…That the “New World (Americas)” was undiscovered…that it was unknown. That the World was Flat… I refuse to believe, knowing what I know about people, stories, myths and tradition that the “New World” was unknown… lost to current knowledge, or a dark age, perhaps, but never unknown. The proof is that people made their way here… those were the discoverers, the explorers. The New World was well known in the Telephone line of nomadic human nations and tribes during the Ice Age and through all of known history (which we all survived, by the way.). The fire in Alexandria lost this knowledge.
We’ve always known this continent in linguistic terms. Word of Mouth and Genetic Memory.
Ok, so what’s the question?
And isn’t it pretty much taken for granted that the New World was only “new” to the Europeans, since after all, Native Americans have been here much longer?
Other big lies, or misunderstandings, and hyperbolics you think have been imprinted and currently adversely affect humanity?
Jews are to blame for Jesus’ death.
Charging interest is bad.
The production of paper will cause Europe to become Islamic.
Communism works!
Women are property.
Black people are property and cannot develop past the mental ability of a child.
Ones duty is to produce as many children as he can.
Your station in life is determined by your birth.
There is a (big) difference between false beliefs and lies, you know. I think you are talking about the former.
Or are you suggesting that some secret elite always knew that the world was round, and that America was there, and hid that knowledge from the mass of the people?
Actually, you seem to be saying that everyone always knew that the world was round, and that America was there, but we have been lied to by being told that they did not know, but I am having a hard time believing that is really what you intend.
It is true that the educated European elite have known that the world is round since about the 5th century B.C., but I doubt whether the mass of the population knew it until much more recently. On the other hand, I know of no evidence that the elite ever tried to conceal the fact from them.
As for the America, yes, the Native Americans knew about it, and the Europeans, Egyptians and the Western Asian people’s with whom they were in contact did not (until Columbus tried to sail right through it). There was no lying going on, just (understandable) ignorance.
Huh, where does that one come from? Paper is a Chinese invention; there is nothing Islamic about it. 
The Islamic nations of Africa and the Middle East learned of paper starting around 750 AD, possibly causing the Islamic Golden Age. Thanks to this, by the time the method for production started to leak into Europe from its Islamic neighbor around 1050 AD, there was already a significant corpus of Islamic books to be imported on the sciences, philosophy, and of course religion. As paper production started to pick up, there was a small Renaissance in Europe.
But then, according to the a blurb on Wikipedia that has been deleted by a rather religious Wikipedia editor:
“Although the export of paper from the Muslim Empire to Byzantium and other parts of the Christian Empire was allowed in small quantities by the 11th century, paper was disfavored by the Christian Church as a manifestation of Muslim efforts to dominate trade and culture. Efforts were made for hundreds of years to boycott its use. Finally, in 1221 AD, a decree from Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II declared all official documents written on paper to be invalid (cited by David Abulafia in his book titled “Frederick II” page 209)”
Arguably, this pressure by the Catholic Church delayed the real European Renaissance by a few hundred years, thus setting the modern world back by an equal amount.
- “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Yeah, right.
-
Democracy works!
-
Diamonds are forever
Not their value, not their physical structure, not the relationships they symbolize
-
Materialism is happiness
-
Knowledge is happiness
-
Progress is happiness
-
Happiness is life
-
Luck, not chance, determines outcome
-
We have free will
One Overherd (read in disbelief)… That Killer Tornadoes are a result of Sin. God’s Wrath wrought upon the Earth. These people are some real Old Testament literalists and still worship Yahweh the Storm God.
I dunnno… seems like that’s placing blame on the blameless, a bit too archaic for me, but hey… whatever works for ya. I understand the church needs the sinners to survive relevance. But this… this is preying on guilt and accusation, and most of all, Fear.
One that I have seen tossed around recently (due in most part to the oil spill) is that America is a Free Market Economy.
Religion. All of it.
Having researched a bit more, it looks like the original text saying that the Catholic Church boycotted paper in the 11th to 13th centuries was added to the Wikipedia by an Islamic person from Pakistan. So while it does seem to have been deleted by a Christian, I can’t say that the originator of the data appears to be a particularly reliable source either. And Frederick II doesn’t appear to be someone you could call representative of Europe at the time.
Anyone happen to know whether the blurb was accurate or not?
*woo, fun with Wikipedia entries \o/ *
Death: Humans need fantasy to be human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
Susan: With tooth fairies? Hogfathers?
Death: Yes. As practice, you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.
Susan: So we can believe the big ones?
Death: Yes. Justice, mercy, duty. That sort of thing.
Susan: They’re not the same at all.
Death: You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world. As if there is some, some rightness in the universe, by which it may be judged.
Susan: But people have got to believe that, or what’s the point?
Death: You need to believe in things that aren’t true. How else can they become?
I’ll call you tomorrow,
the checks in my mouth,
and I promise I won’t come in your mailbox.
What is the difference?
OK, if this is the game we are playing (I am not sure it is what the OP intended, but maybe), here's one from me:
*Poor people are poor because they have not worked as hard, or are not as smart, or virtuous, or courageous ("risk taking") as rich people.Winners never cheat, cheaters never win.
As far as I can tell, cheating wins all the time. Constantly.
I was waiting for this one. Do you have proof that all religions are lies?
Oh wait, no you don’t. It is your BELIEF that religions are incorrect…just like it is the BELIEF that they are correct by the followers of each religion.
Now, of course, we have scientific evidence out the wazoo that contradicts many things in many religious texts…however, this is not proof of religions being perpetrated lies. The holy books of the wold religions were written centuries before the vast majority of the scientific evidence one might use was known. Therefore, even those instances where the scientific evidence strongly shoots down what’s in a religious text (such as evolution vs. creationism), it’s not a lie, but rather ignorance of the time of the text being written. The following of those texts literally is a belief system (whether correct or incorrect), not a set of lies.
Plus, you will find that a LOT of people who have general belief in a religion do not take the holy texts literally, but rather as a combination of metaphors for what couldn’t be explained scientifically at the time of writing. Many people have a belief in God, but take the stories in the holy texts with a grain of salt and have the ability to read between the lines given the time period and historical climate the authors were in when they wrote them in the first place.
Plus, you will find that the VAST majority of the religious leaders of the world belief with all their heart that what they are teaching their followers is 100% true…they are not lying, they are saying what they truly believe, which may or may not be 100% factual. (some of which we have proof of factual error, others you may simply believe something different). There is a difference between being wrong and lying.
I think there’s also something to be said about willfully ignoring the truth when your livelihood depends on you saying you believe in it.
“My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.”
– Wilfred Owen
This appears to me more of a Great Debate than a General Question. Moved.
samclem Moderator, General Questions