[duckfang]

Sorry, but I dont base my worldview on what a bunch of bronze-age people said. It's a good mythological story, though.

We have science.

--------------------------------

Edit: I really don't understand the downvoters. This specific passage was written 6000 years ago, give or take. It's from a religious holybook that has no bearing on technology, medicine, or science. Germ theory was nonexistent, most forms of medicine were in their most rudimentary levels. They didn't even have the technology or know-how for basic ironworking.

If you're an adherent to a religion, good for you. Its simply that - a mythology, a belief.

And we should be bearing no credence to the writings of religion in our sciences, unless it stated physical fact (think anthropology, geology, architecture - sciences), or if you're a religious historian and trying to understand how human religions change.

I thought we worked with sciences here, not superstition.

[mgh2]

I get you, HN has a general anti-religious view on things.

However, as with any information, bias hurts any analysis (in any form data is presented). A quote is just that, a quote.

No matter your beliefs, information is neutral and should be inquired for curiosity purposes in HN, not personal opinion.

[duckfang]

No. That's called bible-thumping.

In our world, it's trivially easy to get hold of any major religion's works, and only moderately difficult to get hold of smaller religion's works, primarily due to translation issues.

And in light of context, you weren't comparing the writings or showing different religions' thoughts on human longevity - you were implicitly stating that your choice of religion was the right one, by stating it matter-of-factly.

[d0100]

If you ignore religion the quote still has scientific value as it could be a reflection of life expectancy at the time

Going ham on religion/myth/worldview isn't the scientific approach at all