-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
So my girlfriend thinks the Earth is 6000 years old...
- Thread starter Mengy
- Start date
- Status
Vermillion
Banned
Atheists are *really* condescending.
archnemesis
Member
There are several smaller Christian denominations, like Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't believe in evolution.
archnemesis
Member
Ah, yes.. the devil put the fossils there. Makes complete sense!
archnemesis
Member
Or maybe God is testing your faith in him!
I think they just claim that the fossils are really just thousands of years old and that the science behind carbon dating etc. is erroneous.
No evidence required. No understanding of the science required. Just deeply held beliefs that require delusions that align.
archnemesis
Member
Ah yes, that's another common explanation. Here is a picture from a completely serious creationist museum.
scar tissue
Banned
Yes, you are absolutely right. Peer reviewed journals require blind faith, they're basically just like the bible. They don't have any kind of, you know, peer review process to ensure bullshit doesn't get published.
Well, it's not our fault if anyone's beliefs are silly. Imagine I actually believed in Zeus and the other olympic gods. I's be laughed at, rightfully so. But what makes jahwe more likely to exist?
NOTHING.
archnemesis
Member
This one is even worse.
But how did EVERY SINGLE dinosaur die and not humans? Why aren't there fossils of humans and dinosaurs togther?
Vermillion
Banned
First, you know full well that not enough people actually look at the journals. They see it on the news and they believe it.
Secondly, I suppose so, but you have to realize that it's a large group of people that believes this. Being condescending will not help your cause.
scar tissue
Banned
Not this shit again.
Science hasn't proven that buddha/vishnu/zeus/odin/elfs/unicorns/the FSM/ghosts/aliens/loch ness monster/bigfoot/the monsters in your closet don't exist. I hope you remain agnostic towards them.
Are we seriously going to place their stubborn fantasies under any amount of scrutiny? Why bother?
If someone made fun of me and I knew they were 100% wrong, i.e. they said the sky is green, it wouldn't bother me at all, because they'd just be insane and like a child getting things wrong.
If someone's dissent gets under your skin, you need to look at yourself and ask why, because if you were truly 100% confident, nothing ANYONE would say would bother you.
I'd take a good hard look at what I REALLY believed if my stance was so easily shaken. Especially if it's shaken by ONE person's mockery. How can you face the world of BILLIONS who disagree?
scar tissue
Banned
If you see something on the news and want a more trustworthy source, you can find it in a peer-reviewed journal if you care to do so. Blind faith is still a possibility, I guess, but not required.
The bible doesn't have any footnotes linking to journals. Blind faith is mandatory.
I'm pretty sure nothing will help our cause with adults. They believe what they want to believe, no matter how nice you tell them it's not true.
Kids are where it's at. Teach critical thinking at school and kids will figure it out themselves.
Many already figure out that Santa Claus is fake, so taking it one or two steps further should be easy.
Brilliant. That's why I'm pretty sure the most radically religious people still have doubts about their faith.
If they were certain, they'd just let me die an atheist and rot in hell for eternity. Instead, they will verbally or physically attack people of other faith.
travisbickle
Member
This one is even worse.
That image makes me feel very uneasy.
I don't know why we allow this to happen? Ignorance is bad!
Fudgepuppy
Banned
"So I'm an Evangelist and believe earth is 6000 years old"
Vermillion
Banned
True.
Sutton Dagger
Member
We may disagree with the content but they still have the right to express their views.
archnemesis
Member
It's hard to fight back when 40 percent of the population are creationists. Even some of your nominees for presidential candidate don't believe in evolution.
In 2007 Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee all raised their hands when asked if they did not believe in evolution.
scar tissue
Banned
They shouldn't be allowed to present it as a scientific theory in public, tho. This is basically indoctrination.
Also, I think homeschooling should be banned. Religious morons should have a harder time making their kids like them.
Edit: As a European, I'm always baffled why such an advanced nation as the US is so retarded when it comes to religion. I've met lots of people who are mildly religious, but not more than a handful who were so religious you'd know it within the first hour.
Hell, with some it took me over a year to find out they believe in god. What the fuck is it with american religious folk shoving shit in other's faces?
*religionislikeapenis.jpg*
Chuckie
Member
It's hard to fight back when 40 percent of the population are creationists. Even some of your nominees for presidential candidate don't believe in evolution.
In 2007 Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee all raised their hands when asked if they did not believe in evolution.
Wow... 40%...that seems a huge percentage.
I wonder what it is in Western Europe.
This one is even worse.
I think that's my favorite application of circular logic for today... well, for yesterday now...
Yeah, all of them!
It's really strange being Belgian on an American board. I don't have a single theist friend, I don't know anyone who goes to the church or is even remotely involved in a religion. Except maybe old people...
Atheism or agnosticism just seems normal and that's a topic we rarely debate.
But if I were confronted to someone who believe the earth is 6000 yrs old, yeah maybe I would be condescending. But i doubt I'll ever meet someone like that here, and it seems rather impossible that we could be friend.
You don't have the right to be so ignorant in a society where you have the tools and the rights to be rational and educated. It's dangerous and stupid.
I'm not even sure we have a single assumed believer in our important politicians. I don't know much on the subject tbh, but you won't see anyone praise god on TV, that would be insane.
That sounds like a terrible idea. Science hinges upon the free exchange of ideas. If you were to pick winners and losers in scientific debates through legislation, you'd completely undermine the scientific method.
Sutton Dagger
Member
I agree 100%, as it's not a scientific theory. They can however make their baseless claims if they are a private institution, I'm just saying I wouldn't try to stop them under these conditions as Travis seemed to imply we should (presumably by instilling some type of legislation against the spread of false information).
travisbickle
Member
It's not expressing their views, it's creating an environment, in this case a museum, which is traditionally known as place of fact based information and knowledge, and using that to spread false information.
I mean, are these guys trying to say the British Museum is bullshit?
You're endorsing bringing back heresy as a crime.
cool! My Etruscan city, and some of its buildings and necropolis, are at least half of the age of planet earth.
And the rests of prehistoric humans found here do not go back more than 6000 years ago.
Seriously, I had never heard this theory of 6000 years, despite Italy hosts the headquarters of the Catholic Church.
And the rests of prehistoric humans found here do not go back more than 6000 years ago.
Seriously, I had never heard this theory of 6000 years, despite Italy hosts the headquarters of the Catholic Church.
CrankyKong
Member
My girlfriend is imaginary
as a religious person I find it dumb. Science is just one way of cognizing God. Those who ignore it miss out a lot.
I wouldn't be able to date a person like that but more power to you, OP. May be you will be the one who will make her learn awesome things and open up a bit.
I wouldn't be able to date a person like that but more power to you, OP. May be you will be the one who will make her learn awesome things and open up a bit.
scar tissue
Banned
They have no facts, no results, no published papers in serious journals, NOTHING.
How is this undermining the scientific method?
You need some kind of results before you can present something as scientific theory.
lol please
You're not allowed to spread some misguiding content in public (such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater) laready, so why not just take it one step further?
Saying "Evolution is a lie" is misguiding, as is yelling "Fire!", although the negative results will take much, much longer to develop in the former case.
travisbickle
Member
Well yes, but in contemporary western society would that be a bad thing?
The punishment would be a fine, to be used to support the publicly funded museums, art galleries, libraries and wider education system.
That's what I started thinking as I read JokerOfSpades' posts.
I take it they cancelled all the science practical classes these days?
...But when ideas have been categorically proven to be fallacious, they shouldn't be presented as fact.
Sutton Dagger
Member
As long as they are a privately funded institution (the creationist museum people are), then they can display whatever misinformation they like, as that is their right under free speech legislation. Revoking the rights of free speech is definitely not the path we want to take...trust me.
scar tissue
Banned
As I said, free speech is already "infringed". You can't just yell "Fire!", that is blatant misinformation and endangering others.
Now, saying "evolution is a lie is" probably not endangering anyone. But the sentiment behind it embraces other anti-science stuff such as saying "Vaccines cause autism", which is endangering people. And who's to stop anyone making an vaccine-autism-museum or the like?
Stuff that has been proven false should not be allowed to be presented as a fact to the public, period.
I wouldn't want to revoke their right to have their... circus. I do object, however, to their appropriating the tradition and stature of the term Museum in the hopes that some amount of intellectual authority might rub off on their tarnished endeavour.
travisbickle
Member
I'm willing to personally accept the unintended consequences of stopping an institution from telling it's patrons to read the bible to date fossils!
I'd settle for a law that would stop them using the term Museum and replace it with Fantasy Adventure Land.
And what authority determines whether something has enough evidence to be considered a legally held belief?
Criminalizing heresy is an accurate description of what you're proposing. And I would vehemently disagree that presenting ideas for careful analysis at your leisure is anything like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. There's no time to present counter-evidence, nor can you have a rational discussion before having to leave. Yelling "Fire!" has an immediacy that denies you the opportunity to consider it and accept or reject the claim on its merits.Wikipedia said:
Proven to who? Beyond what level of doubt? You're turning shades of grey in black and white.
Further, you also martyr them. Better that they air their dumb ideas to be judged and criticized than to allow them to claim that you repress their ideas because you fear them.
Finally, I'd like to point out that it sets a terrible precedent. By doing this, you set yourself up for terrible things. If 40% of the public does not believe in evolution now, it's not inconceivable that on some other issue the majority of the public would be wrong (at least at first). Imagine in the future, a Republican congress passing a law stating that a scientific theory was false and barred from discussion, because most people agreed that it was incorrect.
Sutton Dagger
Member
With this course of action you open up the (very real) possibility that the legislation used to stop the spread of false information will in turn be used against legitimate scientific information. Who is deciding what information is 'true'? The government? You want to give the people in power the means to suppress free speech, it's an incredibly dangerous path to tread given the context of what we're discussing.
scar tissue
Banned
Evolution is not a legally held belief. It's a fucking fact, because scientists have, over the years, come to the practically unanimous conclusion that it is.
Presenting ideas for careful analysis? You've got to be trolling now.
They're using circular logic to saying "The bible is right because the bible is right". The verbal equivalent to flinging poo at your opponent.
Not really. There is already a very clear standard of what is science (i.e. what is taught in science class at public schools and universities). Now apply that to museums and you're golden.
No-one is barring anything from discussion. What would be barred is the presentation as a scientific fact. The word "Museum" evokes a very distinct imagery, i.e. that it is created by experts of the topic at hand.
As someone suggested, take away the word "museum" from anything that doesn't meet certain criteria.
I'll reply with a quote that already perfectly describes what I wanted to say:
They can still spout their bullshit, but not under the mantle of science.
I'm pretty certain the scientific community is large and powerful enough to resist any bullshit attempts to infringe actual science on the base of this.
Slavik81 makes a good point. Legislating thought crimes is a very, very bad idea. If you don't see why now, just imagine that the trend swaps and the majority and resulting government decides, say, that atheism is now wrong.
And if you don't think that's possible, there are indeed modern examples of countries rapidly becoming religious and rapidly shifting laws to accommodate this.
Look at Finland:
http://tundratabloids.com/2009/03/finland-free-speech-slammed-in-helsinki.html
Jussi Halla-aho to stand trial for blasphemy against Allah.
We should NOT make it illegal to claim things that are wrong. I understand completely why it'd be so appealing to do so, but it's simply not safe or wise in the long run. And he's right that it'll just create more persecution-syndromes and thus garner support.
No, the best possible approach is to use social pressures on those types of people. Use freedom of speech for what it's supposed to be: The right to criticize.
And if you don't think that's possible, there are indeed modern examples of countries rapidly becoming religious and rapidly shifting laws to accommodate this.
Look at Finland:
http://tundratabloids.com/2009/03/finland-free-speech-slammed-in-helsinki.html
Jussi Halla-aho to stand trial for blasphemy against Allah.
We should NOT make it illegal to claim things that are wrong. I understand completely why it'd be so appealing to do so, but it's simply not safe or wise in the long run. And he's right that it'll just create more persecution-syndromes and thus garner support.
No, the best possible approach is to use social pressures on those types of people. Use freedom of speech for what it's supposed to be: The right to criticize.
Sutton Dagger
Member
They aren't infringing on anything though, as long as their institution is privately owned and funded. The word museum is used to describe more than just a collection of scientifically relevant exhibitions, so you couldn't stop them from using it either, they could claim it's a cultural exhibition and it would therefor be rightfully classed as a museum.
- Status