User talk:Merzul/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Merzul, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  A friendly message from a member of the Wikipedia Welcoming Committee, Senator Heimermann 01:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Merzul, just wondering what you're religion is? Or to put it another way, what is your fundamental belief about the nature of the universe? Roy Brumback 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

My personal bias (if it isn't obvious) is atheist. I'm interested in reasonable forms of religious thinking, but my editing bias is still effectively atheist. As to the ontological argument, I believe the classical formulations are not effective as arguments for the existence of God and I'm more interested in the modern formulations. According to Simon Blackburn, "The argument has been treated by modern theologians such as Barth, following Hegel, not so much as a proof with which to confront the unconverted, but as an exploration of the deep meaning of religious belief." I wonder what that means, and it would also be interesting to have a better representation of Plantinga's argument for the rationality of belief. It seems we could have worked some reasonable compromises, but I'm afraid that with holidays being over I have to get back to work and won't have much time on wikipedia... I will just make one more point for you to consider on the talk page. --Merzul 12:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Argument from nonbelief

You've done great work on the Argument from nonbelief article. I really appreciate it, and I hope you'll stick around! — Elembis 19:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and yes, I do intend to continue working on it, I have been busy today doing useless stuff, but I would like to remove the under construction tag very soon. The problem is that I've done most of the easy parts, and now I have to tackle the really difficult sections, so I have procrastinated a bit! :) --Merzul 19:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your atheism

Merzul, I am so interested in your journey to atheism. Is this an appropriate place to ask questions? Mostly, because of your great interest in God. As a Christian Scientist I appreciate your dedication to reason. Are you still hoping to find the God that makes sense to you? or is the jury truly in?Simplywater 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The jury will never be truly in, but it will require something very strong in my personal experience to change my mind. I don't know what exactly, but something that would make sense to me personally. --Merzul 22:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, with regard to your concern that ideas from the Bible causes one to disregard legitimate evidence, I think that could be said about many of the disiplines that causes us to reach outside of the evidence of our daily experiences. For example, excuse my spelling, a physicist would not go very far if he only relied on the evidence of his eyes. Let alone a quantum physicis. How do you think about atoms, when to our eyes a "rock" seems to be the whole? But, because of reason, scientists are able to set aside evidence that the earth is flat, the sun evolves around the earth, ect and ask "If I don't rely on the testimony of my eyes, but ask "what really makes sense" can I find an even greater truth. Another example is the airplane. There is alot of evidence that heavy objects fall, they don't fly. But someone igored that evidence, for a higher truth. Great discoveries are found in ignoring evidence that limits us. Simplywater 19:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with ignoring limiting evidence and relying on reason alone is that you can reach an internally consistent world view that you believe in, but how can you really be sure that this is a higher truth? --Merzul 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, From people I have talked to, first they hear something that rings true to their heart. Then, through searching, I think we can expect to see evidence of the power of relying on the truths that have come to us. Truth must be provable. Some of the simplest truths can be inverted and used to hurt ourselves and others. "mother love" is a great example. But as I have prayed to remember that this higher "truth" must be all good and only good, I have been able to actually feel the presence of pure goodness. For example the biblical saying "Ye shall know the Truth and the truth will set you free". For me, the writer saw something that set him free from fear, limitations, hate, jealousy, illness, poverty... what ever. I trust, (and have experienced myself) that those writers saw something, experienced something. beyond the dogma, the ritual, the struggle for power, they saw something that enabled them to walk over the dismay of the world. Great thinkers at times become overwhelmed by the chaos of the world. i.e. "yea thou I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me"

But I read this  as a great scientist of Life, who has come to the end of his ability to reason. Knows there is something but can't quite see it and humbly needs a little help. Perhaps is in that moment that  a light shines, an insight comes, the situation changes... and we know that there is something else.  Something 'Good'.  I bet, many great thinkers pass through the same place.  They come to the end of their abilities...  and something, an insight comes they move forward.

These biblical writers are great thinkers. Not always right, but working within the limits of their times. They were sure of what they wrote and their writing endured because they saw evidence of this higher "truth". They were searching for the infinite. For me, Jesus was kinda like the Einstein of spirtuality. He broke the boundries of limited religious thinking. Simplywater 20:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NOR

Merzul, thank you for your lovely note and your apology regarding WP:NOR. I think I was too harsh with you, and I apologize for that. I get a little jumpy when people suggest changes or rewording to policy pages, and I should try not to. I hope it hasn't affected your enjoyment editing here. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for adding the reference in the "Semitic languages" article

Thanks for adding the reference in the Semitic languages article. Itayb 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"it's not known where I live"

Where do you live? Jooler 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that means you have not seen here programme. In each programme she examines the stools of the client/victims, she is obsessed with excrement. This is what she is particularly known for. See here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9th5ZE_4h04&NR . Elsewhere on YouTube are various parodies of this. See aslo http://stablesound.co.uk/poo.php Jooler 22:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

more mckeith

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/Y/yawye/index.html is a description of the telly series, and all the 'success stories'. This is what made her a household name in the UK. Just in case you are still curious lol. Some of these followers of scient-ism are actually making me feel for her and like her more:)Merkinsmum 03:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by 'scient-ism' is that some people (as you can see on some of the pages) are a bit mad for it lol, I think it's possible to be a sceptic (which I am) without making it into another fundamentalist religion. At the very least the anger some people feel about alternative medicine etc can't be good for their blood pressure:)Merkinsmum 03:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Merzul. First, thank you for your vote and kind remarks in my RfA. It is very much appreciated. I am still a little busy IRL so I am not sure I can take a new major topic on my plate, but regarding the PubMed query I would agree with Jayjg that searching it would be WP:OR, just like posting a Google query into an article. We as editors should only cite published verifiable sources, especially when controversy is involved. It is fine to consult Google or PubMed when we do our research for sources in the Talk page, but once we edit the article itself we must point to and summarize actual verifiably published information, preferably a secondary source that analyzes the primary data for us. Remember that PubMed is just a database and may either have accidentally missing data or may not cover all publications in all countries, etc. We need some qualified third party to make conclusions and publish them, and then we can cite those conclusions. Anyway, thanks again for your support. (And I hope I don't lose it with this answer ;^)) Crum375 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Occupatin of Latvia arbitration

I haven't left; I'm just letting the proposals stew for a bit (mostly to give people a chance to point out anything I may have missed) before moving any further with the case. Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your work at Gillian McKeith

Hi, Merzul, from one sceptic to another, I just want to say thanks for your efforts to bring and defend balance and professionalism, and also for spending time fixing tedious little things. ElinorD (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking "be bold" to new heights

[1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Merzul, could you e-mail me, please — slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ATT

What are you playing at? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want "as a rule" in there; this is what happens when multiple people are reverting a lot, especially when they're not familiar with the policies. But I can't see what your overall aim is here. You caused quite a bit of harm by posting all over the place about this in a tone that suggested there were major changes afoot, when in fact there are no changes at all. But when I asked you to e-mail me to explain, you refused, which worries me to be honest. Now you're reverting me because my edit summary didn't sum up the edit; although in fact it did describe the edit I intended to make, but someone had reverted me without my realizing it. So you then made additional changes, and now no one has a clue what's going on. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

An e-mail would help a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you caused a lot of excitement by posting in multiple venues in a tone that was very misleading, and the excitement continues with multiple edits to the page, which needs to be stable or it can't become policy. Excitement in any direction is a bad thing when it comes to policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying you want to e-mail me, but you keep posting to my talk page. Please send an e-mail instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"as a rule"

Re your comment on another user's talk page: As a native English speaker, my opinion is that "as a rule" means "most of the time or almost all the time" but implies that there are exceptions or that there are probably exceptions. The word "generally" is the same. --Coppertwig 20:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)