Allegations:
* It's illegal to preach any non-Islam religion in Saudi Arabia, on pain of death.
* Torture outsourcing
* Public executions by stoning and beheading
* Alcohol prohibition
* Saudi Arabia stopped the rescue of 15 women in a burning building because they weren't wearing proper veils to go outside. They burned to death.
* Sharia law was created by men to subjugate women.

If I were a citizen of Saudi Arabia I would help overthrow that monarchy.

"Sharia law was created by men to subjugate women."

Simply not true! For example, the Tunisian legal sytem is based on Shari'ah law, but it provides complete equality to women in all areas of public and private life (in accordance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)) - for example marriage, divorce, inheritance, no polygamy, etc.

That some moderate Muslim states have modified their religious laws to suit new ideas about morality does not prove anything about the intent of those who originally created the system of laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab lays out the scriptural 'evidence' for and against forcing women to wear a veil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
According to Human Rights Watch:
"Honor crimes are acts of violence, usually murder, committed by male family members against female family members, who are perceived to have brought dishonor upon the family. A woman can be targeted by (individuals within) her family for a variety of reasons, including: refusing to enter into an arranged marriage, being the victim of a sexual assault, seeking a divorce — even from an abusive husband — or (allegedly) committing adultery. The mere perception that a woman has behaved in a specific way to "dishonor" her family, is sufficient to trigger an attack."

Where do you think such traditions of harsh punishment for inappropriate sex come from?

Six translations of Qur'an 4:34:

1. "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!" (Rodwell's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
2. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme." (Dawood's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
3. "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great." (Pickthall's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
4. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great." (Arberry's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
5. "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. (Shakir's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
6. "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all). (Ali's version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)


How can you honestly claim to believe that Islam has nothing to do with the domination of women by men?

http://www.apostatesofislam.com has several well-cited and well reasoned arguments for why people should abandon Islam.

I accept that the verse you sight is problematic - but it becomes a lot more problematic when it is taken out of its historical and Qur'anic context.

The Qur'anic/historical context. The verse in question - Qur'an 4:34 - is proceeded by the following verse (Qur'an 4:33): "And to every one We have appointed heirs of what parents and near relatives leave; and as to those with whom your rights hands have ratified agreements, give them their portion; surely Allah is a witness over all things." This verse concerns inheritance and succession. It is stating simply that there is a new system of inheritance - that relatives receive a fixed share, and that any debts left over by the deceased must also be settled out of the inheritance fund. Prior to the revelation of the Qur'an women in the Arabia peninsula had been treated treated appallingly - kidnap and rape were common, as were excessive beatings. Furthermore, women were inherited like property! The Qur'an lead to a social revolution in which women went from being inherited to being guaranteed a fixed share of the inheritance. Now, understandably, this was not an easy sale to the pagan Arabs of Arabia. Particularly since the beginning of the next verse states that men will have to provide financial support to women: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because THEY SPEND OUT OF THEIR PROPERTY". Some scholars conjecture that all the talk of obedience was used to sell the idea of women receiving a fixed share of inheritance to the pagan Arabs.

Now the section of the verse that is particularly problematic when taken out of its historical context: "As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly)." Firstly, in light of the treatment of women before the revelation of the Qur'an, a light beating - while completely objectionable and condemnable by modern standards - seems light in the historical context in which the verse was revealed. This verse is NOT an open invitation to beat women. Furthermore, the following verse (Qur'an 4:35) states: "And if you fear a breach between the two, then appoint judge from his people and a judge from her people; if they both desire agreement, Allah will effect harmony between them, surely Allah is Knowing, Aware." This verse states that if there is any disharmony between the two parties then the two parties should enter into arbitration in order to resolve their dispute harmoniously. This verse begins 'if you fear a breach' - in other words, before any problems result in admoniting or light beating appoint arbitraters between the parties.

Overall, in its proper historical and Qur'anic context the verse in question is far less problematic. Taken together the three verses state that women, rather than being inherited, will inherit a fixed share (once any outstanding debts have been taken care of). Women were effectively economically liberated for the first time. Secondly, rather than the appalling treatment of women prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, and the complete lack of regulations regarding how a women should be treated, a man could now only beat his wife lightly - and even then only as an absolute last resort. Furthermore, before such extreme measures are permitted, arbitration should be pursued in order to restore harmony between the parties. Again, this was a huge advance in women's rights.

Now literalists - a minority - would look at those verses and argue that they are frozen in stone and that they still apply today. A non-literalist - the majority of Muslims - would argue that those verses were revealed within a particular historical context. The modern world is very different from the Arabian peninsula at the time of Mohammad. Therefore we must look at the maqasid al-Shari'ah - the higher aims and objectives of the Shari'ah. What was the reasoning behind the verses? Firstly, that women should receive a fair share of the inheritance of the deceased's estate - and NEVER be inherited. In these modern times, when families are more nuclear and less tribal, that means a greater share than that guaranteed by the Qur'an. Secondly, women should not be subject to violence, and that if a dispute arises between a married couple then arbitration should be used to restore harmony before any unpleasantness occurs. This is the kind of reasoning which was used by the judges in Tunisia and other countries.

All this is why I can honestly claim that Islam was originally intended to liberate the women of the Arabian peninsula. It's just unfortunate that it has been hijacked by a vocal minority of literalist, ahistorical, misogynists.

Best

Gwaan

When these modern non-literalist Muslims can clearly use reason to decide what's right and wrong, why shouldn't they abandon the veneration of these errant texts? If "God's messenger" was wrong about many of the things that we can check, why should anybody take his word for the things that we haven't checked?

Let me ask you a question. In purely practical terms, as an atheist surely you realise that the best way to change what you don't like in any given religion is to help support and promote the voices of moderation within that faith. You have a far greater chance of convincing believers to intepret their holy texts in a more moderate way - i.e. non-literal, and in its textual and historical context - than you do of convincing them that their fundamental beliefs (often a key component of their personal identity and cultural heritage) are completely false and without any merit. For this reason I often think that the atheist movement is very short sighted in its approach. If your aim is to convince people of the falsehood of all religion then your best bet is to begin undermining what you see as the most serious negative elements of particular faiths. Once all faith is moderate and entirely compatible with secular liberal values - then you go after the central belief - theism. But by going after the central core of religion - theism - you very often just put people's backs up - rather than enticing people to your flock you drive them away.

Similarly, it seems that many prominent atheists reserve the right to be as critical/abusive about religion as possible. I believe in free speech so I would support their right - even though I don't agree with what they are saying. However, the abusive way in which many atheists refer to religious people - 'morons', 'idiots', etc, and the way that they abuse and ridicule spiritual leaders - drives away many people who may be questioning the veracity of their faith. It is not the doctrine of atheism which is driving them away, but the way in which that doctrine is sold.

btw - In the God Delusion, Dawkins sets out a scale of 1-7, 1 being a 100% believer in God, and 7 being a 100% believer that there is no God. If I remember correctly Dawkins says that his a 6 veering on 7. Where are you?

I think the underlying problem is that faith is seen as a virtue. Faith is accepting ideas without proper evidence. It can lead people to accept all kinds of bad ideas. Praising more moderate religious people encourages the continuation of this absurd veneration of faith. With faith, people's beliefs can change according to the whims of an oligarchy, for better or for worse.


Using Dawkins' scale, I'm at 6. For the self-contradictory god of the Old Testament, 7. No just god would put people in hell for eternity.

"I think the underlying problem is that faith is seen as a virtue."

I disagree - the underlying problem is that blind faith is seen as a virtue. Not all faith is blind and irrational. Although you will probably disagree I personally think that my faith puts no constraints on my rationality. Furthermore empirical evidence can reinforce faith just as easily as it undermines it.

I agree with you about the Old Testament. I always found sections of it particularly harsh - for example, the Book of Job. But in the Qur'an I am taught that God is merciful, forgiving and kind towards sinners. God is described as merciful more than 500 times in the Qur'an, and each Sura of the Qur'an begins with: In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful.

The message of the Qur'an is that God is far more inclined to forgive than to condemn. Unfortunately, many Muslims seem to forget this. They also seem to forget that it is God - not man - who judges the deeds of a man/woman and rewards/punishes them accordingly.

I think people have got it the wrong way round religoin itself dosent instagate ideas of imorality ore say the persicutoin of women the majorty of religoins at the time of creatoin were good advancements on the state of things as thay were before religoin. however the problem of religoin and what religoin is often responsable for is the fact it stays the same and it dosent advance with knowlage.

religoins are often responsable for the lack of change and that i think is a crime

I agree, westy. The root of the problem is faith. Credulity opens the floodgates to shoving all kinds of irrational nonsense in one's head. Jesus of Nazareth was just a common man, born illegitimately, preaching a decent moral code that was a big advancement compared to his contemporaries. But the Vatican is a backwards oligarchy that usually refuses to listen to reason and therefore changes at a snail's pace.

Science is no more rational than religion. Read the famous philosopher David Hume - an atheist/naturalist and sceptic about religion - on the problem of induction.

Good post. I'm not a "terror war" drone by any means, but I am pretty sick of our blind support for one of the most backwards and anti-progressive countries in the world.

Granted, no one can ABSOLUTELY prove anything outside of formal abstractions like mathematics. Hume's criticism of induction amounts to nothing more than the mutual fund disclaimer. It is no more irrational to accept the scientific method than to accept that the sun will rise again tomorrow. The fact that scientific knowledge gives us much more ability to predict and control our world than religion suggests that science provides a better approximation of reality.

Science is no more rational than religion,.,. ?
that depends on what context you ask the questoin it is far far far far x 99999999 more ratoinal to belive that scince will alow us to doscover ways to live longer heal eachother controle the world enviroment and universe. than to belive that religoin will do anny of these things. and as i dont belive in heaven ore an after life well not in the way as described in christainty ore other religoins i have red about. it makes sence to try and work out a way to live this life comfortably and for the most people and religoin is not going to do that ratoinal thought and scince will. praying to "god" to stop the super volcano ore meteor is not going to do annything.

Hume argues that when we reason inductively we make an assumption - that nature is uniform. How can we justify this assumption? We could argue that from our past inductions this assumption appears to be true. But if we use induction to justify induction then we will just end up going around in circles.

I understand that 'young earth creationists' must piss everyone off. The evangelical campaign against rationality and science is a real problem. But, while all theists are creationists - and by creationist I mean that they hold the belief that God created the world - 'young earth creationists' are a minority. Personally, I think that the basic idea of creationism - that God created the world - is not incompatible with what we have learnt from science regarding evolution and the origins of the universe. Since God created the world, the world is a form of revelation - just like the Qur'an. Consequently, the scientific study of reality is just as important as the study of the Qur'an as both were created by God. Religion is not meant to compete with science - it is meant to complement science. Science does provide a better approximation of the physical reality we inhabit - but it doesn't answer many important questions: What is the meaning of life? Why do we exist? What is right? How should I live my life?

1.) What is the meaning of life?

42. This question is too vague to be worth answering. If by that you mean, "what were we?", "what are we?" or "what are we capable of?", then that can be examined by science. If you mean "How should we live and why?", then that is really the third question below.

2.) Why do we exist?

That question can plainly be answered by science. We exist because of natural selection and simple laws of physics that have been operating since the beginning of the universe.

3.)
What is right? How should I live my life?

The utility of codes of conduct can be examined by science. One can also postulate morality without believing in any kind of God.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/
http://www.ethicalstl.org/
http://www.ethicalsociety.org/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/history/secularism.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Looking at your answers to these questions it is clear why the atheism of Dawkin's will never appeal to most people. Although it may appeal to our reason, it doesn't appeal to our hearts. Take your answer to the question 'Why do we exist?'. You state that "That question can plainly be answered by science. We exist because of natural selection and simple laws of physics that have been operating since the beginning of the universe." That is a good answer. But it is not an answer to the question I asked. I asked WHY do we exist - not HOW do we exist. Natural selection and the laws of physics may explain HOW I came to exist in a physical sense. But they do not explain WHY I exist. You may not like my distinction between HOW and WHY, and you may say that asking WHY I exist is nonsensical. But the problem you face is that the vast majority of people are seeking an answer to WHY they exist not HOW they exist. And if you try and equate the two questions then the answer you provide is deeply unsatisfying.

well the thing is at the moment all the evidence pionts to the fact we exsist because we do not because there is a reason. by asking the questoin why you are presuming there is a resoin to us existing if you belive there is no resoin then you will anser it with a how we came to exist anser. thats another problem of religoin it makes people presume that there is a resoin to life when there is no way to know ethor way

I'll look at two versions of what you might mean by WHY.

1.) What is our "ultimate purpose"?
If the answer to your WHY is that we are on a quest given by a cosmic despot, that only raises the question of why he sent us on one mission instead of some other mission. Since a monotheistic deity cannot regress to being sent by some other god, he must have invented secular purposes. Why not cut out the middleman and invent our own secular purposes? Or would a god suffer from the same crisis of purpose you speak of? Is our species forever doomed to be too stupid to understand a god's reasons for giving us a particular purpose? If not, then there is no need to pretend a god exists to answer your WHY.

2.) Why did the big bang occur? Nobody knows. A god who just set off the big bang and did nothing thereafter is rather pointless. Why introduce the extra complexity of a deist god instead of supposing that the big bang was the first cause?

We've got all kinds on the Sift. Christians, Muslims, atheists, Americans, Europeans... we're the freaking United Nations! Let's sanction something!

So scientific truth doesn't make people warm and fuzzy inside, so they make up shit that does. I personally don't really have any sympathy for that kind of willful self-delusion anymore.

And that's it for my DEATHWISH BLOG this week... watch for me next week on Al Jazeera!

"We've got all kinds on the Sift. Christians, Muslims, atheists, Americans, Europeans... we're the freaking United Nations! Let's sanction something! "
can we give atheists a capital letter too

It is not muslims the world over that completely look down upon woman, it is just those areas that happen to contain muslims. The people there try to justify their wrong-doings with out-of-context excerpts from thier Qur'an, but if they were to actually read on, they might actually that the scripture is conditional or outright false.

In the Qur'an, there are conditions for the unroghts of a woman, but the bible there is not. So for that reason I ask you, why is it that Christians have equal rights and muslims do not? It is because of the culture that they live in and not the religions they might contain.

"can we give atheists a capital letter too"

Atheists - There you go

Kingsblood, you are giving Christians too much credit, given that the equality of women in supposably "Christian" nations like the US only started to happen a relatively short while ago, and racial equality even more recently, and we sure as hell still aren't there. Maybe we haven't been quite as obviously brutal with women, but we sure as hell were with black people. All of these ancient, archaic schools of thought need to be done away with so that we can finally come together as a species and actually get some shit done for the advancement of us all instead of raping and killing each other for bullshit non-issues like gender, skin color and geographical location.

--what i object to here is the taking things out of context and attempting to demonise a whole religion, and all its followers.

Nobody here or on CNN is demonizing a whole religion or denying that there are many different variations of Islam. There's no need to get so defensive about footage of current events.

--I am pretty sure that "christian" society is still down on women (check how much they earn compared to men, and count the number of prime ministers)

This is true on average and irrelevant.

--Last time I checked, people from ALL religions beat and murdered other people.

There are probably some religions small enough that literally that is not the case, but in spirit you're right.

------ Mink wrote:
And I have to say it, an old book that maybe condones violence against women is a million miles away from a modern illegal deadly invasion of Iraq in the name of the "christian" god as defined by a leader who "talks to god" and doesn't realise it's the same god in Islam too.
------

Bush is a hallucinating fool, and the war was awfuly managed, but that's irrelevant to this video and that doesn't prove that it was a bad idea to take out one of the worst dictators in the world by force.

Bush is not so stupid to be unaware that both Islam and Christianity are based on the god of the Old Testament, the god of Judaism. It doesn't really matter whether two fabricated revelations describe the same imaginary being; what really matters is how various people believe that and act upon it. Whether the militant interpretation of this particular verse is right or not is irrelevant because you can't prove it, at least you can't prove it to them. The Koran certainly can be interpreted in a misogynistic way because it came from a patriarchal culture, just like the Bible. I believe both of these books contain a lot of foolishness.

-------- MINK wrote:
So, ya know, i love the anti snuff rule, but i am all for freedom of speech, so let this post be here as an example of the irrationality of the poster, and an opportunity for people like gwaan to offer more context and debate around a commonly held myth about Islam.
--------

Gwaan posted the same exact comment to another video of mine, and we had a lengthy debate about it.

-------- Mink Wrote:
FFS, has anyone who calls Islam "evil" actually read the old testament? It's nasty!
http://www.evilbible.com
--------

I agree with you.


-------- MINK wrote:
Thumbs down for all literalists and fundamentalists and extremists of ALL persuasions.
--------

I bet you are an extremist against Hitler. I bet you are an extremist against slavery. I bet you are an extremist against murder. Extremism itself is not the problem. Knowing what to feel strongly about and knowing what is worth fighting for is the hard part.

Regarding literalism, it is very useful to be able to carefully construct words to make a precise and unambiguous message. It is also useful to be able to invert that process. The trouble with most religious scriptures is that they're often either ambiguous, morally repugnant, or false (Sometimes there are bits of wisdom like in the sermon on the mount). Religious apologists metaphoricize any part of it they don't like as a psychological defense mechanism. Some passages could 'mean' almost anything with a loose enough metaphorical interpretation; it's sometimes a glorified Rorschach test. I prefer writings that actually mean something.

Sketch, that's precisely what I'm saying. The equality came only so recently because we Americans paid so much to our own documents of equality. Using the constitution as a basis for a need to have equality is what led us to fight for it. The bible promotes biggotry; only by foregoing its word and going with our country's paper instead did we ever demand an equal rights act and civil rights movement.

In other words, I did not mean to say that credit goes to the christians at all - in terms of equality - because if the christians were to follow the bible, then a woman would be no more powerful than a house cat. The credit goes to we, the people.

The Pentateuch, which is common to all Abrahamic religions, contains a lot of inexcusably vile stuff.

" As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you." - Deuteronomy 20:10-14

" If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT

And this isn't just one passage taken out of context. There are dozens of equally reprehensible passages documented on evilbible.com.

"I bet you are an extremist against Hitler."

Extremism is a term describing extreme ideas, ideologies, and beliefs. It doesn't apply to emotions i.e. "I hate hitler. He's a massmuredrring f**khead!" but to the web of ideas and ideals by which one judges events, actions and most people, whoever they might be.
You said the apologists "metaphoricize", but you did just that with the hitler thing. Which is OK, some things, I think, can only be grasped by metaphore, but it is a slippery process.

You missed the point of my post. I'm not saying it's bad to use metaphors. I'm saying it's bad to do what has historically been done to scripture, which is to continually re-define its meaning in many different ways that have very little to do with the what's actually on the page.

Take for example the book of Genesis. For thousands of years most Christians, Jews, and Muslims believed the universe was literally created in 7 days and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. The Catholic church burned people who said otherwise. Now most of them say Genesis was just a metaphor. Metaphor for what? There are a thousand different interpretations. If you go banannas with symbolism, you can see anything in any text. Extreme vagueness defeats the purpose of writing anything down in the first place. I.E., you might as well be looking at a random inkblot instead of a page of text.

"For thousands of years most Christians, Jews, and Muslims believed the universe was literally created in 7 days"

Well, that isn't entirely true. You said yourself that "the church burned people who thought otherwise." - and people did think otherwise, even christian theologists, and very early.

This is a good wikipedia page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

By a "historical interpretation of genesis" I mean an assertion that Genesis more or less represents history, perhaps imperfectly, as opposed to the idea that Genesis is a creation myth with little or no historical accuracy.

The sources cited by your wikipedia link are:
1.) An unsourced (dead link) vague generalization by an archbishop, which doesn't amount to an assertion that a non-historical interpretation of Genesis was ever common or tolerated before the 1700s.

2.) Several other articles with cherry picked quotes of early church figures supporting various historical interpretations of Genesis. Many of them just quarreled with the meanings of "day" and "light", e.g., "A day of the lord is 1000 years".

That's unconvincing. If the author of Genesis meant a thousand years instead of "the evening and the morning of the x-th day", he should have written a thousand years. And he'd still be very wrong. Christians who believed that Genesis was non-historic were a very small minority until the 1700s

Here's a list of people who've been burned at the stake (or threatened) for contradicting a historical interpretation of Genesis:

"In 1749, the distinguished French scholar Comte de Buffon proposed that the 6 days of creation may have been 6 long epochs of time and that the Earth's surface had been shaped and reshaped by processes still going on. The Church took great exception to this and threatened Buffon to recant and publicly accept the Old Testament age of 6000 years. No doubt remembering the fate of Galileo (who lived most of his life under house arrest for proposing the Earth went around the Sun,) and Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for proposing the same theory and adding that he believed there was life elsewhere in the universe, Buffon complied." - http://starryskies.com/Artshtml/dln/6-97/earth.age.html

"In Les époques de la nature (1778) Buffon discussed the origins of the solar system, speculating that the planets had been created by comets colliding with the sun (see Passing star hypothesis). He also suggested that the age of the earth was much greater than the 4,004 years b.c. proclaimed by Archbishop James Ussher of the church. Based on the cooling rate of iron, he calculated that the age of the earth was 75,000 years. For this he was condemned by the Catholic Church in France and his books were burned. Buffon also denied that Noah's flood ever occurred and observed that some animals retain parts that are vestigial and no longer useful, suggesting that they have evolved rather than having been spontaneously generated. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon

"A French scholar, Bernard Palissy who lived from 1510-1589 believed the Earth was much older based on his observations that rain, wind, and tides were the cause for much of the present-day appearance of the Earth. He wrote that, these forces could not work over such a short period of time to produce the changes. He was burned at the stake in 1589. A bad time for scientific inquiry. " - http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/age.htm

"Another was Thomas Burnet, a member of the English clergy, who lived from 1635-1715. He had written a book around 1681 supporting the idea of a worldwide flood, but in 1692, he wrote another book in which he questioned the existence of Adam and Eve, and that ended his career."

Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Before the 1500s, almost no one, perhaps no one, understood enough to have any good reason to say that the earth was older than 6,000 to 12,000 years, and most Christians accepted Genesis as a historical account by default. Christians back then believed in Adam and Eve because their alternative was that Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic "original sin" by a non-existent individual. Modern genetic evidence proves that we are not the inbred descendants of only two homo sapiens.

I ought to fix that wikipedia article.

Pat Condell is my hero.