Am I Being Stupid?

[Rose]

I think this thread should be a poll, so that we can finally answer the question in the title, and when the votes come in at a whopping 243 "Yes" to 2 "No (You've got God's vote! Or maybe Donfuy's.)," we permanently ban Christianity from the internet.

Please tell me this is satire. Because if it isn't I'm done.

[origami_alligator]

The only reason the Earth and the universe is "6000 years old" is because the earliest writings date back that far. If written language had come about 2,000 years prior you would believe the Earth is currently in it's 8,000th year of existence.

[Rose]

[20:09:55] <@eevee> WHY CAN I NOT STAY AWAY FROM HERE
[20:09:56] <@eevee> FUCK
[20:09:58] <@eevee> ;______;
[20:11:04] <@Leaff> because you realize that leaving here is a pretty dumb idea
[20:11:21] <@eevee> logically, it's not
[20:11:46] <@eevee> i just...
[20:11:57] <@eevee> arguing over religion and politics just gets /so old/
[20:12:25] <@eevee> because no matter what i say, everyone else is going to dismiss it as "ridiculous" and "unproven"
[20:13:30] <@Leaff> mayb u shud hav betur argumantz lols
[20:13:38] <@eevee> and i guess i worry about what other people think of me
[20:14:05] <@eevee> like i might be less intellectual or independent just because i follow an organized religion

Also, I may firmly believe in Christianity, but I don't think I trust my own intellect enough to believe the right thing T_T

[bobaganuesh_2]

All right, I am back.


WHAT THE FUCK? YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE MONKEYS BECOMING PEOPLE THAT'S CRAZY BUT INSTEAD YOU BELIEVE THAT AFTER GOD CREATED THE WORLD HE ROCKETED ALL OF HUMANITY FORWARD BILLIONS OF YEARS?!?!??! WHY... GOD.... WORLD... TIME...

SO MANY QUESTIONS


1) Why would God not mention that in his book?
2) Why did God make time move so quickly?
3) Where did you get this theory? Do you have passages of the Bible to support it? Or science? Is there any science at all?
4) Is time still slowing down? Is that why the days seem longer with each passing day, another nostalgic memory lost to the criminal that is an empty future?
5) Why wouldn't God explain this, to attract more followers? Wouldn't he want more of us to go to HEaven?
6) How do you know that Satan is not in possession of the time accelerator?

The thing with faith is that there is always going to be some degree of uncertainty and a constituent of a faith will acknowledge this and accept it. Science, on the other hand, wants to explain every single thing that has ever existed, and consequently more people seem to be converting to atheism or agnosticism because a religion's explanation of uncertanties just doesn't cut it in the context of our information age. It's like the Internet; I don't know that people are who they say they are, but I have to trust them and have faith in what they say and move on. All the religions try to explain the uncertainties of the world to an extent, and a conventional religious person would realize that they cannot understand anything, they will be content with this disposition and accept the void. Truth is relative to each person and everyone tries to find it in their own way; science ambitiously theorizes everything, and faith gives some explanation to the way the world is, literally, symbolically, and metaphorically.

Faith provides an idealistic moral code that a constituent should follow in order to achieve ultimate happiness; of course the way to obtain such happiness is subjective, hence why there are so many friggin’ religions. Along the way to the modern era a few kings and monarchs have tampered with religious texts to justify the ends to their means with God to back them up, and along with misenterpretations (ie. The Bible was not originally written in English), we now have ourselves some skewed literature that some people choose to take literally. When people start to act on words provided in religious texts, that is where ethical and moral problems erupt and people such as atheists begin questioning faith because they do not see how it could possibly lead to happiness. They have achieved some form of contentment with their lives because science has provided them with information that gives them hope and allows them to scorn faith because it is not based on “evidence”. Religious people find their evidence in the “facts” written down in religious text(s) and do not need any freakin atomic or biological shit to justify their existence because the word of God (Yahweh)/Allah/Oden/Ra/Nanak Dev Ji/Buddha/Confucius/the prophet of Baha’i/Vardhamana/Zeus/Satan/the druids/Marduk/Napi/Zoroaster gives them comfort. So: both religion and science are tools one can use to discover the true meaning to their existence, along with other things such as philosophy, literature, street racing, watching TLC all day, taking your bike off sweet jumps, smoking dope and getting wasted, or even geomancy for that matter. The reason we have these little debates is because people are generally concerned for the well-being of others and are interested in others’ opinions and want to know why you believe what you believe and why you think your justification of your life on this planet is legitimate. Such debates are often based on facts (ie: evolution cs. creationism) but in the end each person arguing will make a decision to believe something based on what they subjectively think makes sense to them, and will align themselves to the theory/faith/whatever that provides the most coherent ethical, factual, cultural, social, etc. explanations to existence on Earth.

Maxxon, The reason why you dished out this time acceleration theory is because you’re looking for an answer to questions that aren’t exactly answered by your respective religious text, and you’ve essentially added some vague theory that has been discussed within the scientific realm to make sense of the timeline the Bible provides in connection to our current time. You’re trying to extrapolate some answer from Christianity that is not entirely there to make sense of things; that’s definitely understandable, and you questioning your own intelligence, which is good. If you don’t know why things are, that’s okay, just keep asking questions, and as someone else said (squibbles, mark) just do some research and you’ll inevitably find something that gives you more understanding of faith and its relationship to the rest of the world. You’ll then be able to make a choice whether to change your beliefs or not. We’re here to help each other out, so don’t be intimidated by Shitface the Clown or Frenchie McSeperatist over here and just relax a little and take a breather. We’re not out to get you, and although some of us like to prance around showing off our supreme knowledge of an “absent” God, most of us are just curious, just like you are.

Note: I’ve noticed that Yahoozy and Slappy McGee said some pretty obnoxious things (with Slappy it was implied), and while I’m not implying that I’m a saint, I feel that my name-calling is absolutely warranted. Go right ahead and give me a warn if you disagree.

[Rose]

We’re here to help each other out, so don’t be intimidated by Shitface the Clown or Frenchie McSeperatist over here and just relax a little and take a breather. We’re not out to get you, and although some of us like to prance around showing off our supreme knowledge of an “absent” God, most of us are just curious, just like you are.

I appreciate that; thanks :)

[乳头的早餐谷物]

guys THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR RELIGIOUS DEBATE

you're making maxson cry

[Kablizzy]

You can't debate faith. That's where Christians always go wrong. They think they can win an argument over faith, which can never, ever happen. It's faith, it's supposed to be unseen. Us filthy non-believers call everything ridiculous and unproven because the things you say are mostly ridiculous but also unproven. More than that, Christians have this annoying lil' habit of "knowing" the "truth" about the world. That shit's infuriating to debate against, and that's mostly the cause of the backlash. You believe what you're gonna believe and leave it at that. The worst thing you can do is say "I KNOW God is out there!" The logical follow-up is, "How do you know?" It's human nature to inquire, bro. You can't f actualize it. Just the way it is.

So, stupid? Yeah, kinda. It'd be like asking me if I thought you were stupid for running through a Bear Cave with raw, dripping meat stuffed down your pants. But stupid for your beliefs? Hell no. Believe what you're gonna believe. But if you're gonna try and prove your faith as reality? Dude, good luck, that's like trying to prove that this ice cube "Totally won't melt under the heat lamp. No, watch it. Okay, well, that one melted, but this next one won't. Okay, just watch. Right, so that one melted too. But let's try another one. No, we won't change anything, same experiment. Just... Just shh and watch, man. Okay, so that one melted. One more time...".

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I think my faith has grown due to Tsukatu rather than shrunk. I actually printed out one of his tower-rants the other day and took it to youthgroup to show an alternate opinion. It was a brilliant discussion time.

Oh, shit, seriously? That is awesome.
Which one did you bring?

The one about chastity before marriage.

Suh-weet.
So what'd you guys have to say about it? I am, like, seriously interested in this.



Also can we please stop abusing the word "theory"?

I mean, what is this: "In a nutshell, science may be based in theory, but it's theory that damn well works."
You don't need the "but" --- the statement "science is based on theory" is already a very strong pro-argument. Saying something is based on theory means that it is rock-solid, because theories are serious fucking business. They're not random guesses or half-cocked, spur-of-the-moment ideas.
Point of fact, maxson's "time dilation / jump-started universe" thing is not a theory, so stop calling it one.

[SlappyMcGee]

Note: I’ve noticed that Yahoozy and Slappy McGee said some pretty obnoxious things (with Slappy it was implied), and while I’m not implying that I’m a saint, I feel that my name-calling is absolutely warranted. Go right ahead and give me a warn if you disagree.

Yahoozy's previous quote on this page was a word-for-word quote I gave him to post. Good eye, bobaga.

[Geti]

Surely coming to this thread to hate on max (it feels weird using that name for someone else) is a kickintheface-able offence? I mean jesus the one that raised my eyebrows most was

I was kind in my last post but this thread is bullshit, your religion is bullshit and you, sir, are bullshit.

but hey, maybe I have a differing perception of tact to some of you guys.

So what'd you guys have to say about it? I am, like, seriously interested in this.

Me too, actually.

this ice cube "Totally won't melt under the heat lamp. No, watch it. Okay, well, that one melted, but this next one won't. Okay, just watch. Right, so that one melted too. But let's try another one. No, we won't change anything, same experiment. Just... Just shh and watch, man. Okay, so that one melted. One more time...".

I laughed at this one actually. This is kind of valid, if you're going to be faithful maxson, you just have to do it and not let people tell you what to believe.

On the time thing, I'm dubious about it, because we have quite a bit of (empirical) proof that there are lots of things much older than 6k years on this planet. Sure, your timewarp thing kind of allows the idea to exist together with the idea of a much older earth, but it seems like looking for a reason for the sake of keeping the idea alive (which is fine to do, just somewhat misguided).
I think that the safest way to take the bible if you want to keep God in your life but not blinker yourself to science and more modern ideas is to keep it interpretive. I see the bible as a pretty good moral guidance scripture, but not as something to be taken literally as orders from above (for example, the advice "flee fornication" is pretty decent advice, as unlawful sex (mostly adultery) is a bad thing and generally means people are going to get emotionally cut up, however the whole abstinence thing is ridiculous, especially when it's used as justification for abstinence-only sex education (for those wondering, basically all the kids get told is "don't do it till you're married").) Just because at some point in the bible one of the guys writing it decided to add that doesn't mean that you'll be a terrible sinner if you do.
Coming back to the young earth thing, why do you need to believe it? It was just an idea proposed by the men who wrote the book back in the days when the earth was flat, and not really integral to the bible's overall idea. Why hold onto it so tightly when there's evidence to the contrary? I'm not meaning to tell you what to believe, I'm just curious as to why you're taking it so literally..

It's late, and I'm sorry if any of this isn't worded in a way that gets the intent across, but I think it's a shame to shut things out for something that's meant to enrich your life. Believing in a God gets a lot of people through the day, and just cause I'm not one of them doesn't mean I can't see the merits.
I've had people tell me I'll burn in eternal damnation if I don't believe in the saviour and repent (or many things along those lines) but to be honest, I don't believe it. If I do end up like that, I'll be pretty pissed off, but I suppose that's something to find out when I die. It seems more likely that I'll just die and that'll be the end, but I suppose you need something to hope for...

Oh, very glad you hated the link :)

[Tanner]

Way to take a single quote out of context, Geti. You are cool. You are a cool guy for doing that. Were you offended by my use of the word "bullshit"? I used it because it was relevant to what I was discussing. What I was discussing being bullshit and Maxson's intimate relationship therewith. It wasn't meant to raise your eyebrows because I still expected them to be somewhere on top of your head from when Maxson said that he believed that the Universe was in some kind of timewarp for most of its history.

Was I being disrespectful in that quote? Hell yes, I was! There are situations where tact and the ability to let things slide are virtues. People can say what they want to say and believe what they want to believe. But if Maxson says something stupid in the context of a debate, I'm going to tell him that it's stupid. And if he says that that stupid thing makes up an inherent part of his internal mechanism and belief structure, well, then I'm just going to have to assume that he's stupid.

That said, though, I really do enjoy doing the time warp.

[Broghan]

I don't normally come into these "discussions", but I felt like putting in my opinion.
I started a thread a while back about faith posing the question for discussion if whether or not faith is blind. It was a general consensus that it is. You see, I don't get why people would want to, by any stretch of the imagination, want to make someone feel less safe and secure about their lives. Faith is something that is never really logical at all, that much is damn obvious, but so what? What harm does Maxxon's faith do to anyone here in this instance, other than make people irritated that their are logical flaws in his description of what he believes that the way things are in the universe. As Blizz said in his previous post, you can't debate faith. Yeah, the majority of us think that his ideas are completely bonkers, but SO? We all seem to be determined to look past someone's good nature, past their happiness, their vulnerability, and only regard our selves in the highest esteem. You're all so busy disproving Maxxon that you don't care if you hurt his feelings, no matter how right you are. It really disgusts me seeing some people here in this community that I know are good people lashing out at someone just at an excuse to reinforce their own ideology? Who gives a flying fuck about what we believe in? Really? What does it matter? We're all here. Why the fuck can't we just respect one another?
And I wish people would stop saying: "chill out, it's the internet". SO FUCKING WHAT? In layman's terms, words can mean things, you know. People's feelings do get hurt. I know mine have been on more than one occasion here.

[Tanner]

What harm does Maxxon's faith do to anyone here in this instance, other than make people irritated that their are logical flaws in his description of what he believes that the way things are in the universe.

This is a weak argument because the effect that we (and, by extension, what we think and do) have is difficult to measure on a one to one basis. Nobody has a problem when someone speaks out against Glenn Beck or the Tea Party because their effects on society are wide-ranging and tangible. Let's face it, though. Somewhere along the way, someone told Maxson that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate and gave him a host of reasons why. They may have had good intentions but they lied to him and likely dramatically altered the way he has lived his life thus far by giving him a set of false pretenses on which to build his worldview. That's an awful thing to do to someone and causes a great deal of harm. It's also possible that he spreads this lie to others, doing further harm.

Fact of the matter: I find Maxson's religious zealotry dangerous and don't want him around my (hypothetical) children.

[Rose]

Fact of the matter: I find Maxson's religious zealotry dangerous and don't want him around my (hypothetical) children.

I'm not correcting you or anything, I'm just curious, because you are not the only person I've seen say something like that (not to me necessarily, but the same thing):

I'm just wondering why a religious mindset is so "dangerous." Let's assume for argument's sake that there is no god. If you are an atheist, you live your life and you die. If you're religious (and I mean truly religious), you live your life as ethically as possible, focusing on actions that benefit others rather than just yourself, and then you die. Seems like religion is a win-neutral situation to me, so I'm wondering what's so "dangerous" about it. Is it the embarrassment of being wrong all along? If atheism is correct, you won't have the conscience or existence to ever be aware of this.

[Tanner]

It is dangerous because in order to justify some of the aspects of your religion, you rely on lies and fabrications. You posit them to be true without proof. You mix faith and science without regard to either and call it good. You are a plague on truth and progress. We've come to the point in our advancement as a race that we've been able to show that aspects of your faith rely on things that have been empirically proven not to be true. Radiocarbon dating (amongst other things) flies in the face of Christianity and your excuses become ever more colourful. We start hearing stories of time warps and "jump starts". I'm scared of you because I don't want more impressionable minds that I care about exposed to your lies.

My question for you is where do you draw the line? At what point does the dubious comfort of the morality provided by the ten commandments no longer nullify the outrage that should be provoked by the fact that someone at your church lied to you and will continue to do so if you let them?

[Rose]

re: earth's age

I am *not* throwing this out there as an argument, but rather to see what you guys think. On a side note, what is it with religious websites and horrible/ugly site designs? >_>

[scythe]

The point of debate is that we learn something, if not about the issue at hand, at least about the people who are discussing it. Someone with a fresh perspective is an opportunity as long as they present coherent arguments and behave in a reasonable manner. Seperating yourself from the debate forums because you disagree with the people there is, I think, missing the entire point.

I don't participate anymore because my views are rarely the interesting or unique ones. Most of this forum agrees with me on most issues and it's been that way since I came here. Plus I'm not as eloquent as Tsukatu when it comes to the process of deindoctrination. I can, however, provide links to evidence whenever anyone needs them. Or just throw in a link because I feel like it, like I did here and here.

If you're religious (and I mean truly religious), you live your life as ethically as possible, focusing on actions that benefit others rather than just yourself

No. Must we rehash the "religious morality is not morality" arguments? The only thing that is generally different between religious people and nonreligious people is that the religious people go to church. The Pope allowed pedophiles to continue acting in the priesthood. Can we cut this stupid myth out already or are you all going to keep repeating it and think that maybe, this time, we won't call you on it? Because it's bullshit, it really is. Norman Borlaug (the food guy) wasn't a particularly religious person. Neither was Edward Jenner (the vaccine guy), though everyone at that time was kinda religious. Gandhi [3] was kinda religious, but only insofar as to say "Truth is God", which is anything but a Christian worldview. So where are you going to find better fuckin' role models than that?

smartalco: Noted!

[Rose]

No. Must we rehash the "religious morality is not morality" arguments?

I don't remember ever bringing it up before. o_o I apologize if I came across as suggesting that religious people are better morally, because they're not, and I've actually argued that case against people in my own church. I was only implying, and Tanner's post has not convinced me otherwise, that a religious worldview is not dangerous.

I would also like to note that I don't blame you guys one bit for not agreeing with me. I mean, if a Scientologist came up to me and started arguing his/her case, I'd blow them off too. The main point of this thread was to ask whether it was stupid to leave the community, and the resounding answer was "yes". If I get offended by any jabs you guys take at Christianity, that's my fault, and I plan on working that out within myself :3

[smartalco]

The Pope was in the Hitler Youth.

Not trying to completely discredit your argument, but this is a really stupid point, since the choice was either that or die.

[Tanner]

I was only implying, and Tanner's post has not convinced me otherwise, that a religious worldview is not dangerous.

Oh wow I am surprised that not only did I not convince you but that you didn't communicate why!

whatever man this thread is pretty dumb like seriously let's go to denny's

[lord_day]

The Pope was in the Hitler Youth.

Not trying to completely discredit your argument, but this is a really stupid point, since the choice was either that or die.

This is one of the few issues where I think the tag line 'What would Jesus do?' really sums up my opinion.

[bobaganuesh_2]

I think the sole purpose of an religious doctrine or scientific theory is to improve the lives of those who inher themselves to it. Everybody's different, we all have had different cultural, social, emotional, and cognitive forces influencing our thoughts and behavious, and therefore our choices. So this whole "truth, ie: science, will set you free" mindset some of you are pushing is absolute bullshit to me. You can't expect every single person you meet to think like you, be like you, function like you, so it follows that you shouldn't condemn someone because they don't see religion and science as you do. Suggesting to curious persons such as Maxson to do some research to gain some perspective is just fine, but saying that he's being a complete retard for making up cosmological effects for the sake of his emotional stability is a bit overzealous, yeah? It's a bit like cult recruiting imperialism if you ask me: "oh yeah, if you don't think as we do, then you're an irrational dipshit!!!", which is really dumb. We've come to the point in our advancement as a race that we've been able to let people be who they want to be and help them along the way if they become a little lost, and not stick our noses in the air and exclaim "you fool!" because we think they are ethically and morally blind. We need to let people make their own choices, and if they have trouble doing that, offer them ourviewpoint, which is what I believe these threads are ideal for doing. When it becomes and endless banter of everybody screaming at one person, trying to convince him that he is wrong, then the discussion becomes completely stupid, as Kablizzy pointed out.

[smartalco]

The Pope was in the Hitler Youth.

Not trying to completely discredit your argument, but this is a really stupid point, since the choice was either that or die.

This is one of the few issues where I think the tag line 'What would Jesus do?' really sums up my opinion.

...touché

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

(This is also meant to address Broghan.)

I'm just wondering why a religious mindset is so "dangerous."

Let me begin by giving a few cases that won't mean much to you. They may not be particularly meaningful in this conversation since we're talking about a civilized, peaceful, and generally open-minded and tolerant social context, but they are important to know all the same. I'll finish with something much more relevant.

Imagine a totally secular Middle East. No Taliban, no Al Qaeda, no Hamas, no Israel/Palestine conflict, no child soldiers, no martyr academies, no car bombings, no divinely-sanctioned misogyny, and no international bounties for the heads of British novelists and Danish cartoonists with 50% bonuses for slitting their throats.
Or for a more local example, consider the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Texas Army of God.
It's likely that a portion of these people are nutjobs who would be motivated to violent extremes by some other social issue if not their religious convictions, but I doubt that that's a meaningfully large percentage of them. If religion was not a part of these people's lives, the positive connotation of the word "Mecca" could still have a real-world basis.

An "understanding" of reality grounded in religious doctrine has also shown to exacerbate problems, or otherwise prevent an effective solution to be found.
How would you feel, for example, if you were vacationing in West Africa or Haiti when you fell seriously ill, and woke up with a Voodoo shaman as your caretaker? As an educated American, you're aware that the cause of your problems is likely viral, bacterial, or genetic, but in the shaman's mind, the explanation behind your illness is derived from a mystical understanding of divine forces. You would fail to convince him to call the US embassy and ask for an emergency flight to an American hospital, and his attempts at curing you are doomed to failure because the only connection they have to your illness is in his wild imagination.
For an excellent modern example of this, consider that the Catholic Church tried to handle its pedophilia problem internally because it was convinced that the problem was homosexuality. More specifically, Catholic clergy was certain that the source of the problem was demonic influence of perfectly decent servants of the Lord. To anyone not constrained by a Catholic worldview, this was clearly not the problem, and neither were the steps the Church took to deal with the problem effective in the slightest.
Even today in the US, news stories crop up all the time about some particularly religious parents allowing their child to die because, according to their religious views, modern medical treatment would have been the greater evil.

The issue Tanner brought up is of course another, more subtle problem. It appears more benign, but is in practice the root, the single necessary component, of all problems that are caused by religious thinking. Believing things without strongly motivating reasons, without evidence, corrupts a person's ability to think and act rationally. Once conclusions can be reached without exhaustive argument, any detrimental or counter-productive social view becomes immune to criticism. The worst damage that any religion has ever caused was to make it a social norm to base one's opinions and very way of life on an undefeatable non-reason. If you have a particularly poisonous view derived from your religious upbringing, it would not matter that there are countless compelling arguments opposed to it, as you would be inured to them.
The high prevalence of religion in our society makes it okay, makes it normal, to believe dangerous and evil things without thinking them through. I see it every day.

But my biggest concern is that, even though you're not attacking me for being a heathen, and even though you're tolerant of my worldview and don't ostracize me because of it, you still vote.
I attended one of the most tolerant and open-minded high schools you could imagine. I was very open about my atheism, others were open about their own various religious persuasions, and, heck, we even had a sizable population of New-Agers. I could, and in fact frequently did, have long conversations with my Catholic and Mormon peers about the influence their religious views have on their lifestyle choices, their political leanings, etc., and animosity never entered into it.
As you might know, California had a vote some time ago about a certain Proposition 8, the goal of which was to explicitly define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. You might also know that the proposition was funded almost entirely by the Church of Latter Day Saints, and that the only supporting arguments were overtly religious.
Naturally, my high school classmates are all friends on Facebook, and the public support or condemnation of Prop 8 created a rift in our social network. I got to see loving, tolerant, good Christian girls, blonde and peppy, sweet as apple pie, cheerfully endorse a bill that would institutionalize discrimination against their former friends and classmates. And when the proposition passed, I got to talk a gay friend of mine out of killing himself.
The point is, if you don't think an influence that could do this to an otherwise mentally healthy human being -- could put in his mind contemptible social views, make them immune to critical evaluation, and instead make him feel virtuous to hold onto these views despite strong, rational opposition -- if you don't see how this could "be such a big deal," you need to drop the pipe and pull your mind into the reality the rest of us are living in.
Because your bullshit has consequences, and they are far from harmless.

[Geti]

It wasn't meant to raise your eyebrows because I still expected them to be somewhere on top of your head from when Maxson said that he believed that the Universe was in some kind of timewarp for most of its history.

That's all well and good, I agree that the idea seems ridiculous, but

Was I being disrespectful in that quote? Hell yes, I was!

was more my point. I wasn't against what you were saying, but how you were saying it. Sorry for singling that quote out, but it just seemed the most representative of needless aggression. that said:

Believing things without strongly motivating reasons, without evidence, corrupts a person's ability to think and act rationally. Once conclusions can be reached without exhaustive argument, any detrimental or counter-productive social view becomes immune to criticism. The worst damage that any religion has ever caused was to make it a social norm to base one's opinions and very way of life on an undefeatable non-reason. If you have a particularly poisonous view derived from your religious upbringing, it would not matter that there are countless compelling arguments opposed to it, as you would be inured to them.

This is the main problem I have with religion. I forgot whatever else I was going to say here, see below. Sorry for the orphaned point.

Re: Carbon Radiology doesn't disprove the young earth link:
The whole "We shouldn't reinterpret the bible because God is infallible and we are fallible therefore his word overrides anything that tries to disprove it" argument strikes me as blind. The bible was written by men. Even if they were writing the word of God down, if they're fallible they could have written it down wrong, or it could have gotten lost in translation. Taking something written collaboratively over a long time a long time ago strictly literally is an incredibly dangerous thing to do.
Furthermore, there are different methods of radiometric dating that do not focus on carbon (Uranium-Lead for example) that go back way, way, way further than a measly 60k years. So, even if C14 dating doesn't disprove it, there are other methods that do a pretty good job of it.

@scythe: the second link in your post links to your post. I'm wondering weather this is intentional or accidental.