How to discuss religion with believers?

[Drich]

@Drich

if my understanding is so wrong why do your peers not only get it but are using the exact same equasions and numbers I started off with you? Polymath read his last post and it should be very familiar to you, as it is what I have been telling you one or two posts in.

start there

then read my response because I took everything he said and continued the thought.

maybe if you see it explain from someone who knows the terminology you get what is being said..

Read polymath post # 110 then my 113

Did you really stop reading after the first line?
Did you seriously not see the avalanche of answers I gave you?
Did you honestly, literally, not see that my post continued and that I actually bothered to address all your points anyways?
Has your faith blinded you to the point you can no longer literally see some type of information? Like real physical blindness that doesn't allow you to see any further and you just see white?

At first I thought I had finally found a decent believer interlocutor that could shed some light on his religion and what were the reasons and logic that brought them to believe in the first place. But now the picture is clearer and all I see is a man blinded by his own faith. Literally blinded. I thought it was strange that you answered to my posts as if you didn't read them. I thought to myself "maybe I didn't explain it well". Then it started getting weirder and weirder that your answers straight out ignored the points I had made. 

My conclusion is that you can't actually see some information, as if you were literally blind to them. It's like your brain was filtering information and showing you white. I really cannot fathom it otherwise.

I can't really get angry at you because I realize you are just victim of your circumstances. You found in "god" a way to cope and it worked, so really, who am I to take that away from you? As they say, "whatever floats your boat, man".

I don't think there is any point in continuing this. A conversation stops being a conversation when all you can hear is your echo.

If you'll ever bother to actually read my post, then you'll find all the answers and may understand. I'll also add that you might be interested to read these pages, even though they may actually do more harm than anything. What I wonder is: do you really wish to understand further? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I seriously read everything you had to say. and you have been closedmindedly repeating yourself for like the last 4 posts. 

Again I completely understand your theortical approach and understand why you have stuck to your guns. But in doing so you have made no effort outside of labling what I have said as being wrong on the simple fact that what I said differs from your take.

What I then moved to do it point out that unknowingly one of your peers polymath who has indeed corrected you on occasion on his own saw I was speaking on an atomic level then took it upon himself to reword everything he had to say converting from mols to atoms and explaining his new conclusion.. but low and behold his new arguement his new numbers and his new conclusion.. were my numbers were my thoughts and my conclusion from the beginning... Then because he had only 1/2 of what I said I walked him through the rest of why I'm saying there is no 1:1 conversion

Then I asked you to not address me and my work but to address his and explain to me how he is wrong.

Aside from all of this, it to me is funny to see how God works here although you may deny it. but God gave me the frame work to my argument right from the beginning. I had no idea of the way things were calculated proper names names of units of measure nor anything proper/technical about any of it. even so he showed me how it would work and I described it simply.. apparently too simply for you to understand it, when you challenged it for the first time I did the research and found when lead/bismuth was turned to gold.. it wasn't done the way it is done in the little box you limited understanding of science allows for. Because again if despite how grand you think your understanding of turning any element into gold.. you have no examples of gold even on an atomic level. Yet in my ignorance of all the proper terms qualifiers pomp and flash that you have I was given the only real life example. given meaning I had never looked any of this up nor heard anything about this yet had an understand that trumps yours. To the extreme that one of your peers literally recreated 1/2 my original argument and fed it back to me. once I enlightened him to the other 1/2 of my argument... he has had nothing to say to me nor you in 2 or 3 days now.

This kinda thing shows the contrast between my limits and God's personal reinforcement.

The same kind thing happened in the engineers meeting. I had 6 men telling me how I was wrong and what could not happen. I did not have the education to refute them only break my concept down to the most simplistic level, which I can only assume because they did not fully understand the fundamentals what I said simply made no sense to them. The same seems to be true here because it seems you are not willing to question the foundations of your knoweledge base, you are not even willing to take on a peer's revision of what I had to say.

You can put this off on me and claim I have closed my mind but in truth I can honestly say I understand your arguement and have given you reason why it is invalid. Primarly because we/science can turn one element into gold on an atomic level. because of this I know what you describe is wrong. because it did not happen this way there wasn't a 1:1 exchange ratio from base element to gold. how can I say this because even the gold created was not the 196U standard, they counted anything created from 190 to 200 in atomic weight as gold when technically 196u is gold. that means trillions of atoms fell below the cut off of 190u or fell above 200u  for ever one atom that fell in the 10u range that right there show a ration of 1,000,000,000,000 to 1

Now that is only the 1/2 the point I made.

The second 1/2 says if God truly was to make air into gold and only used air, then the 'fission' process you describe must also be created from air. so EVEN IF there is a 1:1 in your process, how much air will be used to create this air to gold fission? After all if air does not condense or warm up and rain gold, then there will need be some sort of external process that breaks the molecules and even atoms down and reassembles them to create a stable gold atom.

Because with the bismuth conversion helium was used to literally carve gold out of the bismuth. in your demand God is to make gold out of air and nothing but air can be used, therefore whatever processed used to turn air into gold must also be fueled by said air and not a Tertiary source like with the helium. So my question to you while you were trying to caculate any moral implications about stealing air, rather than simply following along with my simple question was. two fold, one how can you be certain air was converted to gold as even I can literally produce a gold coin out of thin air via slight of hand. 2 how can you possible count the cost of air expenditure to gold? Eg how much air would it take to make a ton of gold.

---

Socratic Questioning (in brief, why do you believe that?)

I do it to force people to think where as most forms of education demand or tell you what to think. for me level of education is less important than having the process which helps you discern your own thoughts.

Plus I think the Jews beat Socrates out on asking questions as a form of teaching by a few thousand years.,..