Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

How can anyone believe that the world is 6,000 years old?

Page 5 of 7 [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

scorpileo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 764
Location: cornwall uk

25 May 2009, 11:45 am

twoshots wrote:
Sand wrote:
Gabe wrote:
If people want to believe the earth was created for 6,000 years ago, it's because such a timescale confirms their need that human beings have a cosmic purpose, which gives meaning and comfort to their lives. It doesn't mean they believe in witchcraft or that prayer can fix broken engine parts. As long as they are rational in practical matters, the fact that they don't chose to accept geological or astronomical evidence doesn't matter to me. Only a small fraction of people have any serious interest in non-practical matters anyway; trying to force-feed unpleasant truths to the other +95% is a complete waste of time.


Right. Keep them dumb and domesticated. That's the way to scam the hell out of them economically, politically and philosophically.
Makes them much more docile and easy to manipulate and that's the best way to run a pseudodemocracy.

What else can you do with them? The average person is not only stupid, but willfully, frighteningly, arrogantly stupid.


I'll agree with that


_________________
existence is your only oblitgation
Quietly fighting for the greater good.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2009, 11:48 am

ouinon wrote:
Gabe wrote:
If people want to believe the earth was created for 6,000 years ago, it's because such a timescale confirms their need that human beings have a cosmic purpose, which gives meaning and comfort to their lives. It doesn't mean they believe in witchcraft or that prayer can fix broken engine parts. As long as they are rational in practical matters, the fact that they don't chose to accept geological or astronomical evidence doesn't matter to me. Only a small fraction of people have any serious interest in non-practical matters anyway; trying to force-feed unpleasant truths to the other +95% is a complete waste of time.

:lol: I was reminded of Sherlock Holmes, who said, when Dr. Watson expressed shock that he did not know that the earth orbited the sun, etc, that not only did he not care, but that he would try to immediately forget that Watson had told him so as not to clutter up his mind with useless information.

.


A.Conan Doyle who created Sherlock Holmes permitted himself to be scammed by a spiritualist during his lifetime. Ignorance can be detrimental.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

25 May 2009, 11:51 am

ouinon wrote:
Gabe wrote:
If people want to believe the earth was created for 6,000 years ago, it's because such a timescale confirms their need that human beings have a cosmic purpose, which gives meaning and comfort to their lives. It doesn't mean they believe in witchcraft or that prayer can fix broken engine parts. As long as they are rational in practical matters, the fact that they don't chose to accept geological or astronomical evidence doesn't matter to me. Only a small fraction of people have any serious interest in non-practical matters anyway; trying to force-feed unpleasant truths to the other +95% is a complete waste of time.

:lol: I was reminded of Sherlock Holmes, who said, when Dr. Watson expressed shock that he did not know that the earth orbited the sun, etc, that not only did he not care, but that he would try to immediately forget that Watson had told him so as not to clutter up his mind with useless information.

.

I wouldn't want to go on an around the world trip with Holmes, nor would I want him to be in charge of a space ship launch.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

25 May 2009, 11:54 am

Sand wrote:
A.Conan Doyle ( who created Sherlock Holmes ), permitted himself to be scammed by a spiritualist during his lifetime. Ignorance can be detrimental.

Very detrimental! :roll: He never created anything memorable! Noone has ever heard of him. He didn't manage to earn his living with his writing. ( Heavy sarcasm ).

.



ouinon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,939
Location: Europe

25 May 2009, 12:00 pm

b9 wrote:
how can anyone believe anything?

Good question. Apparently enlightened buddhist monks laugh at the absurdity of it, ( belief ). 8)

.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

25 May 2009, 12:01 pm

ouinon wrote:
b9 wrote:
how can anyone believe anything?

Good question. Apparently enlightened buddhist monks laugh at the absurdity of it, ( belief ). 8)

.

I wonder why there aren't very many Buddhist inventors...


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

25 May 2009, 12:24 pm

Annnnd now the debate once again descends into a discussion of epistomology - and since that's a philosophy, not a science, it will go nowhere, as various nonfalsifiable concepts are presented as if they were debate points (a feature of every philosophical debate I've been exposed to thus far). I'm out of this one, before it goes too far into the realm of namecalling.


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

25 May 2009, 1:05 pm

Henriksson wrote:
ouinon wrote:
b9 wrote:
how can anyone believe anything?

Good question. Apparently enlightened buddhist monks laugh at the absurdity of it, ( belief ). 8)

.

I wonder why there aren't very many Buddhist inventors...


they invented the orange robe!

didnt they? :/


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 May 2009, 1:33 pm

ZEGH8578 wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
ouinon wrote:
b9 wrote:
how can anyone believe anything?

Good question. Apparently enlightened buddhist monks laugh at the absurdity of it, ( belief ). 8)

.

I wonder why there aren't very many Buddhist inventors...


they invented the orange robe!

didnt they? :/


And the prayer wheel which is a robotic wind driven something or other that sends repeated messages to the gods automatically. It is the fore runner of automatic telephone message advertising which drives everyone crazy. No wonder the world is going to hell. Those damned prayer wheels have driven the gods mad.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2009, 1:46 pm

Sand wrote:

And the prayer wheel which is a robotic wind driven something or other that sends repeated messages to the gods automatically. It is the fore runner of automatic telephone message advertising which drives everyone crazy. No wonder the world is going to hell. Those damned prayer wheels have driven the gods mad.


Think of it as Junk Prayer.

Ruveyn



ZEGH8578
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,532

25 May 2009, 4:22 pm

:D


_________________
''In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center.''


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

26 May 2009, 2:48 am

It is possible to be a creationist and not believe in a 6000 year old universe. The oldest cities are 10-12,000 years old. I think you guys have overlooked the fact that believeing in a young universe is not a prerequite for faith.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 May 2009, 3:19 am

John_Browning wrote:
It is possible to be a creationist and not believe in a 6000 year old universe. The oldest cities are 10-12,000 years old. I think you guys have overlooked the fact that believeing in a young universe is not a prerequite for faith.


Absolutely not. There are lots of other untenable illogical hooks people use to hold on to their faith. But the young Earth is one of the most vulnerable.



ThatRedHairedGrrl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 912
Location: Walking through a shopping mall listening to Half Japanese on headphones

26 May 2009, 2:06 pm

Maybe this is slightly OT, but I think maybe an even weirder belief I've heard mentioned in this context is the whole 'lion and the lamb' thing.

Basically: it is believed by some Creationists that, as according to Genesis, all animals were originally created as herbivores. It's further believed that after the Fall, some animals started preying on others. (Genesis is not explicit on this; it just says that after the Flood, humans were given the go-ahead to eat meat, and it's assumed that other animals were also carnivorous from that point onwards, if they weren't already.) They further believe, mainly due to some passages of prophecy in Isaiah, that at the end of time when creation is restored, all animals will again be herbivorous and harmless to humans. (I could argue that anyone who thinks herbivores are harmless to humans by dint of not eating meat has never been kicked in the guts by a deer, but that's another subject.)

The thing is, a lot of these creationists claim to have a huge sense of wonder and appreciation for the natural world, but I wonder how you can say that if you think like this. Because if you look at, say, a lion, and you imagine what kind of changes you'd have to make to that lion to turn it into a herbivore - well, a lion is a good example, because the cat family are the 'purest' of carnivores and the most specialized for that purpose. Not just the teeth and claws but more or less everything about a lion's body has developed for that particular hunting niche. If it had developed to fit any other niche, it wouldn't be a lion. And to say there's something 'wrong' with a lion because it hunts seems to me to be lacking all appreciation for it.

(I chose this example for another reason: C. S. Lewis - of all people! - used precisely that animal in his own argument for this idea of all animals being herbivores in the restored Earth. And he didn't even disbelieve in evolution. Rather makes you wonder whether any faith that requires that amount of mental acrobatics is really worth believing.)


_________________
"Grunge? Isn't that some gross shade of greenish orange?"


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 May 2009, 2:17 pm

ThatRedHairedGrrl wrote:
Maybe this is slightly OT, but I think maybe an even weirder belief I've heard mentioned in this context is the whole 'lion and the lamb' thing.

Basically: it is believed by some Creationists that, as according to Genesis, all animals were originally created as herbivores. It's further believed that after the Fall, some animals started preying on others. (Genesis is not explicit on this; it just says that after the Flood, humans were given the go-ahead to eat meat, and it's assumed that other animals were also carnivorous from that point onwards, if they weren't already.) They further believe, mainly due to some passages of prophecy in Isaiah, that at the end of time when creation is restored, all animals will again be herbivorous and harmless to humans. (I could argue that anyone who thinks herbivores are harmless to humans by dint of not eating meat has never been kicked in the guts by a deer, but that's another subject.)

The thing is, a lot of these creationists claim to have a huge sense of wonder and appreciation for the natural world, but I wonder how you can say that if you think like this. Because if you look at, say, a lion, and you imagine what kind of changes you'd have to make to that lion to turn it into a herbivore - well, a lion is a good example, because the cat family are the 'purest' of carnivores and the most specialized for that purpose. Not just the teeth and claws but more or less everything about a lion's body has developed for that particular hunting niche. If it had developed to fit any other niche, it wouldn't be a lion. And to say there's something 'wrong' with a lion because it hunts seems to me to be lacking all appreciation for it.

(I chose this example for another reason: C. S. Lewis - of all people! - used precisely that animal in his own argument for this idea of all animals being herbivores in the restored Earth. And he didn't even disbelieve in evolution. Rather makes you wonder whether any faith that requires that amount of mental acrobatics is really worth believing.)


There are many ways to indicate that people with religious beliefs are silly. But you cannot convince silly people not to be silly any more than you can convince a lion to live on grass.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 May 2009, 2:19 pm

ThatRedHairedGrrl wrote:
Maybe this is slightly OT, but I think maybe an even weirder belief I've heard mentioned in this context is the whole 'lion and the lamb' thing.

Basically: it is believed by some Creationists that, as according to Genesis, all animals were originally created as herbivores. It's further believed that after the Fall, some animals started preying on others. (Genesis is not explicit on this; it just says that after the Flood, humans were given the go-ahead to eat meat, and it's assumed that other animals were also carnivorous from that point onwards, if they weren't already.) They further believe, mainly due to some passages of prophecy in Isaiah, that at the end of time when creation is restored, all animals will again be herbivorous and harmless to humans. (I could argue that anyone who thinks herbivores are harmless to humans by dint of not eating meat has never been kicked in the guts by a deer, but that's another subject.)

The thing is, a lot of these creationists claim to have a huge sense of wonder and appreciation for the natural world, but I wonder how you can say that if you think like this. Because if you look at, say, a lion, and you imagine what kind of changes you'd have to make to that lion to turn it into a herbivore - well, a lion is a good example, because the cat family are the 'purest' of carnivores and the most specialized for that purpose. Not just the teeth and claws but more or less everything about a lion's body has developed for that particular hunting niche. If it had developed to fit any other niche, it wouldn't be a lion. And to say there's something 'wrong' with a lion because it hunts seems to me to be lacking all appreciation for it.

(I chose this example for another reason: C. S. Lewis - of all people! - used precisely that animal in his own argument for this idea of all animals being herbivores in the restored Earth. And he didn't even disbelieve in evolution. Rather makes you wonder whether any faith that requires that amount of mental acrobatics is really worth believing.)


There are many ways to indicate that people with religious beliefs are silly. But you cannot convince silly people not to be silly any more than you can convince a lion to live on grass.