• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

So my girlfriend thinks the Earth is 6000 years old...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just love seeing these internet "arguments" over religion vs. faith, round and round they go.

Christopher Hitchens is a tad
( much )
better at berating religion than most of the people here though. If anything, for his humor and cited sources to back up his claims.

This thread gets a... 5/10.

Sorry, OP. It should have been "believes the Earth is 900 years old" for more entertaining effect.
But hey, introduced everyone to your girlfriend!

Edit: Seriously, did you expect an optimal answer from Gaf or just a laugh?
 
Billychu said:
It's not an opinion that gravity exists.*

It's not an opinion that fire is hot.

It's not an opinion that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.


*Our understanding of gravity is incomplete but gravitational forces exist whether we fully understand them or not
Click to expand...
And its not an opinion that evolution made it skin was on the outside because otherwise we'd tear ourselves apart trying to scratch that itch.
 
TheNatural said:
Did I say that?

You take quality of source for granted in society, but if you grow up in North Korea versus say, the US, and what their version of science and history is, what is the difference? Blind faith is blind faith whether you're in the right or wrong. If you've done no more than taken whatever it is you read in school at face value, you may have backed the right horse based on what makes more sense to you personally - but have you really done anything more than take things at face value as you were told? Depending on when and where you are at in society, that changes.
Click to expand...

see, the great thing about science in my school is that it was lab science. We would read about a topic, then we would test it to verify that, yes, moment of inertia of an object does affect how fast it accelerates compared with similar objects of different moments of intertia. That's not taking shit at face value, that is being shown that the theories are applicable.

You know where I didn't get any sort of rigour? history. I can't test that ronald reagan was president, I just have to take everybody's word that he was. And yet, science get's attacked while historical facts are constant. Hmmm...
 
AnathemicOne said:
And technically everything is math, is there point to this point you're trying to make? The thread is to discuss the OP's situation and religious faith, not faith in philosophical and general terms.
Click to expand...

It's actually just to discuss the OP's situation, and whether or not religion will hurt it, but when people decided to mock the religious aspect I couldn't help but to respond.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
Basically you can't prove anything beyond the fact that you exist. Nothing. That is what I was getting at the whole time. Literally, everything is faith. Religion is faith beyond faith.
Click to expand...

"Faith" in an external reality isn't exactly a big leap, and it doesn't even depend on the same precepts as most religious beliefs.

Beyond that, the scientific method uses every tool at its disposal to eliminate our individual biases and tendencies to be wrong. Is it infallible? No. Is it "blind faith?" Hell no.
 
Zoe said:
If the ultimate goal of dating is to get married and have kids, then religious compatibility is a serious issue.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But not everyone that dates is dating for marriage and not every couple is going to disagree to the extent of it killing the relationship.
 
Anyone look at this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umFnrvcS6AQ

I was kinda freaked from stuff a professor talked about my environmental science class a few years ago about population, but god damn.

I at this rate something amazing is going to be invented to save us all. Or some massive war or virus ( controlled by someone not accidental ) will kill us all. We are going to start enforcing some laws on population FOR REAL this time. Or we continue to ignore everything till shit hits the fan.


I am for all of these, but something is going to happen. I think people just don't like to think about problems they are going to inevitably face. Most people who are in control of the current world powers are a bunch of old people who are going to be dead soon xD ( take that anyway you want it. )
 
Ghost_Protocol said:
Serious question: How does she feel about you NOT believing the world is 6000 years old? How does she feel about you NOT believing in creationism? If she doesn't care, and doesn't try to convince you otherwise every chance she gets, then that speaks volumes about her respect for you/ respect for your relationship.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the only thing that should be a concern.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
It's actually just to discuss the OP's situation, and whether or not religion will hurt it, but when people decided to mock the religious aspect I couldn't help but to respond.
Click to expand...

No I'm pretty sure the OP referred to religious faith during the second half of his post (saying that people in power are similar to his GF having blind religious faith, etc.).
 
Kapura said:
see, the great thing about science in my school is that it was lab science. We would read about a topic, then we would test it to verify that, yes, moment of inertia of an object does affect how fast it accelerates compared with similar objects of different moments of intertia. That's not taking shit at face value, that is being shown that the theories are applicable.

You know where I didn't get any sort of rigour? history. I can't test that ronald reagan was president, I just have to take everybody's word that he was. And yet, science get's attacked while historical facts are constant. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

I think that's good teaching to always include examples. I wonder how many that doggedly are intolerant against someone elses blind faith though, don't show blind faith themselves. I wonder if the OP can cite off, without going to Wikpedia or whatever else, some of the key dating methods in anthropology and what the actual evidence there is to back up what he's so rigid about, and why exactly a small mutation in an organism can take over the whole populace of that species eventually.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
Law (Old Testament) vs Grace (New Testament)

Many believe that only the teachings of Jesus are meant to be taken for the modern days. The Old Testament laws were for a different age, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Except for Leviticus 18 and 20, which totally still count. The rest of the Old Testament, yeah, outdated.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
Basically you can't prove anything beyond the fact that you exist. Nothing. That is what I was getting at the whole time. Literally, everything is faith. Religion is faith beyond faith.
Click to expand...

Solipsism is intellectual cowardice, the last resort of an untenable position. Your "arguement" is rooted in semantics.
 
Orayn said:
"Faith" in an external reality isn't exactly a big leap, and it doesn't even depend on the same precepts as most religious beliefs.

Beyond that, the scientific method uses every tool at its disposal to eliminate our individual biases and tendencies to be wrong. Is it infallible? No. Is it "blind faith?" Hell no.
Click to expand...

Agreed (within the external realm, of course).

Billychu said:
There's a difference between not having perfectly accurate senses and believing that nothing is true.
Click to expand...

Niente è vero, tutto è permesso.

But yeah, I know. I personally choose to believe in the external realm's existence because it doesn't matter whether it can be false or not.

But this is just me.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
Agreed (within the external realm, of course).



Niente è vero, tutto è permesso.

But yeah, I know. I personally choose to believe in the external realm's existence because it doesn't matter whether it can be false or not.

But this is just me.
Click to expand...

Even creationists believe that their senses are trustworthy. They read the Bible, they listen to preachers, etc...
 
Raxus said:
LOL Mammoth Jones. A little on the nose.

That said the things I highlighted in your statement is what I have a problem with. You treat it like it is some tiny detail but I often find out is that it is often a tip of the iceburg. I am not against meeting a religious person but someone who takes the most unbelievable stories and takes them literally usually is bad news.
Click to expand...

Like I said, my friend has two masters degrees. Fantastic at Math, works in a laboratory doing scientific (lol, his scientific research actually has strengthened his belief in God according to him) shit and is smarter than me. Yet he believes the Earth is 6000 years old.

Doesn't automatically make him unintelligent. Arguably I could say he's traditional and naive as shit. But I can't say he lacks intellect because of a matter of personal faith.

So I can't really agree with you there. And I mean we ARGUED about it...full on yelling and all that. Because at the time it blew my fucking mind. Because while I'm not an atheist I know full well the Earth is at least a few billion years old (personally I think it's MUCH older). Do I agree with his view? No. Not at all. But that doesn't make him a full on moron or unintelligent by default.
 
JokerOfSpades said:
Technically we can't know anything we don't study for ourselves. Technically we have blind faith in scientific studies, just because we read the news about them.

And historical stuff, too.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The difference is that this stuff is easily testable. Carbon dating can be done by a 9th grade earth science class. Wave particle duality can be tested with radioactive materials easily obtained by a high school science teacher. Charge quantization, atomic theory, electromagnetic interference, all easily testable. Get yourself a home chemistry kit or a multimeter and a soldering iron and try doing some of it.

Science has an established background of trust in making REAL advances, elseways you wouldn't be looking at that computer monitor or communicating wirelessly through your smartphone. Nothing in the modern world works without scientific fact and precision. You are never gonna understand how quantum field theory works, but you can take on science's reputation alone that the LHC is doing real things and wasn't just billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet. Science has done real, tangible good that you see every minute of every day.

To draw this comparison is just utterly, completely and absolutely flabbergasting.
 
AnathemicOne said:
No I'm pretty sure the OP referred to religious faith during the second half of his post (saying that people in power are similar to his GF having blind religious faith, etc.).
Click to expand...

Oh, then it was that.

Duane Cunningham said:
Except for Leviticus 18 and 20, which totally still count. The rest of the Old Testament, yeah, outdated.
Click to expand...

To some people. But there are things in the New Testament on both of those issues (even if some weren't said by Jesus directly).

MotionBlue said:
Solipsism is intellectual cowardice, the last resort of an untenable position. Your "arguement" is rooted in semantics.
Click to expand...

Hardly. I never said I believed in it, rather to show that everyone believes in something. My actual position is scattered throughout this topic.
 
krameriffic said:
Bullshit. The difference is that this stuff is easily testable. Carbon dating can be done by a 9th grade earth science class. Wave particle duality can be tested with radioactive materials easily obtained by a high school science teacher. Charge quantization, atomic theory, electromagnetic interference, all easily testable. Get yourself a home chemistry kit or a multimeter and a soldering iron if you want to try some of it out.

Science has an established background of trust in making REAL advances, elseways you wouldn't be looking at that computer monitor or communicating wirelessly through your smartphone. Nothing in the modern world works without scientific fact and precision. You are never gonna understand how quantum field theory works, but you can take on science's reputation alone that the LHC is doing real things and wasn't just billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet. Science has done real, tangible good that you see every minute of every day.

To draw this comparison is just utterly, completely and absolutely flabbergasting.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, I guess scientists like you and me are just a different type of voodoo witchdoctors reliant on blind faith and luck. How silly of us to think we were actually figuring anything out! Nobody knows anything!
 
krameriffic said:
Bullshit. The difference is that this stuff is easily testable. Carbon dating can be done by a 9th grade earth science class. Wave particle duality can be tested with radioactive materials easily obtained by a high school science teacher. Charge quantization, atomic theory, electromagnetic interference, all easily testable. Get yourself a home chemistry kit or a multimeter and a soldering iron and try doing some of it.

Science has an established background of trust in making REAL advances, elseways you wouldn't be looking at that computer monitor or communicating wirelessly through your smartphone. Nothing in the modern world works without scientific fact and precision. You are never gonna understand how quantum field theory works, but you can take on science's reputation alone that the LHC is doing real things and wasn't just billions of dollars being flushed down the toilet. Science has done real, tangible good that you see every minute of every day.

To draw this comparison is just utterly, completely and absolutely flabbergasting.
Click to expand...

I never said we couldn't test them. And I've responded to the very point you're making a while back.
 
Not wanting to throw a spanner in the works, but if our planet was created - couldn't they just have created stuff which already had some carbon decay? I don't think you can argue that the earth is x billion years old with absolute certainty. Not unless we've somehow seen it reflected off some distant star.

/Has no idea how carbon dating actually works.
 
LOL 7th day Adventist. They are the Scientology of the Abrahamic religions.

Ask her why she thinks her church is so right, if they were so wrong on so many end of days predictions.
 
Obsessed said:
Even creationists believe that their senses are trustworthy. They read the Bible, they listen to preachers, etc...
Click to expand...

There's pretty much no one on Earth that doesn't. Including insane people, people who are dreaming, and people on drugs. We have no other way to experience the world, so yes, we trust it no matter what the case.

But it would seem that people are getting irritated, so:

- Yes, I do believe in the scientific method
- No, I didn't forsee this drifting so far into the philosophical
- Yes, it was a thought question (I said it was Devil's Advocate in my second or third post)

My apologies.
 
RoyalFool said:
Not wanting to throw a spanner in the works, but if our planet was created - couldn't they just have created stuff which already had some carbon decay? I don't think you can argue that the earth is x billion years old with absolute certainty. Not unless we've somehow seen it reflected off some distant star.

/Has no idea how carbon dating actually works.
Click to expand...

That's called omphalism and it leads to fun arguments like, "What if the world was created fifteen minutes ago in such a way that it appeared to be older?"
 
Orayn said:
That's called omphalism and it leads to fun arguments like, "What if the world was created fifteen minutes ago in such a way that it appeared to be older?"
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The world hasn't been created yet. We're merely the product of a quantum particle's dreams. This particle is currently hanging around in singularity, pre-big bang.

Prove me wrong.
 
I H8 Memes said:
LOL 7th day Adventist. They are the Scientology of the Abrahamic religions.

Ask her why she thinks her church is so right, if they were so wrong on so many end of days predictions.
Click to expand...

Okay, now, without me being facetious:

Science has been revised many times too. Yeah, the predictions were made by a likely bunch of morons, but arguing that they've been wrong on some predictions isn't the angle you want to tackle this at.

If she's ignoring science, OP, start from the religious perspective. Disprove her beliefs with her own beliefs, then introduce science. Like the gap between Genesis 1 and 2 I alluded to earlier.

At that point, you can introduce scientific beliefs that don't disprove the Bible and let things go from there (despite what many of you believe, there are quite a few).
 
JokerOfSpades said:
Okay, now, without me being facetious:

Science has been revised many times too. Yeah, the predictions were made by a likely bunch of morons, but arguing that they've been wrong on some predictions isn't the angle you want to tackle this at.
Click to expand...

Examples of major scientific revisions?
 
Kapura said:
really? Really? If what I'll call the path of science is filled with blind followers, who are the people who change the theories? A blind follower does not challenge the status quo. Who, then, is?
Click to expand...

thank you very much for giving this answer to this whole "science is blind following too" bullshit.

btw, someone who doesnt want to know things better just has a corrupted ego or something. This whole "everything i know / do is right as it is, forever" attitude is horrible.

@ raist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
 
Raist said:
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The world hasn't been created yet. We're merely the product of a quantum particle's dreams. This particle is currently hanging around in singularity, pre-big bang.

Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

This is why we usually ignore beliefs that we cannot prove nor disprove (besides aliens and conspiracy theories - those are acceptable blind beliefs, though some of the latter have some sort of science behind them. Sometimes). Because there are many of 'em.

Orayn said:
That's called omphalism and it leads to fun arguments like, "What if the world was created fifteen minutes ago in such a way that it appeared to be older?"
Click to expand...

That's not what he was saying - either that or that's a REALLY extreme example there. We would/could have noticed 15 minutes ago, but assuming that everything was brand new is kind of... flawed to me.
 
Maybe when you finally get round to having babies with this wonderful girl, you go out to the garage and build a chair and see does one magically pop into her. When that does not happen, use it to start a new argument, and have a wonderful marriage.
 
water_wendi said:
i dont know but it must be possible. i mean, there are people that think Fallouts gameplay is outdated. Thats so much worse than the idea of there not being an afterlife of neverending bliss.
Click to expand...

Now this is an opinion I can get behind.

Orayn said:
That's called omphalism and it leads to fun arguments like, "What if the world was created fifteen minutes ago in such a way that it appeared to be older?"
Click to expand...

GGZJP.jpg
 
JokerOfSpades said:
This is why we usually ignore beliefs that we cannot prove nor disprove
Click to expand...

Except god.

JokerOfSpades said:
Depends on what you mean by major. You realize the amount of the world that was religious in the past, correct? We can technically start from there.
Click to expand...

I don't know either, really. I often hear/read that kind of argument, kind of implying that science has been terribly wrong and its principles turned upside down several times throughout history, sooo...
 
Keyser Soze said:
Maybe when you finally get round to having babies with this wonderful girl, you go out to the garage and build a chair and see does one magically pop into her. When that does not happen, use it to start a new argument, and have a wonderful marriage.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works at all.

Alternate ending: when that does happen, use it to start a new argument, lol
 
Raist said:
Except god.



I don't know either, really. I often hear/read that kind of argument, kind of implying that science has been terribly wrong and its principles turned upside down several times throughout history, sooo...
Click to expand...

Including God.

Well there's the model of the atom, but that's not really major... certainly other things I can't think of right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

AI Is Now Fabricating What "The Public Thinks"
12
352
IAmRei replied
  • Poll
Blu-ray turns 20 years old - Feeling old yet?
News  2
68
1K
jason10mm replied
I think my girlfriend is cheating on me , should i just break up with her ?
2 3 4 5 6
270
4K
ConkerTheSquirrel. replied
Use the Earth to Spell your Name from NASA
6
299
Moondoggy replied
A message to my 40+ old gaffers and gamers
2
81
2K
lachesis replied
Top Bottom