Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Flat Earth Society and Young Earth Creationists

Page 8 of 11 [ 163 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

26 Dec 2014, 6:46 am

Oldavid wrote:
Narrator wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
....Earth will always have gravity downwards and at right angles from it's surface.

As a small aside...
http://www.mountmacedon.org.au/places/anti-gravity-hill
I've been to this hill a couple of times. It's freakish.
There's one of those places in the hills just East of Perth. I went there once as a teenager. A most interesting optical illusion.

Anyhow, my quip, quoted above, was intended for a laugh at the expense of the troglodytes.... not as a statement of some observed "fact".

David, you don't need to explain yourself. It was an oblique diversion, not a derogation of your "quip."

And yes, optical illusions are often curious.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

26 Dec 2014, 7:27 am

Oldavid wrote:
Maybe they don't "do the social conformity thing" at home but there is always a very aggressive cadre of supporters of the religious ideology of the shallowest popular brand of Materialism who are enthusiastic hecklers of anyone who might seriously challenge their untenable position. If there are genuinely "independent" thinkers they are most notable by their "discretion" in not exposing themselves to the derision and ridicule meted out by the hecklers.


You haven't seriously challenged any ideas presented here nor explained why you think those ideas are untenable. You have just given adultified variations on the schoolyard taunt, "those ideas suck and you suck, you copycat". From the consistency of the "you suck, you copycat" theme, I am guessing you don't approve of people learning from other people. But you don't come right out and say it. You don't come right out and say anything that would reveal what your actual position is. You just heckle. It's quite frustrating.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

26 Dec 2014, 7:45 am

Narrator wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
the derision and ridicule meted out by the hecklers


And thus you expose your debating style. You play the man, not the ball. A wonderful way to get at the truth.

Oldavid wrote:
Maybe they don't "do the social conformity thing" at home but there is always a very aggressive cadre of supporters of the religious ideology of the shallowest popular brand of Materialism


By that logic, the only way to be independent in your thinking is to disagree with what's popular, even when what's popular might be right.

As a Christian of 35+ years I eventually turned to atheism. Logic and reason evolved in my mind over several years and turned me away from what was popular in my circle, despite the consequences, because I came to the conclusion I had been wrong for most of my life. If you want to continue belittling that kind of journey (not just mine), then I refer you back to your inimical need to play the man rather than the ball.
The "ad hominem" is usually the last card played in a failed argument.

I will "belittle" that kind of journey because I've been there, done that. The difference seems to be that I was not corralled at the dead end. I never staked my credibility on fantastic fads.

Quote:
"By that logic, the only way to be independent in your thinking is to disagree with what's popular, even when what's popular might be right."
Not at all. But running with the mob is almost a guarantee of "wrongness".

What we have to ditch is that "I like itness" is synonymous with "that's what it isness". If one can "define" what's good and true by simply wanting it to be so then any kind of scientific investigation is a complete waste.



Narrator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,060
Location: Melbourne, Australia

26 Dec 2014, 8:01 am

Oldavid wrote:
I will "belittle" that kind of journey because I've been there, done that. The difference seems to be that I was not corralled at the dead end. I never staked my credibility on fantastic fads.

And David, with that I'm done with you.
As you insist on holding onto your dismissive assumptions about people, and making that your main argument for everything, there is nothing more to say.


_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.


Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

26 Dec 2014, 8:03 am

Quote:
Narrator"By that logic, the only way to be independent in your thinking is to disagree with what's popular, even when what's popular might be right."


Quote:
OldavidNot at all. But running with the mob is almost a guarantee of "wrongness".


No it isn't. But then neither is it a guarantee of rightness (the position you imply is held by many here). What the mob thinks gives you no data whatsoever on whether an idea is incorrect. Can you debate ideas without invoking "the mob" (the theme of all your insults) and just debate the ideas themselves, not whether or not they are popular?



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

26 Dec 2014, 8:07 am

Janissy wrote:
You haven't seriously challenged any ideas presented here nor explained why you think those ideas are untenable. You have just given adultified variations on the schoolyard taunt, "those ideas suck and you suck, you copycat". From the consistency of the "you suck, you copycat" theme, I am guessing you don't approve of people learning from other people. But you don't come right out and say it. You don't come right out and say anything that would reveal what your actual position is. You just heckle. It's quite frustrating.
Maybe I might have been slightly intimidated at one time past but not anymore.

My position is just what I've said in other threads: observable operations of the Universe preclude any possibility that nothing turns itself into everything.

Go ahead. Obfuscations, diversions, clever and completely silly mind-tricks.... I think I've seen them all.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

26 Dec 2014, 8:59 am

Oldavid wrote:
Janissy wrote:
You haven't seriously challenged any ideas presented here nor explained why you think those ideas are untenable. You have just given adultified variations on the schoolyard taunt, "those ideas suck and you suck, you copycat". From the consistency of the "you suck, you copycat" theme, I am guessing you don't approve of people learning from other people. But you don't come right out and say it. You don't come right out and say anything that would reveal what your actual position is. You just heckle. It's quite frustrating.
Maybe I might have been slightly intimidated at one time past but not anymore.

My position is just what I've said in other threads: observable operations of the Universe preclude any possibility that nothing turns itself into everything.

Go ahead. Obfuscations, diversions, clever and completely silly mind-tricks.... I think I've seen them all.


Ok. So working backwards to kraftkortie's post about the origins of religion I am guessing that you think it's wrong because it posits religion as humanly inspired rather than divinely inspired. Why didn't you just say so? Stop playing silly mind tricks of your own and just counter-argue the post itself rather than forcing people to infer what your counter argument would be based on the knowledge that you believe in God which itself is an inference from your statement that "observable operations of the Universe preclude any possibility that nothing turns itself into something" (yay :!: an actual statement).

I think your silly mind trick is to force people to make a string of weak inferences (because so long a string) from one (infrequently stated) position just so you can say "you inferred wrong". And I'm the one who obfuscates?



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

26 Dec 2014, 10:07 am

At last some pseudonym has proposed something that is challengeable.

My simple proposition is that "a thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist".

Presently, I can't review previous posts and reply to them in detail. Nothing new under the Sun. I have been consistently censored (posts removed or deleted because they were inconvenient or bothersome to the "official", or "establishment") sales-pitch.

I'd like to start a new thread to deal with this business but I guess that nobody cares. Materialism is orthodoxy and no dissention will be tolerated.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

27 Dec 2014, 3:38 am

Narrator wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
I will "belittle" that kind of journey because I've been there, done that. The difference seems to be that I was not corralled at the dead end. I never staked my credibility on fantastic fads.

And David, with that I'm done with you.
As you insist on holding onto your dismissive assumptions about people, and making that your main argument for everything, there is nothing more to say.
Davy is afraif of science he cannot grasp it or fathom scientific facts because they go against his beliefs of magical men and sky fairies!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

27 Dec 2014, 3:51 am

How do we know the flat Earth is round, and not rectangular, or even odd-shaped?



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

27 Dec 2014, 6:03 am

Humanaut wrote:
How do we know the flat Earth is round, and not rectangular, or even odd-shaped?

Some clever ancient Greek calculated the diameter of the Earth by watching sun shining down into wells that were a long way apart. I don't remember his name or the details of how he did it but the result he got was astonishingly close to present calculations.

Anyhow, I expect that if it was cubic instead of flat or round aeroplanes would bump into the corners sticking up.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

27 Dec 2014, 6:38 am

Oldavid wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
How do we know the flat Earth is round, and not rectangular, or even odd-shaped?
Some clever ancient Greek calculated the diameter of the Earth by watching sun shining down into wells that were a long way apart. I don't remember his name or the details of how he did it but the result he got was astonishingly close to present calculations.

The exact same method could probably be used to calculate the properties of other geometrical premises. As such it doesn't tell us anything about the true shape of the planet.

Quote:
I expect that if it was cubic instead of flat or round aeroplanes would bump into the corners sticking up.

They would probably be able to avoid the corners the same way they avoid mountains.



Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

27 Dec 2014, 6:55 am

Oldavid wrote:
Some clever ancient Greek calculated the diameter of the Earth by watching sun shining down into wells that were a long way apart. I don't remember his name or the details of how he did it but the result he got was astonishingly close to present calculations.


Erathostenes

Oldavid wrote:
Presently, I can't review previous posts and reply to them in detail. Nothing new under the Sun. I have been consistently censored (posts removed or deleted because they were inconvenient or bothersome to the "official", or "establishment") sales-pitch.


Can you please tell me are you referring to this site when you say you've been censored? And if so, by whom?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

27 Dec 2014, 7:20 pm

Booyakasha wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Some clever ancient Greek calculated the diameter of the Earth by watching sun shining down into wells that were a long way apart. I don't remember his name or the details of how he did it but the result he got was astonishingly close to present calculations.


Erathostenes

Oldavid wrote:
Presently, I can't review previous posts and reply to them in detail. Nothing new under the Sun. I have been consistently censored (posts removed or deleted because they were inconvenient or bothersome to the "official", or "establishment") sales-pitch.


Can you please tell me are you referring to this site when you say you've been censored? And if so, by whom?


[the sound of crickets chirping]



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

28 Dec 2014, 2:45 am

Booyakasha wrote:
Can you please tell me are you referring to this site when you say you've been censored? And if so, by whom?

No, I can't as I've not kept records and I have no way of knowing even who could, let alone would, delete my posts. Having said that, it is possible that I've mucked up the send post process on this site and thus lost my effort into the aether. It is very disappointing to have spent considerable time and effort on a reply only to find it vanished.

I know for certain that on other sites I have presented a serious challenge to the status quo and seen it posted and then vanish.

It is not beyond possibility that some hacker is censoring what is allowed, I suppose.



Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

28 Dec 2014, 2:54 am

The thing is that I know for sure that not a single mod has been deleting your posts here lately - it can be checked in the logs, every time a post has been deleted it can be read there.

And there are too few mods here to actually have the will, time and energy to spend any additional time deleting, editing posts from posters they might consider offending - we either post a public warning or a private warning, or close the thread if things escalate too much.

So really I'm sorry your posts have been lost, but I assure you it's not our fault - we're usually too busy battling the spammers.