Is personal faith a debatable topic?

I recently had quite a lengthy debate-ish type discussion with my ex-girlfriend's friend about biblical matters. Predominately of which were the YEC topics to which she ascribes to. The discussion came around to me saying that the evidence has shown quite irrifutably that there was no flood, no vapor canopy (yes, she fell ill to hovind's shenanigans), the earth is old as hell, etc.. She stated that she had evidence to the contrary. When pressed, she admitted that she took it on faith about these issues. I told her that these sorts of issues are ones that shouldn't be taken on faith since they can be proven empirically.As a rule, I do not think it is a good tactic to debate one's faith, nor do I even think it is possible. This is pretty much where our discussion because I told her from the get go that I would not even attempt to debate her faith since it isn't something that can be tested against.My question is this: is it possible to successfully and honestly debate someones faith when it so obviously intermingles with matters that can be proven via evidence? Is it acceptable? How would one go about doing this when the other party simply refuses to accept any science that goes against their belief system?For the sake of this discussion, we shall assume that the individual is fairly open minded, just a bit mis-guided and happily ignorant.There are a couple other sub-topics I may bring up that relate to this if they happen to come up.I will leave topic placement in the hands of the administration staff.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

But what about when they do not accept that evidence as valid? Think about it this way: if you tell me that 2+2=4, but I really believe it is 5, I have faith that it is 5, I have a book that tells me it's 5, my pastor tells me it's 5, and someone who holds the same belief as me tells me that the way you came to your conclusion that it is 4 is wrong: what then? Especially when they don't care if they are wrong if being right means possibly having to rethink their faith. In the instance I mentioned, and for the individual I mentioned: she (and my ex) read the bible very loosely. So that made the discussion all the harder since I tend to read it pretty literally.

---

Like I said: they have NO faith in science. She went so far as to blame the spill in the gulf on science. However, this seems to only be when it possibly conflicts with their beliefs. My ex is a med tech at an retirement facility and she has to accept quite a bit of sciene and use it in order to ensure the patients are taking the correct amount of medicince. Basically, the idea that we are related to bonobos or chimps makes them sick. The idea that we aren't special makes them sad. I know that, you know that, most here know that, but what about when things that do have empirical evidence are simply taken on faith? But what if you don't trust the science that disagrees with your faith? The whole of evolution has been dragged through the mud due to creationists. Any study even remotely close is seen now as invalid or tainted by them. Stupid, yes, but true. I did this. I brought up technology (cell phones and whatnot). Her response? "I'd rather live in a world with no technology".Edited by hooah212002, : spelling

---

It makes perfect sense. Thanks CS. I'll have to ask though: have we witnessed this to work anywhere here? I tried something similar and the result was not optimal. It was stated basically that it is my belief that evidence and critical thinking are good values and it's fine if that's how I want to be, but this person would rather have their faith.

---

If you go back to my OP, you would see that this thread is not about aspects of faith that cannot be disproven, but rather, aspects that can (and have been) disproven. You canb happily believe that the earth is only 7 ays old or that it was flooded, but at some point you have to accept that you are wrong because we can prove otherwise. Just like ancient egyptians took it on faith that Ra carried the sun accross the sky in a chariot, evidence proved otherwise.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

This is almost exactly what I was wondering: is it acceptable in any instance (as a non-believer) to question, debate or be critical of, a religious person's faith. This is the position I think I was dealing with in regards to the aforementioned individual. I just want the people who are in my sons life to not be fucking stupid. To not be ignorant. I have absolutely NO qualms with them going to church for the togetherness or the joy it brings them: it does some people some good. However, if it means pushing mythical tales as truth: I have a very BIG problem with that. That is not what I want to do. I want more to discuss, not argue and everytime she felt as though I was tearing down her faith, she shut down and it got "tense" (mainly because my ex was there. She's a hot-headed italian broad). I've sent her a thunderf00t video where he thoroughly debunks the whole of anything Hovind. She hasn't responded. Oh no, she happily touted Pascal's Wager. I brought up what Dawkins said when asked "what if you're wrong" and told her that if she lived in Norway or Sweden around the turn of the millenia, she would believe in Odin. Her response? "No, jesus would have found me". I went on to as about Native Americans and why they had no idea who jesus was. She changed the subject. That is a mighty fine idea. i may have my ex take one too. I was going to purchase a few copies of The Greatest Show on Earth and hand them out anyways. It made sense just fine.

---

What sources are you talking about? It was a mythical story based on an observation that they had no further way to provide themselves with evidences to say otherwise. think "ra of the gaps". I've changed nothing in the OP. You just have a hard time addressing topics without inserting your own crazy.

---

Not exactly. What I wanted to address was how to discuss faith based topics with believers when those topics can (and/or have been) proven to be wrong empirically. I am in no way trying to disprove or even discuss, say, the trinity or that jesus is the son of god, oranything else in that category.Your examples are on point, I just wanted to clarify that bit.

---

Hey ICANT. Try something for me: read what I type. I'm not here looking for personal advice. Had you read anything I typed, you would have realized that the person in my OP isn't my old lady, but her friend. Second, she is my EX-girlfriend. I'm pretty sure I said that a few times. What I call facts, eh? So you are happily ignorant as well.I won't respond to anything else you've written as it addresses nothing in my OP. If you continue in this vein, I will not respond to you.

---

No. I meant accepting myths that can be proven wrong via scientific fact. I don't want to go into why we accept scientific laws, as laypeople, without seeing the results firsthand. I didn't want this to turn into a thread about "how do I convince this person", but rather, how it should be done in general or should it be done. I only used the example I used as an...example. Nothing more.

---

Well Buz, I guess I could say that this thread is directed at people just like you. Your "hypothesis/premis/thesis" or whatever you are calling it today is NOT steeped in evidence, but belief/faith, yet you assert it to be the trvth. You have been shown the evidence to prove otherwise and you have provided NONE: thus admitting that you have no evidence, but you continue to assert that you do. When will you realize it is just blind faith, Buz?Also, I might add, that this thread isn't the place for you to cry about how you failed to provide said evidence for your crackpot idea. Please stick to the topic at hand.

---

But is it not acceptable to do so? I mean as a non-believer, is it a faux-pas? For certain people (**cough**BUZSAW**cough**), yes, it is a waste of time. However, there are other people who are only ignorant of the science because they just don't have an interest. Not so much that they HAVE read the journals and articles and still don't buy into it, but because they've really only heard one side of the story.Or are you saying it isn't worth it due to the fact that they accept the shit on faith, so therefor are very very unlikely to even listen to the other side? I see what you mean. However, in my particular case, the life I am concerned with is my son's. The indvidual I had the discussion with is my son's babysitter (my ex has custody). I could give a shit if I change their life, I just want to at least pass on knowledge. If I can get one person to stop and think "hmm, maybe this whole science thing isn't so bad after all", I think my immediate world will be better off. That is a very good point Oni.

---

Do you wake up on Monday mornings and ask yourself "what English words can I smash together to enhance Buz-speak this week?"? Your prose is worse than the Indians (no offense) I have to talk to at work. They live in India. English is their second, if not third or fourth, language. You have the IQ of a child, so that doesn't say much. Santa Clause makes "good sense" to my son, does that make it a good theory?I will say though, Buz, you are almost a prime candidate for this topic. Except for the fact that you are happily and willfully ignorant. You are scared of knowledge. You wallow in your stupidity and wear it proudly on your sleeve.Please leave my thread since you have nothing of value to add to it.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

EX-girlfriend's friend. Emphasis on the EX.

---

Yes. And you prove that that implication is not unfounded. Thanks. That is a lie. Thank you, Buz. Now, if you will kindly never refer to any idea you have as having any sort of evidence, that would be great.Let me also point out to you, Buz, that your term "thesis premise" is NOT A PROPERLY WORDED TERM IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. It makes NO SENSE. You don't get to go around making up new phrases. I just wanted to quote that one more time.Oh, what the hell. I'll respond to more: Could you try that in English please? This thread is not about the buzsaw singularity. The fact that you are wrong about what the singularity implies, and that you deny the evidence for the BB theory, however, could be of some use. Because you are thrashing the fuck out of my thread. This is the first thread I've started that actually went anywhere and YOU are fucking it up. The actual evidence not being up for debate in this thread, I will say that this idea IS. You already admitted to only debating on faith, remember? Let me refresh your memory: So we can see ladies and gentlemen, that people like Buz are a lost cost in regards to the OP. He is happily ignorant and doesn't care that he is 100% wrong. I would like to steer this, once again, away from people like him and back onto those creo's that are interested in learning. They are few and far between, but I assure you, they are there.

---