[24FrameDaVinci]

No, I only date intelligent and curious girls.

Don't sell yourself short, man.

[MYE]

Its a stupid thing to believe in but if she was a wonderful person regardless of that one thing we would disagree on, i wouldnt give a shit.

Maybe it helps that i have never met one and dont think many (if any) exist in my country.

[Pkm]

I had one as a co-worker. He was surprisingly normal/progressive otherwise and was a good person to be around.

I had to work side by side with a Jehova Witness for 5 years...everyday, just me and him.
I was his aprrentice and he was a master driller, and every day was HELL.

I had to be reminded regualry how I was worldly and how he could never associate with me out of work. I had to be told about how me, my son, and wife were destined for hell and such. I would play it off and take it, kinda how any apprentice has to take there masters shit.

[Gaborn]

And I'm just saying that "open-minded" answers are pretty useless. Exactly. Look how they trip over themselves to be silly.

I'm not sure that's a good characterization. I think you're actually right looking back at some people's responses. People that go into the relationship looking for someone to be "open" to changing their belief in something, that is, someone who dates a creationist because they might be "open" to changing their belief are doing it for the wrong reason.

When I said I'd date a creationist I meant it in the sense that I'd date them if it wasn't so important to them they were bothering me with it, but that I don't feel the need to change them either because I think a relationship should be based on mutual respect. I would deeply disagree with them and say so if asked but I could see that.

In any relationship there will always be disagreements though. Some people on one side of the abortion debate will not date someone on he other side for example. Sometimes Republicans and Democrats marry. People accept differences for different reasons and I think it's fair to acknowledge that but you're right, it should never be a blanket "you must accept everyone's belief uncritically"

[Kitsunebaby]

Probably not. Assuming they were hardcore christian we would probably have completely different life philosophies and ethics, although that's hardly limited to just religious folks.

I have, however, made friends with couple creationists. One of the nicest classmates I ever had was a hardcore creationist. She wasn't pushy or condescending about it at all and we were able to have a pretty interesting conversation about our different beliefs.

[Bombadil]

lol, no. This makes for an amusing fortune cookie and that's about it.

BIRGing hard.

[Count Dookkake]

I'm not sure that's a good characterization. I think you're actually right looking back at some people's responses. People that go into the relationship looking for someone to be "open" to changing their belief in something, that is, someone who dates a creationist because they might be "open" to changing their belief are doing it for the wrong reason. When I said I'd date a creationist I meant it in the sense that I'd date them if it wasn't so important to them they were bothering me with it, but that I don't feel the need to change them either because I think a relationship should be based on mutual respect. I would deeply disagree with them and say so if asked but I could see that. In any relationship there will always be disagreements though. Some people on one side of the abortion debate will not date someone on he other side for example. Sometimes Republicans and Democrats marry. People accept differences for different reasons and I think it's fair to acknowledge that but you're right, it should never be a blanket "you must accept everyone's belief uncritically"

Well, yeah. That's why I wrote what I wrote. :P

[Smellycat]

I don't date mentally ill people.

Seriously?? You are so cool, wow!!

[Vulcano's assistant]

Good luck if any of you "open-minded" clowns ever find a genie in a bottle.

Don't feel so threatened, you probably haven't met creationists that are not Christians.

American creationists are too crazy even for me, I give you that.

[Count Dookkake]

Don't feel so threatened, you probably haven't met creationists that are not Christians.

Threatened? Lol.

And yes, I am aware that there are other religious with well-developed creation myths.

What an odd post.

[Vulcano's assistant]

Threatened? Lol. And yes, I am aware that there are other religious with well-developed creation myths. What an odd post.

Not threatened by creationist, but by certain post in this thread, that used certain term.

[Count Dookkake]

Gaborn, stop threatening me!

[AnGer]

Not a chance.

I'd never date someone who believes strongly in something so fundamentally wrong and so messed up as creationism. Along that line are also overly religious chicks and veggienazis. Yup.

[bangladesh]

If shes hot yeah.

[LeadProtagonist]

I don't think I could. Any sort of religious belief would be really difficult for me to deal with, to be honest.

[Ash Sparrow]

I don't know it might be hard to date an athiest. Especially if they are like the GAF ones.

[Log4Girlz]

I wouldn't be able to date someone so ignorant of science. It would make me wonder what other aspects of her life are ruled by irrational thoughts and beliefs.

[Dilly]

No, I probably won't date a person that's religious either.

[jaxword]

Everyone who said "yes" clearly has not had children.

Because once you have children, that is the inevitable roadbloack of your conflicting beliefs, and one or both of you will need to compromise some of said beliefs.

And no one does that willingly or happily.

And once that crack is in the relationship, that deep crack, oh, it will spread, as the child ages and begins to ask what the truth is and who to believe more. And then the resentment sets in. And eventually it will crumble into a pile of bitterness and regret because you both knew the other was wrong but pretended not to talk about it until it was too late.






But until then, hell yes. I'd date a bag of garbage, mainly because I'm a hunchback who hasn't left the belltower (my room) in 5 days and I'll believe anything if it means the touch of a woman.

[Tworak]

definitely not

any kind of religion is the sharpest knee to me

[Log4Girlz]

Everyone who said "yes" clearly has not had children. Because once you have children, that is the inevitable roadbloack of your conflicting beliefs, and one or both of you will need to compromise some of said beliefs. And no one does that willingly or happily. And once that crack is in the relationship, that deep crack, oh, it will spread, as the child ages and begins to ask what the truth is and who to believe more. And then the resentment sets in. And eventually it will crumble into a pile of bitterness and regret because you both knew the other was wrong but pretended not to talk about it until it was too late. But until then, hell yes. I'd date a bag of garbage, mainly because I'm a hunchback who hasn't left the belltower (my room) in 5 days and I'll believe anything if it means the touch of a woman.

Be reasonable, you're never going to get to feel the touch of a woman.



:P

[Mario]

I don't think I could date somebody that demonstrated the lack of critical thinking and blatant disregard for reality that being a Creationist requires. It has much wider implications than just that particular set of beliefs.

I'd struggle to date anybody generally religious to be honest. They'd find me grating too.

[Log4Girlz]

I don't think I could date somebody that demonstrated the lack of critical thinking and blatant disregard for reality that being a Creationist requires. It has much wider implications than just that particular set of beliefs. I'd struggle to date anybody generally religious to be honest. They'd find me grating too.

You really hit the nail on the head. I do not want to date one of the lambs of god, someone else can have that sheep.

[Ash Sparrow]

I think its a mistake to assume that we are ignorant of science, that would be like saying athiests are ignorant of the bible. I've found just the opposite to be true. But this is what i'm talking about. I hear people who believe in God and creation being called dumb all the time by non believers, i have a 4.00 GPA and have been on the deans list in my school 5 times in a row. And i dont consider anyone stupid for what they believe. Nor do I believe that religious or non religious beliefs is the end all be all of who a person is.

[Log4Girlz]

I think its a mistake to assume that we are ignorant of science, that would be like saying athiests are ignorant of the bible. I've found just the opposite to be true. But this is what i'm talking about. I hear people who believe in God and creation being called dumb all the time by non believers, i have a 4.00 GPA and have been on the deans list in my school 5 times in a row. And i dont consider anyone stupid for what they believe. Nor do I believe that religious or non religious beliefs is the end all be all of who a person is.

To fully understand evolution is to believe in it. There is no other logical option.

[Ash Sparrow]

To fully understand evolution is to believe in it. There is no other logical option.

You sound like a robot. LOL

[Log4Girlz]

You sound like a robot. LOL

I look like a piece of wood with a wig.

[Darias]

Probably not. At least, not seriously.

[godelsmetric]

To fully understand evolution is to believe in it. There is no other logical option.

This isn't true. There's other logical options. Created by God is one of them. But inference to the best explanation? Evolution did it.

Also don't forget that unless you have a plausible alternative, your conceptualisation of the problem is constrained and informed by the theory you currently have. So for instance before we knew about plate tectonics, it was considered essentially impossible that the continents could move and so catastrophism was thought to be the only possible geological theory.

[Log4Girlz]

This isn't true. There's other logical options. Created by God is one of them. But inference to the best explanation? Evolution did it.

Where's the evidence that a god created everything, how is it logical? Hypothetical sky wizard wishing everything into being doesn't strike me as logical.

[Bentles]

But guys how can we have evolved from monkeys if there are still monkeys out there!!?!?1!?!?!!??

[Log4Girlz]

But guys how can we have evolved from monkeys if there are still monkeys out there!!?!?1!?!?!!??

I've known many, many people and let me tell you, most are still monkeys.

[godelsmetric]

Where's the evidence that a god created everything, how is it logical? Hypothetical sky wizard wishing everything into being doesn't strike me as logical.

Because logic isn't really concerned with what's plausible, only with what's possible. That's why we have science, to pare down the space of possible explanations to the likely.

That's also overlooking underdetermination of theories by evidence.

[Ash Sparrow]

I look like a piece of wood with a wig.

I have wood in the morning lol

[Trent Strong]

I work with a creationist, and she's better at our job than I am. She learns new material more quickly than me and retains it better. She makes fewer mistakes than I do. She pretty much seems to be smarter than me. I don't know why she doesn't believe in evolution. Maybe the idea scares her or something, I don't know. But you really can't say that people who are creationists are all stupid.

[Log4Girlz]

Because logic isn't really concerned with that's plausible, only with what's possible. That's why we have science, to pare down the space of possible explanations to the likely.

So a leprechaun taking a dump on the earth and sprinkling it with fairy dust is a logical explanation for life on earth? Its possible. Can you prove it didn't happen? Has all the validity of a god.

Here's a common definition of logic:

Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic".
A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: "Aristotelian logic".

What strict principles of validity does a god exhibit? What proof do we have?

The only real support I ever hear for a god is that "Well science just doesn't know". Its built on a foundation of ignorance and nothing more.

[RoadHazard]

Nope. I can't cope with such ignorance, and our viewpoints on life, the universe and everything would just clash too heavily for that to ever work out. Luckily I live in Sweden, where the chances of running into one are pretty slim.

[kevm3]

Where's the evidence that a god created everything, how is it logical? Hypothetical sky wizard wishing everything into being doesn't strike me as logical.

Logical maybe in the fashion of how programmers, aka computer 'sky wizards' create digital worlds?

[Log4Girlz]

Logical maybe in the fashion of how programmers, aka computer 'sky wizards' create digital worlds?

So by this logic, god is like the programmer, who had to be created. Who created god, who's digital world does he occupy?

[jorma]

The odds of running into a creationist in Sweden is about the same as having it come up as a topic of conversation on a date/before a date; next to nil.

[godelsmetric]

So a leprechaun taking a dump on the earth and sprinkling it with fairy dust is a logical explanation for life on earth? Its possible. Can you prove it didn't happen? Has all the validity of a god. Here's a common definition of logic: Logic: Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: "experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic". A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: "Aristotelian logic". What strict principles of validity does a god exhibit? What proof do we have? The only real support I ever hear for a god is that "Well science just doesn't know". Its built on a foundation of ignorance and nothing more.

Logical validity and experimental probability are not the same thing. Logical validity is a way of ensuring that your conclusions follow from your premises.

Logically speaking there's no reason why the Leprechaun couldn't have created the Earth. But the entire point of science is that you can't figure stuff out using logic alone. You must use empirical methods to test your hypotheses. That's basically the root of all scientific inquiry.

Note that I'm not saying here that either Leprechauns or Gods are likely explanations for the existence of the Earth as it currently exists. Neither of them are. I'm just saying that you can't logically deduce that evolution must be true because it fits the facts. There are an infinite number of logically possible explanations that all fit the facts. The entire point of science is to narrow down that infinite space of possibility to the realm of likelihood.

[kevm3]

So by this logic, god is like the programmer, who had to be created. Who created god, who's digital world does he occupy?

That's not a question exclusive to creationism. Atheists face the same dilemma. How did the first particle become created working on the assumption there was no God? What was before that particle? Before that? Before that? What was before the big bang? Before that? Before that?

How did so much order derive from complete chaos? How is it logic is a sufficient tool to explore and understand a universe that came from absolutely no logic?

[Log4Girlz]

Logical validity and experimental probability are not the same thing. Logical validity is a way of ensuring that your conclusions follow from your premises. Logically speaking there's no reason why the Leprechaun couldn't have created the Earth. But the entire point of science is that you can't figure stuff out using logic alone. You must use empirical methods to test your hypotheses. That's basically the root of all scientific inquiry. Note that I'm not saying here that either Leprechauns or Gods are likely explanations for the existence of the Earth as it currently exists. Neither of them are. I'm just saying that you can't logically deduce that evolution must be true because it fits the facts. There are an infinite number of logically possible explanations that all fit the facts. The entire point of science is to narrow down that infinite space of possibility to the realm of likelihood.

Wat.

That's not a question exclusive to creationism. Atheists face the same dilemma. How did the first particle become created working on the assumption there was no God? What was before that particle? Before that? Before that? What was before the big bang? Before that? Before that? How did so much order derive from complete chaos? How is it logic is a sufficient tool to explore and understand a universe that came from absolutely no logic?

See the benefit of scientific and skeptical thinking is that you don't have to assume that an infinitely complex being exists to explain the universe. It is and probably always was. Tada. There hasn't been anything observed that has ever required the invoking of a god.

God is a figment of people's imaginations. The universe and evolution are not.

[Mgoblue201]

I'm not sure that's a good characterization. I think you're actually right looking back at some people's responses. People that go into the relationship looking for someone to be "open" to changing their belief in something, that is, someone who dates a creationist because they might be "open" to changing their belief are doing it for the wrong reason. When I said I'd date a creationist I meant it in the sense that I'd date them if it wasn't so important to them they were bothering me with it, but that I don't feel the need to change them either because I think a relationship should be based on mutual respect. I would deeply disagree with them and say so if asked but I could see that. In any relationship there will always be disagreements though. Some people on one side of the abortion debate will not date someone on he other side for example. Sometimes Republicans and Democrats marry. People accept differences for different reasons and I think it's fair to acknowledge that but you're right, it should never be a blanket "you must accept everyone's belief uncritically"

Unfortunately, it's not a topic that generally lends itself to casual disagreement. One side literally believes it is a matter of objective morality, and the other side believes that it's a marker for intelligence (or at least non-intelligence). I think the most you can hope for is one of those theistic evolutionists who believes that it doesn't really matter how god created the universe. Most creationists, even if they aren't confrontational about it, will still find ways to talk about the "doubts" they have of evolution. That to me would get grating.

[godelsmetric]

Wat.

As I said, you've confused logical possibility with empirical probability.

[Log4Girlz]

As I said, you've confused logical possibility with empirical probability.

So for you, anything is logically possible. For instance. I could be god. This is logically possible to you.





I could be the god that created the universe, made of fairy dust and orange flavored fanta. Logically speaking.

[godelsmetric]

So for you, anything is logically possible. For instance. I could be god. This is logically possible to you. I could be the god that created the universe, made of fairy dust and orange flavored fanta. Logically speaking.

No, not anything, but still an infinite number of possibilities. Logical possibility is an enormously weak constraint on theories. The famous example is Bertrand Russell's example that all the empirical data you have is logically compatible with your being a robot that was turned on three minutes ago.

Logically possible? Yes. Likely? No. (Although it depends on who you ask).

[Log4Girlz]

No, not anything. Logical possibility is an enormously weak constraint on theories, though. The famous example is Bertrand Russell's example that all the empirical data you have is logically compatible with your being a robot that was turned on three minutes ago. Logically possible? Yes. Likely? No. (Although it depends on who you ask).

So for the sake of argument, let us marry my concept of logic and just call it empirical probability. There is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of a god.

There is nothing in any ancient religious texts that would indicate anyone of them are anymore divine than the other.

There is nothing anyone can produce that would in anyway shape or form support their beliefs in the supernatural.

Religion is nonsensical and irrational. It only has cultural value.

[rpmurphy]

In general, I wouldn't want to date someone who is extremely judgmental about politics and religion, such that it negatively affects the decisions and interactions of day-to-day life.

[jaxword]

Be reasonable, you're never going to get to feel the touch of a woman. :P

I'm saving myself for marriage as God intended, sir.