How to discuss religion with believers?

[Acrobat]

So my question is: how do you engage in a discussion with these people without it derailing? It's as if they were willfully ignoring or filtering some information, I don't really get it. I'm not really trying to convert them, but rather trying to understand the reasoning that leads them to believe in whatever religion... but no matter how hard I try to understand, their logic is just not in order. Sometimes I'm literally asking them to help me believe in their religion, but every time it's just not enough information to warrant any belief.

For starters people's religious beliefs are often attached to their sense of self, and personal identities (so is atheism), so questioning people, particularly in a critical way, about things deeply personal to them, is often perceived as attacks, especially coming from someone you’re not that close to.

So the fact that you're often met with defensive responses shouldn’t be that surprising.

Most of these religions are sketchy and superficial and fail to address many points (eg, how are animals or plants judged? And what about cavemen that didn't know how to speak and communicate and just hit things with their club? And what about people who are born in such conditions where knowledge is kept hidden to them? What about people who are born physically or mentally ill and can't really help themselves? What about those who are forced to behave in some way? If we really must assume there is a creator, then I'd picture it as some neutral and uncaring entity that wanders in the universe. No hell or heaven, just something that spawns life here and there and moves on).

As a religious person myself, I don’t know any serious religious person invested in questions about how animals and plants are judged, I’m just struggling be a good dad, a husband, a brother, friend, fighting against my own selfish tendencies and resentments, working to restore all the broken pieces, that seem to have been broken for ages, long before I was even thought in anyone’s head.

I think an observation about a religious view, made by the writer Cormac McCarthy, while working with scientist at the Santa Fe Institute sums it best:

“I have friends at the Institute. They’re just really bright guys who do really difficult work solving difficult problems, who say ““It’s really more important to be good than it is to be smart.” And I agree it is more important to be good than it is to be smart. That is all I can offer you.”

[polymath257]

[Drich]

[Drich]

[Scientia]

[polymath257]

I think you need to do your division again here. One atom of gold would correspond to about 6-7 'molecules of 'air', not 30 or 90. Let's be generous and use the 7:1 ratio.

Well, shall we compute? One mole of gas at standard temperature and pressure occupies a volume of .0224 cubic meters. So a cubic meter of gas has 1/.0224 = 44.5 moles of gas, which in the case of air is 29*44.5 grams, which is about 1300 grams, or 1.3 kilograms (just under 3 pounds).

Now, what is the volume of air in a typical house? Well, If we assume a 2000 square foot floor plan and 10 ft ceilings, that makes for about 566 cubic meters, so the mass of air in such a house would be about 1.3*566, or about 750 kilograms.
So, yes, this is under a ton. It would take a largish house to have a ton of air in it. 15 foot ceilings and 2000 square feet would be plenty, though.

Most people are surprised by how much the mass of air actually is in even fairly small volumes. Ordinary rooms can have hundreds of pounds of air.

here's where your confusion is in the conversion of mols to atoms. The point of the conversation was to witness God Change air to gold on a atomic level, so rather than convert I used the atomic weight of the atoms themselves. So to make a ton of gold even at a 7:1 ratio (your numbers not mine) you need 7 tons of air, as by your numbers gold is 7 times heavier than air. 

The point is it takes a larger than a 1:1 exchange to make gold from air. you will need way way more air molecules of air to make one u of gold. so if you had a ton of air in your house you are 6 tons short of making one ton of gold using your numbers.

You guys kill me. you make yourself look stupid for the sake of trying to show me up on a math issue when you miss the whole point of the problem, and screw up your own solution.

No, this is wrong. it is the *mass* that is important here, not the atoms. You may one atom of gold for about 7 molecules of air. But the mass of the two is the same. All that is required is to rearrange the protons and neutrons and convert a few protons to neutrons. The number of electrons will be correct.

---

Which is the number that polymath found. However, he too was incorrect, as what you both were comparing here are the moles, not the masses. What you have to understand is that a mole is just a way to number things: 14 balls of 1 gram are equal to 1 ball of 14 g. A mole represents that "14". This is the example I typically give to my students, which usually is effective:

Actually, if you look at my calculation, I used the masses, not the number of moles. The point is that I calculated the mass of a cubic meter of air and used that to determine the mass of the air in a house (approximately). I never actually used the 6.84 number.

[Scientia]

@polymath257
Wasn't this in bolden your response to Drich?

Meaning if you want one ton of gold you have to convert 90 tons of oxy nitrogen and Argon.. 

Correction: 7 tons.

Because from the look of it, it seems that "someone" corrected Drich by saying "you need 7 tons of oxygen/nitrogen/argon to obtain one ton of gold" which is equal to say that 1 ton = 7 ton.

Again, if that wasn't you, then I apologize. I assumed it was you from the context (and taking into account how messy the quote function can get).

[polymath257]

@polymath257
Wasn't this in bolden your response to Drich?

Meaning if you want one ton of gold you have to convert 90 tons of oxy nitrogen and Argon.. 

Because from the look of it, it seems that "someone" corrected Drich by saying "you need 7 tons of oxygen/nitrogen/argon to obtain one ton of gold" which is equal to say that 1 ton = 7 ton.

Again, if that wasn't you, then I apologize. I assumed it was you from the context (and taking into account how messy the quote function can get).

I *think* that was Drich attempting to correct us. I did mention that it takes 6-7 *molecules* of air to form one atom of gold. But that is correct and is what makes the masses the same.

In any case, no harm, no foul.

[Jehanne]

@polymath257
Wasn't this in bolden your response to Drich?


Because from the look of it, it seems that "someone" corrected Drich by saying "you need 7 tons of oxygen/nitrogen/argon to obtain one ton of gold" which is equal to say that 1 ton = 7 ton.

Again, if that wasn't you, then I apologize. I assumed it was you from the context (and taking into account how messy the quote function can get).

I *think* that was Drich attempting to correct us. I did mention that it takes 6-7 *molecules* of air to form one atom of gold. But that is correct and is what makes the masses the same.

In any case, no harm, no foul.

I can't believe that you, a PhD mathematician, is discussing high school physics and chemistry.

[polymath257]

I *think* that was Drich attempting to correct us. I did mention that it takes 6-7 *molecules* of air to form one atom of gold. But that is correct and is what makes the masses the same.

In any case, no harm, no foul.

I can't believe that you, a PhD mathematician, is discussing high school physics and chemistry.

Why not? I can also discuss algebra and arithmetic if the discussion calls for it.

One aspect that I was attempting to point out is the fact that air has considerably more mass than many people suspect. I know I was surprised the first time I learned that a cubic meter of air has a mass of about 3 pounds.