Essay talk:My beliefs

NOMA

As I have noted in other discussions, you are using a self-defined version of NOMA that has no bearing on the intended definition.

In Gould's word's, "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)".

You are (mistakenly?) using GODDIDIT and passing it off as NOMA. These are two completely different methods.

I am interested in hearing your comments. Neveruse513 13:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I have to agree with the above. Creationism, global flood etc. aren't in the magisteria of "ultimate questions". People may have "faith" in them, but we can still investigate it (and indeed have done so) scientifically. I don't really see why we have to "respect" that sort of thing.

“”All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do...[some ranting and specifics]. When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.

—Johann Hari

ArmondikoV^postate 13:09, 4 March 2009 (EST)

There are many aspects of the flood well within religious magisteria, say the moral value or ultimate meaning of the Christian god's wrath, but the question of where the water went is not a matter of religious magisteria. Neveruse513 13:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)

All these comments suggest that the range of the Religious Magisteria should be set by Science. I simply Disagree.--Tolerance 13:18, 4 March 2009 (EST)

My point is that you disagree with NOMA as defined by its creator. Neveruse513 13:20, 4 March 2009 (EST)

And, Tolerance, you demand that your (wide) definitions of faith and religion be allowed to set the range of the Scientific Magisteria. I emphatically disagree. ħuman 17:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I believe GODDIDIT, pejorative connotation notwithstanding, is a much more accurate depiction of your position. How do you view that assessment? Neveruse513 13:25, 4 March 2009 (EST)

(EC)Indeed, that aspect may well be covered by NOMA and up to philosophers and people who believe in such nonsense to ponder, but the actual creation and flood, their physical effects, God interferring with the world in way that can be observed, or in the more general case of alternative medicine and so on, isn't covered by the standard definition of NOMA. These can be tested. The usual use of NOMA is to say that "science should keep its nose out of things that it can't do" not "science should keep its nose out of things we don't want it to". ArmondikoV^postate 13:26, 4 March 2009 (EST)

But, why should religions set the boundaries? That's just an excuse for them to say "we don't want our beliefs questioned, now STFU!". Science knows where it can go and what it can explore so should really have the final say where the line gets drawn. ArmondikoV^postate 13:26, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Although I am not a Catholic I am Prepared to go with the Pope on this one. He said: [1]

“”5. The Church's Magisterium is directly concerned with the question of evolution, for it involves the conception of man: Revelation teaches us that he was created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gn 1:27-29). The conciliar Constitution Gaudium et spes has magnificently explained this doctrine, which is pivotal to Christian thought.

In other words he was drawing the line.--Tolerance 13:34, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I'm very confused by this. The Catholic church agrees that evolution is outside the church's magisteria (though it does concern it). What they are saying is that the moral/metaphysical implications of evolution are in the religious magisteria. Neveruse513 13:38, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I make the point to hi-light the fact that Gould and the then Pope did Not have the same concept of NOMA, although they are often erroneously assumed to have been in Agreement. These is more than one NOMA. Although he Coined the idea it is not the only one.--Tolerance 14:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)

The Pope's statement is in accordance with Gould's principle. Evolution concerns church magisteria (it is not included). Neveruse513 14:33, 4 March 2009 (EST)

OK here's Another:

“”Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the Magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence.

He seems to be claiming the Magisterium for the Church. --Tolerance 16:16, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I'm going to throw some poorly made tables out there for discussion:

NOMA
Science	Religion
What	Who (God)
When	Why
How
Where

GODDIDIT
Science	Religion
What	Who
When	Why
Where	How

Neveruse513 13:54, 4 March 2009 (EST)

(EC)Interesting tables. Sums up NOMA pretty well, although I personally think the concept is terrible as the "why" and "is there a who" can, in principle, be solved by science eventually. ArmondikoV^postate 14:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Probably the best way to think of NOMA in a simplistic way would be science=how and religion=why. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{...and a hotplate!} 14:03, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Tolerance, imagine if Copernicus & Galileo had adhered to your particular ideas about science not contradicting religion & had not challenged geocentrism, and that all scientists since had done the same. We would be prevented from discussion that the planets orbit the sun, despite all the scientific evidence for this. Can you honestly say that that scenario would be preferable to having the scientific information fully available as well as all the other breakthroughs made as a result of it? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:07, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Your point is most hypothetical. I suspect that it also Erroneously Assumes that Religious thought cannot evolve.--Tolerance 14:29, 4 March 2009 (EST)

How will it evolve if it is not allowed to be challenged? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:20, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Why shouldn't it? Many New Religious Ideas have been presented over Time.--Tolerance 16:11, 4 March 2009 (EST)

So have Many New Scientific Ideas, but you appear to be advocating that they should be repressed or censored, lest they encroach on some religious sensibilities. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:07, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I've said it before; Andy Schlafly, the fundies, and I all agreed on one point - you're either all in or you're not. I totally believe that you have to either go full-bore with all the whack-a-loon stuff that comes with Christianity or otherwise get the hell-outta-Dodge. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{...and a hotplate!} 14:35, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I rather agree with you. You believe in Religion Faith and God or you don't. But NOMA allows the two groups to at last co-exist.--Tolerance 16:12, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Boundries of NOMA

Tolerance, you seem to think that science and religion are these two great things in a "sea" of unthought ideas that gobble up the various ideas as they are finally considered by someone. The boundries are fixed and rigid. Anything that has been or could ever be empirically tested is already in the science magisterium. All other questions would be outside of the science magisterium. A claim might be based in faith, but if the claim makes a prediction or statement that can be empirically tested then it falls under the science magisterium. NOMA is not a shield from inquiry. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{...and a hotplate!} 13:59, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I Fear the we are in danger of concentrating on only one of the four Planks of my belief. They really need to be taken in Order. Remember that NOMA builds on and is supported by the earlier two, and these three then go on to the Fourth Leg.--Tolerance 14:24, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Let me put it this way: Your NOMA builds on those planks, legs, whatever. Your first three planks are there to build up a wall around your definition of NOMA so that it can't be challenged. I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you write, but I also doubt that many here will accept your NOMA. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{...and a hotplate!} 14:30, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I just don't see how the person of "faith" has the right to define what science does or does not investigate. maybe people of faith, have faith that the world is flat. But i'm rather keen on the idea that we go into space and find other life. If you "respected" the faith position, we'd never make it anywhere. Science has no holding on "respect" or lack of respect. though any given scientist might. Science just says "there was no flood, end of discussion".--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 14:34, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Well, it starts with Respecting Religion and builds logically from there into an Exploration of the Nature of Truth. As I said, we are in danger of concentrating on one tiny aspect of the Whole rather than considering the entire edifice.--Tolerance 16:09, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I don't know your particular definition of religion opps, "respect". But I respect religion, have a minister for a father, spent 10 years in graduate school working with the narratives of Myth throughout religion, and damned if i'm not going to used every bit of what I learned to explore more. I want to know who wrote passages of holy texts; I want to know what drugs they were or were not on; I want to know if one group came first, despite what the "winner's writings" say. I thrive to know how the myths of one religion become the facts of another. That is "truth", because it is history. If you want to be a revisionist, so be it. But one who wants to hide from scientific and historical truth seeking should stop playing the game, and not tell those who strive to know more, to quit playing. That is, if what scholars and scientists find, threatens your world view, that's your problem, not theirs.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 16:29, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I fully Respect your right to Proselyte for your particular Truth.--Tolerance 16:35, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Science doesn't need your gentle fondling "respect" to pursue understanding and explanations. It also doesn't need your "permission" via your version of NOMA to explore whatever the method can be applied to. ħuman 19:28, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I Fully Understand that Science will, in Fact, do what it Likes. I merely ask for Religious Tolerance.--Tolerance 19:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

GODDIDIT

Tolerance, do you know of the principle by which I refer to as "GODDIDIT"? Could you please define GODDIDIT and contrast it with your definition of NOMA? Neveruse513 14:40, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I assume that "GODDIDIT" is your term. I'm sure that you could Define it Better than I.--Tolerance 16:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

We have a page about the term. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:42, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Them I don't entirely understand the Point being made Above.--Tolerance 16:44, 4 March 2009 (EST)

This is an interesting page too. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:10, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Assuredly so. NU - out. Neveruse513 17:12, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I'm having trouble trying to define it in nice terms. Let me through out some examples and see if you catch my drift. Please tell me if this is inline with your personal definition of NOMA:

• How did Jonah survive in the whale's stomach? Goddidit or NOMA?
• Where did the water from the flood go? Goddidit or NOMA? Neveruse513 16:47, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Basically, it's the notion that it's irrelevant if something doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't have to; you know your god did it and you don't have to understand it to believe it.

Does that sound like NOMA to you? Neveruse513 16:55, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Does anyone know what religious people call goddidit? "Blind faith" maybe? Is there a special phrase they use or something? Neveruse513 17:06, 4 March 2009 (EST)

Faith. The "blind" is implicit, I guess. ħuman 19:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I would Say that Faith is naturally Blind. As I have Said before, if there were Evidence then Faith would not be Necessary.--Tolerance 19:09, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

So why regard the scientific method, which rests on evidence, as also being bound up with faith? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I believe that Belief in the Efficacy of the Scientific Method is also a matter of Faith.--Tolerance 19:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

The scientific method is just a matter of proving things with evidence. If its Efficacy rests on Faith, then how can you reconcile that with "if there were Evidence then Faith would not be Necessary". Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:27, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

our holy fable is the scientific method - itself held to be "true" as a matter of faith

If this is how you view scientific principles, then why do you regard science as occupying a separate magisterium to religion? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:09, 4 March 2009 (EST)

I would Say that Art is also a seperate Magisterium and art opinions are also Intimately Bound to the Culture from Which they come. But again you concentrate on the NOMA Element of my Argument.--Tolerance 19:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

So you haven't answered my question but OK, I'll play along. So Art is a Third Magisterium, overlapping with neither the themes of religion nor the subjects of science. So what is art allowed to explore? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Well ... Perhaps ....Art? Incidentally, there may be other There may be many Magisteria.--Tolerance 19:27, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Drugs! Keep your filthy Science, Religion, and Art offa mah drugs! ħuman 20:03, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, a Drugs magisterium? There's an Idea. I shall have to Think about that.--Tolerance 16:39, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Essay additions

I have attempted to clarify the Structure of the Essay to show how, once you accept respect for Religion, then the rest flows from this Obvious Assumption. NOMA is simply one way to ensure this Respect is shown.--Tolerance 19:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

religion is not in any way deserving of respect! _and marmite 20:14, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

What gives you the idea that the mumblings of the mentally disturbed should be entitled to respect? _and marmite 20:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

"I hold that all religions, irrespective of any non-believer’s belief in their apparent “rationality” or "irrationality", are equally worthy of respect." I hold that this premise is ridiculous. Female genital mutilation? Stoning rape victims to death? The universe is 6-10,000 years old? These are religious precepts. ħuman 20:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Perhaps these Issues would be better Discussed under the heading of cultural Relativism.--Tolerance 16:38, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Moved from Noma talk

== Tolerance!!! ==

• All religions should be respected.
• All religions require faith.
• All ideas based on faith (and only faith) imply religion.
• Therefore all ideas based on faith should be respected.
• The principle of NOMA excludes religions from scientific investigation.

Bullox! Not worth discussion. NOMA is there for the defense of the indefensible. _and marmite 14:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I should like to Congratulate Toast for being one of the Few People to Fully Comprehend my Line of Reasoning. I know that Toast Doesn't agree with it, but it is Gratifying to See that Toast Understands (More of Less) how I get from A to NOMA.--Tolerance 19:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Silly bugger, it's copied from your crappy essay. It's crap from A to NOMA. _and marmite 19:27, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I Understand it's a copy. But you are So Far the Only One to actually Refer to the Sequence, and not just Quibble about differences in the NOMA Definition. I Thank You for that.--Tolerance 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Tolerance = Toast. What did I win. Mei 19:41, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I Suspect that Toast will Answer with more Vigour than I.--Tolerance 19:43, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

• No religion should be respected
• All religions require gullibility
• Many (sorry) ideas based on gullibility imply religion
• Therefore no ideas based on gullibility should be respected
• The principle of NOMA is a get-out for the gullible. _and marmite 19:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

But Respect for Religion is a Universally accepted Human Right. No Civilised person would Deny it.--Tolerance 19:40, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I have NO respect for religion & see no reason for anyone else to have any respect for it. I dispute your "No Civilised person would Deny it." Statement. Why should a mental aberration be respected? _and marmite 19:47, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

(I respect your right to have that particular mental aberration) _and marmite 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

This is wedge strategy rhetoric. Tolerance is taking a fairly vague & reasonable-sounding statement ("All religions should be respected") & stretching it to justify censorship. People's rights to practice religion should be respected, but that doesn't entail protecting them from anything which might contradict their religious beliefs, including scientific research, as Tolerance is advocating. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:51, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

(EC) My arse is it a universal human right. Freedom of religion is, something I consider merely an annex of freedom of speech. You're quite welcome to practice whatever crazy religion you want, as long as it doesn't hurt people. However, asking me to respect your crazy belief is several dozen bridges too far. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm with Jeeves and Toast on this one. Toleance's silly "argument from A to NOMA" fails at line one, which is not true. ħuman 19:58, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we move this thread to the essay talk page? It's not really about this article; it's just spilling the same debate over onto multiple talk pages, which is generally best avoided. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:54, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

done! _and marmite 09:06, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

My Argument from "A to NOMA", also works from "NOMA to A".

A to NOMA works, as Toast has remindedus, by: - 1) Respect for Religion, 2) Respect for Faith 3) Showing that respect via NOMA.

"NOMA to A" works. 1) NOMA allows Science to Respect faith. 2)This is becasue faith should be Respected. 3) If Faith is Respected Religion must be respected. I accept that "NOMA to A" is not as elegant as "A to NOMA - but if NOMA isn't about allowing Science to respect Faith, then what is it About?--Tolerance 15:52, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

It's about a sneaky attempt to dodge responsibility by godbotherers & should be ignored by anyone else. _and marmite 16:21, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes, but you don't like NOMA anyway Toast. IT would be More Interesting if those who are more Pro-NOMA commented. Not that your Opinion isn't always Interesting.--Tolerance 16:33, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Haven't noticed anyone but you supporting NOMA much, Tolly. My liking matters not at all: it's religion that's the trouble, not how some people want to excuse it. _and marmite 16:44, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

I am not as unsympathetic to the idea of NOMA as Toast is, and I still think the argument is a bunch of twaddle. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:52, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

At what Point does the Argument ... ummmm .... Fall Down?--Tolerance 16:54, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

(1) The first premise. I think that the only respect that should be given to a religion, simply on those grounds, is in the law in the form of freedom of religion. (2) The third premise. Most religions are based on a mixture of faith and observation instead of just faith. (3) The conclusion. If scientific investigation by some means validated a religion, that religion would not at all be disrespected. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:03, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

On the First point I'm afraid that I simply disagree. On the second, I Maintain that any "Religion" that did not include some sort of Faith would not be a Religion. On the final point, I would be Opposed to the very idea of scientific investigation of, say, the Resurrection on the grounds that it would Blasphemy.--Tolerance 17:11, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

I said mixture of faith and observation. Many people base their religious beliefs not only on faith, but on what they consider evidence. Also, insofar as religions make factual claims about the natural world, these must fall under the scrutiny of science, since the natural world is the proper sphere of science. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:11, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

blasphemy! How mediaeval! Blasphemy just means "hurting my feelings". You've really gone too far now Tolly. _and marmite

weaseLOId chides me above because he maintains that science is based on evidence, now you tell me that you believe Religion is based on Evidence. I maintain they are both, at Heart, based on Faith. Have you ever seen an Atom? No, you haven't but you have Faith it exists. As for Religion's real-world claims it is clear that some of them may not be Investigated. Think of the Resurrection or the existence of God.

To Susan - many wise and Good Sincere People have believed that Blasphemy is a sin. Can you honestly say they were Wrong? I think not.--Tolerance 17:30, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Words fail me Tolerance. SIN? err.. Oh yes I know: "CRAP". why should it be a "sin" to call a figment stupid or similar, Is it blasphemy to decry Father Christmas or the Loch ness Monster? No? then why should your equally imaginary "god" be protected?   .  ^{Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent} 17:44, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

EZ edit button

(UNINDENT) Again, I am not saying that there is no faith to religion, but there are also other elements involved. Also, faith is not exclusive to religion, as it backs up many secular beliefs (political beliefs, in particular).

As to the atom question, what I have faith in is the scientific method, which has "proven itself" by its own standards; the scientific method tells us that atoms exist, and many correct predictions have been made on that account.

The existence of "God" is a question about the supernatural, not the natural world, and hence is not in the realm of science. But the question of Jesus getting up and walking after three days dead — that is scientifically testable, in theory, anyway. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:08, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

I agree that Faith is present in many Places and not least in science. Most people believe in their Religions becasue educated people they respect tell them that their Beliefs are true. They take on Faith things that are said by Wise people. Having Faith they do not need to check.

Exactly the same thing happens with atoms. Intelligent people tell us that they exist and we take it on faith they are telling the truth. We like to tell ourselves that "we could check if we wanted to" but the reality is that nobody does - out Faith is enough.

God, atoms - it's all down to Faith in the end. And that's why Science and Religion need to be equally Respected.--Tolerance 17:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't buy that idea. While I agree that for the lay person, we do rely to no small extent on the 'argument from authority' for things like atoms, string theory, etc., we know there is a distinct difference between science and religion/faith, because religion has produced nothing. It cannot predict. Science can. Religion does not build airplanes with the theories of god. Science makes drugs, new polymers, etc. yes, it *could* all be a giant conspiracy that there is magic in teh world reserved for a few, but that is less believable than accepting that science is based on testable, reproduce able truth. and, your very example is why. i really *could* go to school, and in fact, did to some level, like the rest of us. Science says "pippette this liquid into that liquid until a color shift happens. It will happen at X% acidity, no matter where you start. Religion says "pray, and you will probably get something". Those simiply aren't the same measure of "faith" for all huksters can use "science woo" to sell non-science to the ill educated.--En attendant Godot_{"«Her intense and pure religiousness took the form of her having equal faith in the existence of another world and in the impossibility of comprehending it in terms of earthly life. V.Nabokov»} 18:06, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Ditto to the above.

Also, although it is true that science and religion both require faith, faith in the scientific method is faith in an idea, while the faith required by most religions concerns factual claims — more specifically, factual claims about the natural world, such as your example of the Resurrection. Entirely different kettles of fish. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:32, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Horseshit

God, oh, god, I am so tired of hearing this drivel repeated.

• All religions should be respected.

No. Deeply illogical, misogynistic, racist, repressive, and genocidal religions deserve nothing but our deepest scorn.

• All religions require faith.
• All ideas based on faith (and only faith) imply religion.
• Therefore all ideas based on faith should be respected.

Bullshit. Deeply illogical, misogynistic, racist, repressive, and genocidal ideas based on faith deserve nothing but our deepest scorn.

• The principle of NOMA excludes religions from scientific investigation.

No, it doesn't. It's a politically correct repetition of the difference between physics and metaphysics. So long as religions make objective claims about the universe, they are under the domain of scientific investigation whether they like it or not. When a faith healer is taking money while claiming to cure cancer, we have a damned duty to investigate and expose.

• The idea of cultural relativism shows us that "scientific truth" is only relative anyway.

This is the worst Pomo bullshit of it all. "Scientific truth" is not and has never been relative. It has been influenced and informed by social factors for centuries, but as so many have pointed out so many times, gravity on the earth's surface is 9.81m/s^2 whether you're Dutch, Hindu, or Aztec. Jump out a window and prove otherwise, if you dare. Odin cannot allow you to land on the moon, nor can Jesus connect you with your cousin in Siam via a communication satellite. You can have "faith" in progress, but we don't have "faith" in science. We have centuries of evidence to back us up. 14:45, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

I have always maintained that Faith is not based on Evidence. Though many argue with me on this point both here on aSK.--Tolerance 15:32, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Faith is not based on evidence because faith is how people justify believing in silly shit that there is no evidence for, like toothfairies and God... And I just got here--but do you always capitalize random words like that? 'Cause it makes you look like a fuckin' idiot, sweet-cheeks. CreamTwoSugars 15:38, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

We are all Different.--Tolerance 16:39, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Yet some of us are more Different than others. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:19, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

Confession

Lest anyone be misled these are not my real beliefs. Sorry to anyone who go sucked in. I'll leave this up as a monument to the debate though.--Tolerance (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in the Process of editing to bring up to Date.--Tolerance (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversion

You say but I have great hopes of being able to convert User:Maratrean... but, honestly, there is nothing here I strongly disagree with. Sure, I might disagree with some the precise specifics, but the gist of what you are saying seems unobjectionable to me. Trying to convert me to something I already believe in? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent!! I shall mark you up as a Fellow Traveller.--Tolerance (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All religions should be respected --

I spent a good 20 years studying religion academically. I try to respect most people's beliefs, but i draw some very stringent points. the most important is "and harm none". Are you really ok with tolerating personal religions that advocate parents pray for their children's health **to the exclusion of** (and not in addition to) medical treatment? Are you really ok with a religion (or a sect of that religion, anyhow) that accept cutting a woman's nose or ears off, or blinding her because she shamed the family. Or killing her cause she fell in love with someone from the wrong tribe/religion? Are you ok with religions demanding that their adherents kill others in the name of God and the religion?

I try hard to respect others, but they have to first show themselves worthy of that respect. En attendant Godot 21:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Some beliefs are indeed Challenging to Hold.--Tolerance (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello...

...your friendly neighborhood Nazi here. I am glad to have found someone who is not bigoted against my worldview. It is not often that we Nazis are treated with respect, despite our racial superiority and valid grievances with the Jews, communists, and other undesirables. I thank you for your kind consideration. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)