Watching the flat earth documentary on netflix. May god have mercy on my soul...
@ThePandaPool , I formally request that you report back to me upon completion.
@ThePandaPool , is it pro or against flat earth?
@AlyciaFear, I second this! I need to know what you learned
@The Flame War, ok. So it is one of those well done documentaries that stay neutral from the cameras perspective, but at the same time, let's people dig their own graves.
So now it was very interesting the takes from real scientists, and flat earthers that are legitimately trying to show evidence of their idea. The flat earthers went so far as to buy a fiberoptic gyroscope to prove that the earth wasn't rotating. When they turned it on, obviously it showed a 15 degree drift every hour due to the rotation of the earth. After that test, they created a case to place the gyroscope into to "block forces from the heavens" at which case it stilled showed the 15 degree drift. Now they plan on building another container from boron to do the test again (which isn't covered in the documentary.)
Plenty of scenes of people mocking the flat earthers including black science man and Bill Nye.
Some scientists that are better people than me explained that mocking flat earthers and shunning them is a -
@ThePandaPool , terrible thing to do because it pushes intelligent potential scientists away rather than show them the proper way to do their tests and be critical of their findings.
They explain about how these people end up in this community where everyone is doing research but only keeping the information that confirms their ideas, and they dont know any better.
My conclusion to this one is that's it's worth the watch. And as much as I like making fun of flat earthers it's probably best not to. encourage them to change the way they do their research and hope for the best.
@ThePandaPool , is a...? The the flat earther hitman get you?
@ThePandaPool , sorry the second comment hadn't loaded yet
@The Flame War, I typed that as fast as I could and it still felt like forever.
@ThePandaPool , if you’re performing an experiment to confirm a hypothesis, you’re doing science. When your experiments findings contradict your hypothesis and you disregard the findings instead of the hypothesis, you’re no longer doing science. They aren’t scientists.
It’s like correlating belief in God with being a philosopher. If you’re starting with the end point firmly in place, you’re coming at the proposition from the standpoint of it already being true. Flat earthers aren’t trying to prove the truth. They’re trying to prove their truth.
@I Are Lebo, you're right. The whole point is that these people are in a group of people doing the same thing so they dont know any better, and to shun them down more harm than good.
@ThePandaPool , we can try but you have to remember these people are so convinced that they’re right that they toss out all evidence that doesn’t agree with them so they only look at “evidence” that was gathered by other said stubborn people same with anti-vaxers and moon landing conspirators quite frankly I find it strange how these people never ask the basic questions of why and how if the Earth is flat then why try to hide it? why try to give many children autism which the largest symptom is lack of communication likely making people less likely to listen? Or how are they keeping all the people involved in the moon landing conspiracy quiet? People talk and generally tend to be terrible at keeping secrets quite frankly it would likely be best just to ignore these people they refuse to listen or change and are only willing to listen to each other so best save ourselves the trouble except for anti-vaxers they need to change before some major epidemic springs up because of their idiocy
@I Are Lebo, One can very well use philosophy to make arguments for God’s existence though. And indeed a solid and sensical philosophy of the world around us is one of the foundational aspects of a belief in God. Obviously going the other way (God to philosophy) is a different argument. But the term “correlating” which you use is ambiguous about that directionality.
@ThePandaPool , at the same time, it is not shaming someone to explain to them, harshly if need be, that their position is based on pseudoscience and paranoid delusions.
@HammerOfHeretics, you missed my point. I meant that believing in God does not, by itself, make one a philosopher. In addition, if you have become convinced of the existence of God through fallacious reasoning, you’re not a very good philosopher anyway.
What do you mean by sensical? Was that a typo for sensible or are you referring to the senses?
@eleven, it's not for everyone, that's just one of the main points that some of the scientists in the documentary had brought up. I'm not mentioning anything with the intent to change the way they act, other than when I say it's worth the watch.
@I Are Lebo, well my reasoning isn’t fallacious but let’s not get into that. I meant sensical. Look at up. As in coherent and “makes sense”.
@HammerOfHeretics, the thing about holding fallacious reasoning is that unless you’re insane, you’re not aware you’re doing it. We all believe fallacious things, it’s what we do when it’s demonstrated to us that makes us rational or irrational.
The word you’re looking for is sensible. That is the definition of “something that makes sense.” You are misusing the word sensical.
Definition of sensible (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : having, containing, or indicative of good sense or reason : RATIONAL, REASONABLE
made a sensible answer
2 : designed for practical ends (such as comfort) rather than for appearance
3 : of a kind to be felt or perceived
@HammerOfHeretics, sensical is not a recognized word in most dictionaries, but the syntax of the word suggests a reference to the senses. A sensical experience would be one pertaining to the sensory experience.
@I Are Lebo, right cause the commonly used term “that’s non-sensical” doesn’t exist. If the “non” version works so does the sans “non” version. And belief in a creator for a universe is perfectly rational.
@HammerOfHeretics, Although I understand the logic that led you from “nonsensical” to “sensical”, that’s not the way the syntax works. “Nonsense” is the root word of “nonsensical”, not “sensical”. The opposite of “nonsensical” is “sensible”.
What can I say, English is a stupid language sometimes. Nevertheless, let’s discuss content rather than language, so far as we can understand what each other are saying, it’s just semantics.
Indeed it can be rational to believe in a creator god. By what basis do you connect belief in a creator god with belief in the Christian specific creator god?
@I Are Lebo, the Christian connection is a somewhat separate argument which I’m not about to have for the thousandth time with you and it requires reason but also faith and some belief in Christian revelation. But it obviously starts with the acceptance that the universe requires an omnipotent creator.
@HammerOfHeretics, almost every religion begins with that premise. The problem is that there is no demonstration of this premise, which makes the acceptance of it by nature irrational. To accept something as true without good reason to do so is to abandon rationality.
Why do you accept it as fact that reality was created by a creator god?
@I Are Lebo, you literally said it can be rational to believe in a creator God. And now you’re saying it’s irrational. You’re going in circles man. And there are plenty of good philosophical arguments for such a creator. Again, I’m not going to type them all out, I just refer you to Aquinas’ proofs.
@HammerOfHeretics, I said that it can be rational to believe in a creator god, it can also be irrational. It depends on the reasons for believing. “I look around at all the beauty of the world and can’t imagine it not being created” is a common, fallacious, irrational reason for believing.
A philosophical argument is not a demonstration of truth.
I’ll look up this Aquinas.
@HammerOfHeretics, the important factor that I keep coming back to is whether or not it matters to you if your beliefs are true. If you believe in a creator god regardless of the truth aspect because it makes you feel good, that’s irrational. If you believe in a creator God because you’ve had personal experiences that indicate the existence of a higher power, that’s rational.
Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are true?
@I Are Lebo, the absolutely most important part of my beliefs...in fact the very reason I have them...is because I believe them to be true. In science that’s true (I’m an engineer) and in religion that’s equally as true. The proofs come from different areas: science it’s physical observations, in religion it’s both physical observations (interpreted through a philosophical lens which asks “why?” instead of “how?”) and faith which is complementary to, and not necessarily obvious to, reason. The former arguments deal with the existence or not of God, the latter arguments deal more with his character and his relationship to us and the general Christian claims of the trinity, incarnation, forgiveness, love, etc.
@HammerOfHeretics, faith is not complementary to reason, because you are using faith as a demonstration of that which you don’t know as if it explains how you know it. It’s nonsensical to claim that through faith you have found knowledge because faith is not a reliable pathway to truth. There is no position you cannot take based on faith, especially when it comes to the character of God which you cannot know because you have no interactions with him.
This is why I say your position is irrational. You claim that the Bible is true and your only response to being challenged on that is that you believe it to be true. Whether or not you believe something to be true has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is actually true.
I asked you whether or not it matters to you that your beliefs are true not that you believe them to be true. You have shifted the goal posts in your first sentence.
The latter arguments of yours have no substance. They do not address how you can ascertain the
character of God or any of the Christian claims. In fact, many of them contradict the Christian claims (those that don’t contradict themselves).
You keep saying that you don’t want to repeat the discussion on Christianity but you’ve never actually acknowledged any of my arguments. We’ve not HAD the discussion because you run from it every time. That’s why these conversations are so frustrating for both of us.
@I Are Lebo, first off, my first response obviously implies that it certainly matters if my beliefs are true. If they weren’t true (or if they didn’t stand up to scrutiny), I wouldn’t believe them. Secondly, if we had a better forum than a comment section I would engage you in debate. When you write paragraph after paragraph of contradictory accusations, it’s kind of time consuming to address them all. And as such I’m accused of running from an argument. I’m not, I just realize it is a futile attempt...since it’s clear from every time you comment on a post of mine that you’re not here for productive debate on religion. Btw I wholeheartedly agree that my (or anyone’s) belief in something has no bearing on its truth, which funnily enough appeals to a universe where absolute truth actually exists.
Why would iPhone users make fun of someone for using a better phone than them?...
It’s funny because of the F word.
Apparently that gucci smart toilet isnt that smart if its putting up with their sh!t.
It’s just a phone preference. Who cares?