought to read

Please read the Atheism FAQ. While not all of us are atheists, most of us would agree with the vast majority of what's written in there. Regardless, religion is in no way sacrosanct around here and is subject to the same criticism leveled at any other field of human endeavor, if not more so due to the wars and oppression it's engendered over the millennia. EVDebs 18:42, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think Human's right. This guy(?)'s prozdt No-one could be that ingenuous (and such a bad speller) and know how to breathe let alone work a computingifierintertubeweb machine. SusanG

Andy Schlafly? --Gulik 01:23, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your advice. I shall read the FAQ shortly.Tolerence 13:41, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

User name

Hey, Mr./Ms. "Tolerence", if you would like the typo in your user name corrected, I can easily rename you "Tolerance". Your user and talk pages would be automatically moved, and your password would remain the same. The old pages would become redirects to your "new" name. Just answer here if you'd like that done, I'll see it. Oh, and Welcome to the Dollhouse! human 20:17, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Is it wrong? Two LLS perhaps? If it's wrong than please fis it. Thank you very much. ...... When I sign in Ill need to use the new name I suppose?Tolerence 13:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

The second "e" should be an "a", if what you meant is "Tolerance" - which you spelled correctly everywhere else! Yes, I think you'll need to log in using the new spelling. If you have trouble, come to this page and copy and paste it. I will go do the renaming now. human 13:47, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Random Dislexia is a bit of a problem I msut admit. So "Tolerance" is correct? I'll save it somewherd78.47.210.72 13:50, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I see that pushed me out, but now it works. thank your for your Help Human.Tolerance 13:56, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

(EC) Hehe, it does interfere, yes. "Tolerance" is correct, I hope you can get logged in and drop a quick note here so we know it worked properly. (got it, great) By the way, I don't know about other browsers, but Firefox has a built in spelling checker which really helps. And you are quite welcome. human 13:58, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank yo again for your hepl.Tolerance 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Your Reception

I don't agree with you either, but I am mildly annoyed at the high percentage of snark and rethoric that have rendered the dicussions here with you just like wheels spinning in the mud - the snark and rhetoric coming from our side, that is. I address this to my cohorts: we know you guys are clever and witty, but I politely suggest you save it for someone who will actually appreciate it... surely this just feels like shooting fish in a barrel to you? In any case, I thought we were aiming to rationally refute the anti-science movement, with some snark... not to just be snarky at them.

I confess, this request stems from some degree of selfishness... I haven't debated a Creationist in a long time (and evidently, "debate" on Conservapedia does not count).

So Tolerance: hi. I doubt our arguments will change your stance, but I hope we're at least able help you understand our perspective a little better, and why we don't see rejection of your beliefs as "intolerant". Uchiha^KATON! 21:10, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm with you, Ucicha. We have a great big banner on the front page that says we welcome those who don't agree with us, join and engage in debate. 'Tolerance' is entitled to a proper debate, not just invective and namecalling. From me, anyway, Tolerance - please continue to ask questions and engage here, we welcome your opinions, though you must understand we utterly disagree. DogP 12:27, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I noted you're plese come and debate with us welcome, but didn't want to try quoting you're own rules to you.Tolerence 13:44, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Please note one other thing Tolerance - if you can't write English clearly, it can be hard to understand you. Are you a non-native English speaker? DogP 14:27, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I am a native speaker. I may have other issues which I dn't which don't disclose at this time. thank you for your concern and patienceTolerance 14:33, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I wish you the best with those. Why don't you try and write a little more slowly - you've contributed here as if your ass was on fire. DogP 14:35, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I have Much to communicate and time is Short. I will take Ffirefix porgramme soon.Tolerance 14:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

On Deeply Held Beliefs:

Slacktivist: Passionate Sincerity Just because someone's belief is Deeply Held, doesn't mean it can't be DEAD WRONG. And it surely doesn't give it any kind of pass from mockery. --Gulik 01:27, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I depends on wheather you agree with NOMA or not.Tolerence 13:45, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

NOMA is a deeply controversial matter in rationalist circles. There are many who both passionately embrace and passionately oppose the concept, and many others who consider it a silly and irrelevant attempt by an otherwise highly respected man to shovel the issue of religion vs. reason under the rug. The fundamental problem that I have with NOMA (I speak for no one else) is that God cannot interact with the material universe without in some sense being part of it, and open to the same lines of observation and inquiry as any other scientific issue. (Ask me sometime how I believe that an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot exist in any universe with a finite value of c.) As a result, those who do not accept NOMA believe that God must be either observed and explained or ignored -- there is no middle ground. EVDebs 15:16, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Advice

• There isn't a silent Christian majority here. Sorry.
• Susan has nothing but contempt for religious types, and you can't change that. (Susan this isn't an attack; it's just plain true)
• This isn't really a site, in general, that has respect for other people's opinions if they feel them to be wrong. And you won't be able to change this any time soon.
• "Faith" in science is not the same thing as faith in God. You can't see quarks, for example but you can still theorize their existence and then make verifiable predictions from that. If I don't trust that a scientist is telling me the truth, it's always possible to recreate whatever he did to do so. Faith in God is just that - faith. You can back up your faith (as I do) by looking at a sunset, or at the complexity of quantum physics, or the sheer mind-bogglingness of cell biology, but you can't take these things and make predictions from them.
• Lastly, good luck trying to single-handedly change this site. Many men before you have died trying. Well not really, but good luck anyway.

I agree with you that anyone's opinion should be respected (on the vast, vast majority of things), but this isn't really that type of place - it was created with the express purpose of "refuting and analyzing the anti-science movement, ideas, and people... and analyzing the full range of crank ideas". Lurker 01:46, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

There is a certain irony, Lurker, in your feeeling that there is no respect for other people's opinions on the site when you are free to post your opions witout being reverted, blocked or banned. Honestly, you sound like a bit of a crybaby. Rational Ed^faith 10:15, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Firstly, I would point you to Susan's second comment on this talk page. Secondly, just because I dissent without being banned, it doesn't mean that anybody respects what I've said. And lastly, I'm not whining, I'm telling the user exactly how it is. Do you disagree that this user is fighting a futile fight? Lurker 10:19, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Last I saw, this was the internet. Nobody but your mom is obliged to respect your opinion. Nor the hyperbole above ("Many men have died trying"? Puh-leeze!). --Kels 10:29, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Kels, for a cartoonist you sure have a hard time recognizing (attempted) humor. 69.158.119.124 12:04, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You must admit you are being a bit of a drama queen, Lurker. While some editors on the site are less respectful than others, you are free to express your opinions and engage in debate. Disagreement doesn't always signal direspect.Rational Ed^faith 10:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Correct, but on the other hand, the disrespect that is here is often expressed quite clearly. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I'll agree that is true, although it often is really an attempt at humor, which is one of the better qualities of this site. I appreciate the respect you, AK, have always shown to those who disagree with you. Rational Ed^faith

<-- (edit conflict) I think Lurker's post is actually pretty good advice for Tolerence. The "die trying" thing was meant to be humorous exaggeration, but most of the things he said were true. I'd only change a bit of the third one: "This isn't really a site, in general, that has respect for other people's beliefs if they feel them to be wrong." Opinions are argued about, but beliefs tend to be debunked or written off (or attacked, yes). As far as I can tell, opinions might get you into a debate (sometimes a quite heated debate), but it's presenting them as facts (sans snark) that will cause problems. Then again, I think Tolerence is (a quite successful) psrodist, so I guess the advice is better geared toward the other potential "Tolerences" out there. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 11:12, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I would further edit the third point to read "This isn't really a site, in general, that has respect for other people's beliefs if they think them to be wrong." Although many of us try, some don't, and those that do often fail in short order. Other than that, I agree that Lurker's attempt to counsel Tolerence is in good faith and probably useful to our new friend. human 13:00, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Keeping it to one's self

I wouldn't have much problem with religious people if they simply follow the title of this section. I, generally, feel exactly the same as SusanG does about religious people. However, I try to "keep it to myself" as best as I can. As somewhat mentioned in the bullets of the above section, I think that there is a basic misunderstanding of each side that I also am beginning to think is unbridgeable.

• Science is all about continuously questioning everything. To a scientist, being wrong is just as interesting as being right.
• From my perspective, faith is about becoming increasingly stubborn, willfully ignorant, or both. There really is nothing wrong with this as long as it's not affecting other people. However, therein lay the problem.

I do believe that religion will continue to be more and more marginalized to the point where it becomes effectively irrelavent. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 11:34, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Religion may become increasingly irrelevant among classes of people who are lucky enough to have material and political positions that provide them with the kind of life that makes it less likely for them to need a source of answers, a source of hope, and a possibility of redemption/a way out of their miserable circumstances that transcends the material plane - but one look at the Middle East, or at the historical role of religion in abolitionist movements, the Civil Rights era, the anti-apartheid struggle, and a host of other political projects shows that people in desperate circumstances often turn to religion - and there's little reason to believe that will change. Richard Dawkins and you and I might be lucky enough not to need faith, but we're hardly the norm on this planet. PFoster 11:42, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Good point, PF. The opiate of the masses, and all that. Ironically, communism has played a similar role. Rational Ed^faith

You know, I've always found that "opiate of the masses" bit to be incredibly condescending. Go tell it to Desmond Tutu. And then prepare to have your narrow ass kicked by an octogenarian. PFoster 11:52, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

You are right. I think for many it is an opiate, but for others it is an inspiration. Theose who are helpless and suffering sometimes need an opiate, however. Rational Ed^faith

Thank you for your Suport. although I am not in the land of Friends it's good to Know that some are with me. Thanks again.Tolerance 13:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

"Religion isn't the opiate of the masses. It's more like the crack cocaine." -- Hellpope Huey, Chruch of the SubGenius.

--Gulik 14:55, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

MArks was wrong on may things. But he wasn't to bad on religion. You hae a selective quote: He wrore: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." He saw relgigion as an escape from a souless world. Tolerance 15:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I think replace 'religion' with 'the organised church in the mid-nineteenth century, and to some extent today as well' and Marx pretty much hit the nail on the head. Also, PFoster? QFFT. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Yes, Mraxs' opinions on religion were not as dark as they have been painted. (Now on Firefox.)Tolerance 11:13, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

OFF LINE

I should liek to thank evryoen for their patience and consideration but now I must again go off lien. I shall retuen at some alte pointTolerance 15:10, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

Please remember to download firefox next time you are online. http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/ It is a very fast install and will do wonders for someone has difficulty spelling words correctly. --Shagie 15:13, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

I now have Firefox. Thank you. (Does improving my spelling with software rely make me more intelligent?) Tolerance 11:16, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

No, but as one of my favourite professors used to say, "Turning in a paper with spell-checkable errors essentially says:'Fuck you, Professor.'" Show you care - check your spelling and grammar - people will be more likely to take you seriously. PFoster 11:19, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Hi

Its amazing how someone elses opinion can offend some of the so called 'rational' people on this site to such a degree. This is my welcome, good to have different voices on board here. The old witch hunting gangs led by a prominent lady on this site is quite ironic (and embaressing) but don't let that hold you back. Not everyone shares their small minded intolerant views here. MarcusCicero 11:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Wait, wait, wait.........I am seeing this more and more in random places......can someone please tell me the connection between "rational" and "respect for other people and their ideas" or tolerance or placidity or patience or rhetorical style or anyone one of the other dozen or so false equivocations I see all the time.

Rationality is about an approach to gaining knowledge and vetting ideas. It is rooted in logic and driven by empirical testing and evaluations. It is a tool and a method and stops once a given idea has been vetted. After that the style of presentation or debate or approaches to interpersonal communications have nothing to do with rationality. Rationality is not a style of communication. Someone can be civil, patient, "balanced", and genuinely likable and be totally irrational. Just as someone can be crass, rude, quick to anger, intolerant of stupidity and the biggest asshole on the planet and still be consistently rational.

An ideas relative wrongness is a completely separate quality from how that idea is presented or how that idea is argued about. If you want to argue that this site is irrational or that a given person is irrational attacking style is not going to cut it. tmtoulouse ^provoke 11:42, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Nice to see you doing your best to curb that sharp toungue and sound more rational, Marcus. Not! Rational Ed^faith

ARGH! Again how is a sharp tongue related to irrationality or rationality??!?!?

I think we have all been possessed by some enlightenment era Jungian archetype of the calm composed "professor." The rational scholar archetype really needs some tweaking.............where is the righteous anger?? tmtoulouse ^provoke 12:03, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

But I'm sure that you will agree that all ideas should be respected - even if you think that are wrong.Tolerance 13:01, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh please, I am itching to bring in Josef Mengele right now.... tmtoulouse ^provoke 13:44, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Criticism can be positive, negative, or neutral. Criticism, from this site, of something you believe in shouldn't be automatically considered disrespectful. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 13:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, but the principle of NOMA should protect any religious viewpoint from scientific criticism.Tolerance 13:12, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't think you really understand NOMA. It's not a club to tell anyone they can't approach any religious dogma with scientific analysis. It could just as easily be interpreted as a dividing line set at the outer limits of what science is working on, outside of which theology is free to study anything it wants. human 13:40, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't by into NOMA, so that doesn't mean much to me. tmtoulouse ^provoke 13:44, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

re: rationality and niceness. IMO rational discourse involves some sort of civility. Maybe there are some instances in which it is rational to be an ass, but by and large I think that in RW's context—yakking on the internet, with no direct real-world policy effects other than personal edumakashun or lulz—it's pretty much a given that in order to be taken seriously (and rationally) you can't just insult people and drive them off the site for not agreeing with you. Engage them, listen to whatever they have to say, and if you think it's wrong, by all means rip into their argument. It's got to be possible to do that (and even express righteous anger in the process) without being a complete douche, which I think just implies that you're arguing from emotion/stubbornness, which in turn implies irrationality.--Bayes_yikes 14:01, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree completely.Tolerance 14:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Rationality is divorced from the style in which an idea is presented. Determining the worth of an idea based only on the style of its presentation would be irrational. Perception of rationality is a different beast all together, and as I said I think the archetype of the rational scholar needs updating. tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:10, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

NOMA

I don't patricularly mind NOMA. To me, it's not a fluid thing. On one side is everthing that science has, does, and will know (with the will part simply "yet to come"). The other side are the things that science can't know. In my opinion though, the "other side" doesn't really exist. It is simply an infinite ficiton. To borrow for my favorite RPG, the "other side" of NOMA is the Imageria. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 13:54, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

It was "invented" Stephen J Gould and endorsed by the Pope. On the NOMA debate page many people here have supported it. the majority I think. Why not make it official policy?Tolerance 13:59, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

If I understand NOMA correctly,the "faith" is comprised of those things about which certain knowledge is impossible. This means that it is impossible to talk about what lies on that side of things at any sort of meaningful level beyond conjecture - so if we can't really talk about it meaningfully, why create an intellectual space for it? PFoster 14:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Like I wrote, I don't particularly have any problems with NOMA. However, Tolerance, I don't believe that you have an adequate understanding of NOMA. If it were to be made "official policy", I don't believe that it would look anything like you expect that it would. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 14:11, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

My NOMA has Batman in it. And fairies. Prove me wrong.PFoster 14:15, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

NOMA says that there are some things which are withing the remit of religion. The existence of God, the existence of the Soul, Miracles, the answering of prayer, the Solace that Religion brings. All these belong to the Magisteriam of Religion. They have nothing to do with Science. Many religious people (though not I) would maintain that "evolution" is somehow controlled by God - this to is a religious belief. and religious beliefs should be wholly separate from scientific beliefs and not investigated by them.Tolerance 14:30, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

And I don't agree with this framework, nor do I see how it would apply as a site policy. tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:32, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I would urge you to go glance at my response to you elsewhere. You seem to be confusing "because religion says something about it means science can't" with other ways to draw the line in NOMA. --Shagie 14:35, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

(undent) Maybe it would be better to say that it is not the beliefs that science might investigate, but the questions those beliefs raise and the predictions they might make. If those questions or predictions can be tested in some way then they fall within the science side of NOMA. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 14:38, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Basicly I agree with NOMA - if Religious speakers don't talk ever, in any way whatsoever about the realm of science, then I for one will be glad to agree not to discuss the mumbo-jumbo of religion. The moment they bring a deity into the province of science however they cross the barrier. Otherwise let the children play in their corner.- Susan Jayne Garlicktalk 10:41, 4 September 2007 (CDT) SusanG 14:40, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Poll

Is tolerance a troll, parodist, or for real?

Troll

• SusanG 14:19, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Parodist

• First. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 14:39, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

This guy is for real

• I assure you that I am For Real.Tolerance 14:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Well that's just the sort of thing a troll would say now isn't it...hmmmm........... tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:25, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

• Just a gut feeling, but I'm going here. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 14:24, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Other

• I think I am leaning half way between troll and parodist. tmtoulouse ^provoke 14:14, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I think I agree, but only because the definitions kind of overlap. I think he means to cause trouble, but by pretending to be something else. Plus, a pure parodist would be funnier. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 14:29, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

• I don't have an opinion, I just like to vote. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:30, 11 April 2008 (EDT)