• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why are 1900's referred to as 20th century?

Meowzers

Meowzers

Member
I feel I'll get answered here, but it still looks weird when looked at.

''Ooh it's the year 2001, best call it the 21st century.''
 
teezzy

teezzy

Banned
Taxexemption said:
But there were at least several millenia before the year zero. You might as well be like were in the 63-64th century. Then again I like the year of Jesus birth being year zero so....
Click to expand...

buffyeyeroll.gif
 
Kagey K

Kagey K

Banned
Taxexemption said:
But there were at least several millenia before the year zero. You might as well be like were in the 63-64th century. Then again I like the year of Jesus birth being year zero so....
Click to expand...
That’s not how it works. The 1st year is 1 AD, I’ll let you take a guess what AD stands for.
 
S

Slings and Arrows

Banned
Taxexemption said:
But there were at least several millenia before the year zero. You might as well be like were in the 63-64th century. Then again I like the year of Jesus birth being year zero so....
Click to expand...

If you really want your mind blowing, read up on the Julian and Gregorian calendars. For those who are unaware, we use the Gregorian calendar in the west, which replaced the Julian calendar. The Julian Calendar was created in (iirc) 450ad~ (wiki it, i cba) and they decided to make Jesus' birth, year 0

How, before accurate recording of time, did a Julius Cesar know that 450 years ago (they didn't have even remotely accurate years at the time) that Jesus was born and that was 0?

Even crazier, is that the Gregorian calendar was created to adjust an offset and leap year and leap week shenanigans created by the Julian calendar.

TL;DR - we have no idea what year it really is. Which means the Aztec calendar that ended in 2012, could have been a few years out. Maybe 8 years going by the events of 2020
 
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Taxexemption said:
But there were at least several millenia before the year zero. You might as well be like were in the 63-64th century. Then again I like the year of Jesus birth being year zero so....
Click to expand...
You're technically not wrong, but that is a weird way to state it when the time before "year zero" was many orders of magnitude greater than several millenniums.

Taxexemption said:
I stand corrected there is not actually a year zero it goes from 1 BC to 1 AD. I think that's dumb but whatever.
Click to expand...
Why is that dumb? Year one is the first year of the Year of Our Lord.

If we set that to zero, we'd have year zero as the first year and year one as the second year, then we'd have people asking why that nomenclature doesn't match up.
 
Tesseract

Tesseract

Banned
it annoys me too, i don't like the convention

also don't like descartes' plot and quad map, i usually invert everything if i'm working on paper

but i'm also left handed
 
Last edited:
T

Taxexemption

Member
Rentahamster said:
You're technically not wrong, but that is a weird way to state it when the time before "year zero" was many orders of magnitude greater than several millenniums.


Why is that dumb? Year one is the first year of the Year of Our Lord.

If we set that to zero, we'd have year zero as the first year and year one as the second year, then we'd have people asking why that nomenclature doesn't match up.
Click to expand...

I know what scientists believe about the age of the universe, I haven't studied it myself so I don't believe it. You trusting science on it isn't any different than me trusting a religious figure. I know this post will be mocked and ridiculed, because many people are enamored with the religion that "science" has become.
 
Last edited:
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Taxexemption said:
I know what scientists believe about the age of the universe, I haven't studied it myself so I don't believe it.
Click to expand...
Would you like me to produce peer reviewed studies on the estimated age of the universe? I remember how much you like those.

Taxexemption said:
You trusting science on it isn't any different than me trusting a religious figure.
Click to expand...
It's quite different actually. I'm not necessarily "trusting" science as I am reviewing the data that others have observed, applying my own knowledge of how physics works to analyze that data, and then judging whether the conclusions are reasonable or not. I think they are, not necessarily because I'm told they are, but because I can follow the logical and analytical reasoning that leads from the evidence to the conclusion.

I'm not applying the conviction of things unseen. That's a different process entirely.
 
T

Taxexemption

Member
Rentahamster said:
Would you like me to produce peer reviewed studies on the estimated age of the universe? I remember how much you like those.


It's quite different actually. I'm not necessarily "trusting" science as I am reviewing the data that others have observed, applying my own knowledge of how physics works to analyze that data, and then judging whether the conclusions are reasonable or not. I think they are, not necessarily because I'm told they are, but because I can follow the logical and analytical reasoning that leads from the evidence to the conclusion.

I'm not applying the conviction of things unseen. That's a different process entirely.
Click to expand...

It's actually not different. If you aren't an expert in the field that's being discussed you may accept false evidence, or bad conclusion, and people may have reasons to hide data or lie about it, or manipulate it for personal, financial, or ideological gain, and this is a thing that has happened on many occasions. If you are an expert in a particular subject then I am relying on your judgement, which is not actually different from relying on the judgement of a religious figure.


Who funds the research? Who benefits from the conclusions that were drawn? What is the peer review community and the academic review progress that many scientists are complaining about? The way I've heard it from scientists that were interviewed there are plenty of questions about science you cannot ask, or will be shunned for asking, and if you write a paper with conclusions that aren't popular you will be shunned in the scientific community.


Science is religion for people who don't believe in God. You just believe in a different sort of Santa Claus. And you'll probably make an angry post about how "Your stupid," Yeah I've heard it before. People are incredulous that someone could have put a lot of thought and effort into it and looked at various scientific failures or bad predictions, or bad studies, or doctored evidence that came out of the scientific community, or entire fields that went unquestioned for decades were evidence that had never really been scientifically tested was used in courtrooms for a long time and people went to prison before anyone came out and said "Actually, this kind of analysis is more choose your own adventure and you can pretty much come to whatever conclusion you want."
 
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Taxexemption said:
It's actually not different.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, as I just told you. We make observations about the world around us, and those observations are either refuted or corroborated by other people attempting to make those same observations. Using those observations, we can draw conclusions about what they might mean based on analysis. Others then double check that work and if it stands up to scrutiny, then we can incorporate that new knowledge into our comprehensive understanding of the universe.

When it comes to the age of the universe, there are observations like the speed of the universe's expansion or the nature of the cosmic microwave background radiation that can tell us information about the universe as it is today, and then using math, extrapolate backwards to estimate how long it took for everything to be the way it is now. You can find lots of info in this handy Youtube video.



The same processes that involved the progress of science and technology and our understanding of electromagnetism allowed us to both estimate the age of the universe and invent Youtube. How neat is that!

Taxexemption said:
If you are an expert in a particular subject then I am relying on your judgement, which is not actually different from relying on the judgement of a religious figure.
Click to expand...
Not quite. If two experts in science disagree about something, we can determine who is right based on the accuracy of their observations and their methodology. It's a very empirical process. How do you determine who is right between experts of two religions? If a Catholic priest tells me that the messiah has come, and a Jewish Rabbi tells me that hasn't happened yet, what objective tools do I have at my disposal to determine who is right?
 
T

Taxexemption

Member
Rentahamster said:
Yes it is, as I just told you. We make observations about the world around us, and those observations are either refuted or corroborated by other people attempting to make those same observations. Using those observations, we can draw conclusions about what they might mean based on analysis. Others then double check that work and if it stands up to scrutiny, then we can incorporate that new knowledge into our comprehensive understanding of the universe.

When it comes to the age of the universe, there are observations like the speed of the universe's expansion or the nature of the cosmic microwave background radiation that can tell us information about the universe as it is today, and then using math, extrapolate backwards to estimate how long it took for everything to be the way it is now. You can find lots of info in this handy Youtube video.



The same processes that involved the progress of science and technology and our understanding of electromagnetism allowed us to both estimate the age of the universe and invent Youtube. How neat is that!


Not quite. If two experts in science disagree about something, we can determine who is right based on the accuracy of their observations and their methodology. It's a very empirical process. How do you determine who is right between experts of two religions? If a Catholic priest tells me that the messiah has come, and a Jewish Rabbi tells me that hasn't happened yet, what objective tools do I have at my disposal to determine who is right?
Click to expand...



Have people gone to prison in the US based on science that was later proven to be highly inaccurate?
 
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
T Taxexemption I'm curious as to what your thoughts are on this.

Rentahamster said:
Not quite. If two experts in science disagree about something, we can determine who is right based on the accuracy of their observations and their methodology. It's a very empirical process. How do you determine who is right between experts of two religions? If a Catholic priest tells me that the messiah has come, and a Jewish Rabbi tells me that hasn't happened yet, what objective tools do I have at my disposal to determine who is right?
Click to expand...
 
T

Taxexemption

Member
Rentahamster said:
That's not what I asked though. I asked what tools do I have to determine who is right.

Unless, by "the situations are the same", you mean that they're both right?
Click to expand...

You have the same tools in both cases. To me it comes off as kind of a joke that you think people can seriously evaluate the grand claims of scientific experts.


I approached religion with those tools but from a different angle, I chose the church that based on my personal study has the longest track record in the modern era of what I understand to the correct moral teachings. If my religion was wrong, I still think it would be better to believe it, because the stories and culture around it encourage people to do what's right and help them to understand human nature and moral problems, and to have more empathy towards their fellow man. I choose it because I think it's correct, but if at the end of the day the actual stories were incorrect I might be a little sad about it but I still think it would be better to do all the same things as if it was true.
 
Last edited:
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Taxexemption said:
You have the same tools in both cases. To me it comes off as kind of a joke that you think people can seriously evaluate the grand claims of scientific experts.
Click to expand...
No you don't. I'm talking about observing, measuring, and verifying.

If Bob told me that plants need light in order to live and Joey told me that plants don't need any light, I don't have to just believe it or not. I can verify it by constructing an experiment where I grow two groups of plants with one group being in complete darkness and seeing what happens. Other people can conduct that same experiment and confirm of deny my findings. Others might investigate further and only limit the types of light to red, green, or blue to see if there's a difference in growth (there is).

If Joey told me that 2 + 2 = 4, and Bob told me that 2 + 2 = 5, I don't have to just believe one of them arbitrarily. I can figure out who is right. In this case, I use math and figure out that yes, 2 + 2 is indeed 4, and that Bob is mistaken.

If Bob told me that George Washington is the first US president, and Joey told me that actually Washington is the 3rd US president, how do we know who is right? We can look at multiple diverse sources that reference Washington as the first US president, and observe that all history books refer to George Washington in this way with no discrepancies at all. We can determine these sources as credible because maybe some are first hand sources, and some have accurate information in other areas too. We can reference and cross reference, and determine that these sources are probably accurate.

If Joey told me that Jesus is the messiah as prophesied in the Torah and Bob says Jesus was just another regular dude, how do you investigate the legitimacy of the claim? What do you observe? What do you measure? What historical documents do you have as reference? You have the Bible, but that is not a first hand account, and it has gone through multiple translations and editions. You might be able to corroborate some person named Jesus 'existence as a human with other historical documents, but that says nothing about Him being the messiah.

What physical and mental tools are you using to believe Joey over Bob in this case? You can see how these tools are not as rigorous or as empirical as the other examples.

Taxexemption said:
I approached religion with those tools but from a different angle, I chose the church that based on my personal study has the longest track record in the modern era of what I understand to the correct moral teachings.
Click to expand...
Then you are not using those same tools by this admission. You are evaluating the church's general affect on the world as you see it. You are not evaluating the claims of the church that are the foundation for its existence.

Taxexemption said:
If my religion was wrong, I still think it would be better to believe it, because the stories and culture around it encourage people to do what's right and help them to understand human nature and moral problems, and to have more empathy towards their fellow man. I choose it because I think it's correct, but if at the end of the day the actual stories were incorrect I might be a little sad about it but I still think it would be better to do all the same things as if it was true.
Click to expand...
This again shows how you are not using the same tools. A person employing observation and fact checking to determine truth doesn't say things like, "Well maybe the actual moon isn't made out of cheese, and I'd be sad if it wasn't, but I still think it would be better to go about life as if that were true". That person actually observes the moon with a telescope and sees if its visual characteristics match that of any known cheeses. That person sends a spaceship to the moon to collect samples and analyze them for any inherent cheesiness. That is the difference. These tools deal with facts. Your tools deal with feelings.

Taxexemption said:
the stories and culture around it encourage people to do what's right and help them to understand human nature and moral problems, and to have more empathy towards their fellow man. I choose it because I think it's correct,
Click to expand...
If you're using the Christian Bible as a foundation for your morality, then you have to acknowledge that it is not perfect since there are a lot of bad things that are included with the good things too. Bad things like the condoning of brutal actions like slavery, and war. How do you determine what to follow and what to ignore? Do you wear clothes that is made from two different types of cloth? Do you eat shrimp or pork? Do you do any kind of labor on the Sabbath? You can't use the Bible as a guideline to determine what you're choosing to obey and what you're choosing to ignore because all of that is in the Bible itself.
 
T

Taxexemption

Member
Rentahamster said:
No you don't. I'm talking about observing, measuring, and verifying.

If Bob told me that plants need light in order to live and Joey told me that plants don't need any light, I don't have to just believe it or not. I can verify it by constructing an experiment where I grow two groups of plants with one group being in complete darkness and seeing what happens. Other people can conduct that same experiment and confirm of deny my findings. Others might investigate further and only limit the types of light to red, green, or blue to see if there's a difference in growth (there is).

If Joey told me that 2 + 2 = 4, and Bob told me that 2 + 2 = 5, I don't have to just believe one of them arbitrarily. I can figure out who is right. In this case, I use math and figure out that yes, 2 + 2 is indeed 4, and that Bob is mistaken.

If Bob told me that George Washington is the first US president, and Joey told me that actually Washington is the 3rd US president, how do we know who is right? We can look at multiple diverse sources that reference Washington as the first US president, and observe that all history books refer to George Washington in this way with no discrepancies at all. We can determine these sources as credible because maybe some are first hand sources, and some have accurate information in other areas too. We can reference and cross reference, and determine that these sources are probably accurate.

If Joey told me that Jesus is the messiah as prophesied in the Torah and Bob says Jesus was just another regular dude, how do you investigate the legitimacy of the claim? What do you observe? What do you measure? What historical documents do you have as reference? You have the Bible, but that is not a first hand account, and it has gone through multiple translations and editions. You might be able to corroborate some person named Jesus 'existence as a human with other historical documents, but that says nothing about Him being the messiah.

What physical and mental tools are you using to believe Joey over Bob in this case? You can see how these tools are not as rigorous or as empirical as the other examples.


Then you are not using those same tools by this admission. You are evaluating the church's general affect on the world as you see it. You are not evaluating the claims of the church that are the foundation for its existence.


This again shows how you are not using the same tools. A person employing observation and fact checking to determine truth doesn't say things like, "Well maybe the actual moon isn't made out of cheese, and I'd be sad if it wasn't, but I still think it would be better to go about life as if that were true". That person actually observes the moon with a telescope and sees if its visual characteristics match that of any known cheeses. That person sends a spaceship to the moon to collect samples and analyze them for any inherent cheesiness. That is the difference. These tools deal with facts. Your tools deal with feelings.


If you're using the Christian Bible as a foundation for your morality, then you have to acknowledge that it is not perfect since there are a lot of bad things that are included with the good things too. Bad things like the condoning of brutal actions like slavery, and war. How do you determine what to follow and what to ignore? Do you wear clothes that is made from two different types of cloth? Do you eat shrimp or pork? Do you do any kind of labor on the Sabbath? You can't use the Bible as a guideline to determine what you're choosing to obey and what you're choosing to ignore because all of that is in the Bible itself.
Click to expand...

It's easy to verify whether 2 + 2 = 4, that's not the same as trying to verify something like the age of this planet or the origin of the universe or a lot of other grand claims scientist make.


As for all of the religious stuff, yeah I've heard these arguments. I used to be an atheist who disliked religion, I probably typed a bunch of the same questions about the morality and the bible to someone else a few years back. For many years I did not believe in God and watched the atheist experience and listened to the more popular atheist podcasts almost every week. If your Catholic all of those questions are kind of silly for a few reasons. The belief in progressive revelation means that morality was progressively revealed over time by God. I think that makes sense and that we wouldn't even get a New Testament if God revealed everything to the Jews in the Old Testament, they would have been like "Yeah, let's follow that other god over there who isn't giving us so many rules." Even with God doing pretty much everything for the Jews in the Old Testament every time he turns his back they are worshiping other gods and breaking pretty much all of his rules.


I believe that Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church, so if I have questions I'll ask a Catholic priest.
 
Last edited:
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Taxexemption said:
It's easy to verify whether 2 + 2 = 4, that's not the same as trying to verify something like the age of this planet or the origin of the universe or a lot of other grand claims scientist make.
Click to expand...
It is the same. They're both applying the tools of mathematics. You haven't touched on how to differentiate the claims of one religion vs another and how the tools you use are more feelings based than fact based.

Taxexemption said:
If your Catholic all of those questions are kind of silly for a few reasons.
Click to expand...
If you're a Catholic who likes critical thinking, these are not silly.

Taxexemption said:
The belief in progressive revelation means that morality was progressively revealed over time by God. I think that makes sense and that we wouldn't even get a New Testament if God revealed everything to the Jews in the Old Testament, they would have been like "Yeah, let's follow that other god over there who isn't giving us so many rules." Even with God doing pretty much everything for the Jews in the Old Testament every time he turns his back they are worshiping other gods and breaking pretty much all of his rules.
Click to expand...
Progressive revelation is a man made concept. There is no justification for it in the Bible. If you are waiting for a New New Testament then God is very late. You are still operating under the current covenant because God has not revealed any new revelations yet, and Jesus didn't abolish the old ones definitively, so you are still beholden to the aforementioned details about slavery, for example.

Yet, I presume you do not condone slavery, so I must conclude that you somehow decided that against what is currently in the bible for some reason beyond God's divine revelation.
 
T

Taxexemption

Member
Rentahamster said:
It is the same. They're both applying the tools of mathematics. You haven't touched on how to differentiate the claims of one religion vs another and how the tools you use are more feelings based than fact based.


If you're a Catholic who likes critical thinking, these are not silly.


Progressive revelation is a man made concept. There is no justification for it in the Bible. If you are waiting for a New New Testament then God is very late. You are still operating under the current covenant because God has not revealed any new revelations yet, and Jesus didn't abolish the old ones definitively, so you are still beholden to the aforementioned details about slavery, for example.

Yet, I presume you do not condone slavery, so I must conclude that you somehow decided that against what is currently in the bible for some reason beyond God's divine revelation.
Click to expand...


You're making weird assumptions about everything in the old testament. I would never be under that covenant, my ancestors weren't Jewish.


I literally believe Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church in Matthew Chapter 16 and gave the power to interpret scripture on his behalf to 12 Apostles and all of the priests they trained in an uninterrupted line of succession that exists to this day. If I need religious guidance, I'll ask a priest.


Through secular study I determined that the Catholic Church has been the most consistent of any religion to teach what I believe is the correct view on sexual morality. I also think that sexual morality is an extremely important thing in society, and that it plays a big role in whether things get better or worse over time.


After coming to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was correct about something I considered to be important, I became curious about it, I attended a few times, and then found out there were actual classes you have to take to become Catholic, which piqued my interest, and I'm convinced. I've never had a question that the people teaching the classes did not have what I thought was a great answer.


Edit: Also I just can't take your claim seriously that 2 + 2 = 4 is the same as "The earth is 4.5 billion years old."
 
Last edited:
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Taxexemption said:
You're making weird assumptions about everything in the old testament. I would never be under that covenant, my ancestors weren't Jewish.
Click to expand...
No I'm not. I'm sourcing the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament is still part of God's word. You still obey the Ten Commandments, don't you?

Taxexemption said:
If I need religious guidance, I'll ask a priest.
Click to expand...
Your flaw in understanding is because you think asking a scientist is akin to asking a priest. It's not. I don't need a scientist to make observations about the world myself. I don't need a scientist to conduct experiments myself. I don't need a scientist to make predictions based on math and then wait and see if they come true or not.

Taxexemption said:
Edit: Also I just can't take your claim seriously that 2 + 2 = 4 is the same as "The earth is 4.5 billion years old."
Click to expand...
Do both of those questions use math to determine the answer? Yes or no.
 
Prison Mike

Prison Mike

Banned
Taxexemption said:
You're making weird assumptions about everything in the old testament. I would never be under that covenant, my ancestors weren't Jewish.


I literally believe Jesus Christ founded the Catholic church in Matthew Chapter 16 and gave the power to interpret scripture on his behalf to 12 Apostles and all of the priests they trained in an uninterrupted line of succession that exists to this day. If I need religious guidance, I'll ask a priest.


Through secular study I determined that the Catholic Church has been the most consistent of any religion to teach what I believe is the correct view on sexual morality. I also think that sexual morality is an extremely important thing in society, and that it plays a big role in whether things get better or worse over time.


After coming to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was correct about something I considered to be important, I became curious about it, I attended a few times, and then found out there were actual classes you have to take to become Catholic, which piqued my interest, and I'm convinced. I've never had a question that the people teaching the classes did not have what I thought was a great answer.


Edit: Also I just can't take your claim seriously that 2 + 2 = 4 is the same as "The earth is 4.5 billion years old."
Click to expand...
Catholic Church and sexual morality should never be in the same sentence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Where Is James Bond? Trapped in an Ugly Stalemate With Amazon
2
94
4K
Tams replied
I find myself using ChatGPT instead of Google now to look up much of my information
29
2K
fran.fernandez replied
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Science
47
3K
Goalus replied
  • Poll
Remembering 2005 - an incredible year in gaming
Opinion Poll Retro
37
1K
DaciaJC replied
11 years of being a gaffer
29
1K
Pakoe replied
Top Bottom