3 ms·

There's plenty of evidence against Abrahamic religions core sources. The followers simply ignore it.

by lostmsu 4y ago

cratermoon 4y ago
What do you mean by core sources? Are you able to provide examples?
- lostmsu 4y ago
  7000 old Earth and carbon dating.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    The 7000 year old Earth claim is not found in the Bible or any other sacred text of the Abrahamic faiths. The young earth chronology is a 17th century invention attributed to James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, from a literal reading of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Biblical literalism as a whole is an 18th century invention, the desire to find literal truth in ancient texts was a product of the scientific revolution.
    - lostmsu 4y ago
      What you are saying is that Old Testament (a core source) literally says Earth is 6000 years old (or to be more precise you can add a few literal facts from it to get that number), but current believers generally ignore that because they believe the text is not actually a literal telling of events. This is exactly what "core source contradicts data, but followers choose to ignore it" means. I was about 10 when stumbled upon carbon dating (being already familiar with children adaptation of Old Testament from grandma's library), at at that point it was clear Christianity is horseshit and the biggest mistery became why so many people still believe a fairy tale.
      - cratermoon 4y ago
        No the Old Testament (aka the Tanakh, or Hebrew bible) says nothing about the age of the earth, nor is it possible to just derive a number from a reading. The Ussher and other timelines are examples of making the incomplete and conflicting data of ages and lineages given in the text fit a pre-conceived idea, that being the Earth is was created by God and Adam placed on it in the Garden of Eden, and the date of the creation is therefore just prior to Adam's creation. Given that assumption, the biblical literalists and young earth creationist have invented a timeline that ignores the inconsistencies, fills in gaps, and basically plays hash with anything in the actual text. Certainly reading a children's version of the Bible will result in a child's conception of what the text says. I remember learning similar dumb ideas as a child. But now I'm an adult and I've expanded my knowledge to adult understanding. Yes, when I was a child, I spoke, thought, and reasoned like a child. Becoming an adult means giving up those childish things and bringing one's fully mature thinking and reasoning. Holding on to a childish version of Biblical stories and a childish understanding of how believers think does a disservice to intellectual curiosity.
        lostmsu 4y ago
        Your pointless exercise with wordplay is just a typical religious weaseling. I intentionally mentioned the age and you took the bait exactly like I expected, which shows. You dare to assume your "mature" reading is somehow more mature than Sir Isaac Newton's, and even to 10yo me it would be clear (even if you ignore the fact, that days are literally used in Genesis, which is the whole point I made and you continue proving by continuing to claim otherwise), that some random dude is more capable correctly comprehending Old Testament than Newton is laughable.
        cratermoon 4y ago
        I appreciate that many people have negative reactions to religion, for good reason, and I sympathize. I was there myself. I hope you find your peace, and take it easy on the personal attacks online.
jeffreyrogers 4y ago
I think they just have a different orientation to the world than you do. I'm not religious for what it's worth, but for many of the religious people I know I don't think stripping them of their religious belief would make them any better off.

There's plenty of evidence against Abrahamic religions core sources. The followers simply ignore it.

cratermoon 4y ago

What do you mean by core sources? Are you able to provide examples?

lostmsu 4y ago
7000 old Earth and carbon dating.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  The 7000 year old Earth claim is not found in the Bible or any other sacred text of the Abrahamic faiths. The young earth chronology is a 17th century invention attributed to James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, from a literal reading of the Masoretic Hebrew Bible. Biblical literalism as a whole is an 18th century invention, the desire to find literal truth in ancient texts was a product of the scientific revolution.
  - lostmsu 4y ago
    What you are saying is that Old Testament (a core source) literally says Earth is 6000 years old (or to be more precise you can add a few literal facts from it to get that number), but current believers generally ignore that because they believe the text is not actually a literal telling of events. This is exactly what "core source contradicts data, but followers choose to ignore it" means. I was about 10 when stumbled upon carbon dating (being already familiar with children adaptation of Old Testament from grandma's library), at at that point it was clear Christianity is horseshit and the biggest mistery became why so many people still believe a fairy tale.
    - cratermoon 4y ago
      No the Old Testament (aka the Tanakh, or Hebrew bible) says nothing about the age of the earth, nor is it possible to just derive a number from a reading. The Ussher and other timelines are examples of making the incomplete and conflicting data of ages and lineages given in the text fit a pre-conceived idea, that being the Earth is was created by God and Adam placed on it in the Garden of Eden, and the date of the creation is therefore just prior to Adam's creation. Given that assumption, the biblical literalists and young earth creationist have invented a timeline that ignores the inconsistencies, fills in gaps, and basically plays hash with anything in the actual text. Certainly reading a children's version of the Bible will result in a child's conception of what the text says. I remember learning similar dumb ideas as a child. But now I'm an adult and I've expanded my knowledge to adult understanding. Yes, when I was a child, I spoke, thought, and reasoned like a child. Becoming an adult means giving up those childish things and bringing one's fully mature thinking and reasoning. Holding on to a childish version of Biblical stories and a childish understanding of how believers think does a disservice to intellectual curiosity.
      - lostmsu 4y ago
        Your pointless exercise with wordplay is just a typical religious weaseling. I intentionally mentioned the age and you took the bait exactly like I expected, which shows. You dare to assume your "mature" reading is somehow more mature than Sir Isaac Newton's, and even to 10yo me it would be clear (even if you ignore the fact, that days are literally used in Genesis, which is the whole point I made and you continue proving by continuing to claim otherwise), that some random dude is more capable correctly comprehending Old Testament than Newton is laughable.
        cratermoon 4y ago
        I appreciate that many people have negative reactions to religion, for good reason, and I sympathize. I was there myself. I hope you find your peace, and take it easy on the personal attacks online.

jeffreyrogers 4y ago

I think they just have a different orientation to the world than you do. I'm not religious for what it's worth, but for many of the religious people I know I don't think stripping them of their religious belief would make them any better off.