swellmomma Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 so just to be part of this thread I typed is the e into google like so many others and got is the economy a zero sum game is the earth round is the exorcist scary is the earth getting closer to the sun is the elf on the shelf real is the earth hollow is the epic split real is the earth flat So on my google asking if the earth is flat is the 8th question now to check on the economy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truscifi Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The only earth related result mine showed was "Is the earth a closed system". #4 for me was "Is the exorcist based on a true story". :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 "Is the earth round?" is just another way of asking if it is flat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 "Is the earth round?" is just another way of asking if it is flat. Hm, not exactly, according to the article that actually comes up on that search: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I got Is the elbow joint congruent?Is the elbow joint congruent or incongruent?Is the exorcist scary?Is the Eastern Freeway a toll road? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 You are just being rude. I disagree. I think she's simply not censoring this comment as it is an objective statement of fact. As a matter of fact, the argument you defend lacks evidence. No evidence has yet to be found to support it. As a matter of fact, all evidence that exists, points towards the conventional scientific theory, the one your argument denies; ergo the lack of logic. In any case, for a believer, it should come as no surprise that nonbelievers think it's "foolishness" (1 Corinthians 2:14: The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 It does not only *some* of the religious do, which isn't the same thing. There are many people of faith who have a passion for science. Agree 100%. Saw an interview with the priests that run the Vatican observatory - impressive, enlightened, and seem to have no problem integrating veiry high levels of faith and science. A model for lay people on all sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Going back to the original post: IMO if a person has an inner need to maintain a belief, and needs it to the point of being willing to spend the energy on the mental gymnastics that are necessary to keep it afloat, on a personal level, I'm happy to leave them to it......their journey is their business, and there is a reason for whatever their needs are at the moment, and I don't have to understand it. I am reading this sentiment a bit here, and I think it shows a tendency towards being nice, tolerant, and non-confrontational. All these qualities are valuable, I think. But... would you feel confident if the President of the United States, or the President of Russia believed the earth was flat? Would you feel similarly happy to leave people to their beliefs if they made up the majority of Congress, and thus influenced the public policy that governed our land? Would you feel similarly tolerant if the Major General in a military operation in a hostile land believed and operated on the assumption the earth was flat? Actually, this question is open to anyone who feels this way, I don't mean to put you, laundrycrisis, on the spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PinkyandtheBrains. Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 My google autofill for "is the e" Is the elf on the shelf real is the earth flat is the earth round is the earth hollow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I hope the sweet tea fans recognized my sarcasm font... of COURSE you can't just "put sugar in it"! I may be a Northerner, but I've lived down South long enough. I dunno. I only like green tea with lemon, and I'm a NJ Yankee. Not sure if there's a connecton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I got Is the elbow joint congruent? Is the elbow joint congruent or incongruent? No fair talking Geometry on Saturday. I'm off duty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I am reading this sentiment a bit here, and I think it shows a tendency towards being nice, tolerant, and non-confrontational. All these qualities are valuable, I think. But... would you feel confident if the President of the United States, or the President of Russia believed the earth was flat? Would you feel similarly happy to leave people to their beliefs if they made up the majority of Congress, and thus influenced the public policy that governed our land? Would you feel similarly tolerant if the Major General in a military operation in a hostile land believed and operated on the assumption the earth was flat? Actually, this question is open to anyone who feels this way, I don't mean to put you, laundrycrisis, on the spot. It depends on whether the Constitution specifically contained language protecting the rights on round earth believers. Which, if I'm reading your snarky insinuations correctly, ours does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 It depends on whether the Constitution specifically contained language protecting the rights on round earth believers. Which, if I'm reading your snarky insinuations correctly, ours does. There is a difference between protecting the rights of people to believe whatever nonsense they want to believe and having appropriate information to make decisions. Nobody who believes in a flat earth is going to be the head of NASA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 It depends on whether the Constitution specifically contained language protecting the rights on round earth believers. Which, if I'm reading your snarky insinuations correctly, ours does. I didn't mean that to be snarky, and it doesn't present as a snarky question. It's a legitimate question given the circumstances: If one is tolerant towards sincere beliefs that reject known information, how far does that tolerance go in a practical sense? Obviously the Constitution does contain language protecting the rights to freedom of religion. In what way is this relevant to my question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosie_0801 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 No fair talking Geometry on Saturday. I'm off duty. I didn't appreciate it either. It made my elbow sore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I got Bruce Springsteen's website. Dunno how that happened. Maybe because his band is the E Street Band? ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 It depends on whether the Constitution specifically contained language protecting the rights on round earth believers. Which, if I'm reading your snarky insinuations correctly, ours does. As belief protection yes. It becomes a wider concern if it affects policy, which could be local (see Dover, PA pushback), and/or funding decisions of, say, the NSF, which affects our national standing, ability, and common good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Maybe because his band is the E Street Band? ;) That's a google find. I can't even place a lyric that would reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I disagree. I think she's simply not censoring this comment as it is an objective statement of fact. As a matter of fact, the argument you defend lacks evidence. No evidence has yet to be found to support it. As a matter of fact, all evidence that exists, points towards the conventional scientific theory, the one your argument denies; ergo the lack of logic. In any case, for a believer, it should come as no surprise that nonbelievers think it's "foolishness" (1 Corinthians 2:14: The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit). Albeto. I love you, but I want to let you know that on here anyone who has not publicly proclaimed to be Christian is not allowed to quote scripture because they do not have a true understanding. No matter if that person has a background in theology or not. Just want to give you a heads up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I didn't mean that to be snarky, and it doesn't present as a snarky question. It's a legitimate question given the circumstances: If one is tolerant towards sincere beliefs that reject known information, how far does that tolerance go in a practical sense? Obviously the Constitution does contain language protecting the rights to freedom of religion. In what way is this relevant to my question? Don't play dumb. Our current government is full of flat earth believers, metaphorically at least. I'm hoping for a citizens revolt. I'm positive this is EXACTLY what you meant by your snarky little comment. Our Constitution specifically protects the rights of non-believers so it is completely irrelevant what beliefs the President and the majority of the members of Congress hold. Their actions are constrained by the Constitution, and the judiciary has been extremely zealous in striking down anything that could remotely be considered the imposition of religion (overly so, many believers would argue). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onceuponatime Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Don't play dumb. I'm positive this is EXACTLY what you meant by your snarky little comment. Our Constitution specifically protects the rights of non-believers so it is completely irrelevant what beliefs the President and the majority of the members of Congress hold. Their actions are constrained by the Constitution, and the judiciary has been extremely zealous in striking down anything that could remotely be considered the imposition of religion (overly so, many believers would argue). I think you might be reading too much into the original question which was about how you (and others) would *personally feel* about people with beliefs in a flat earth being in charge of major world powers. In other words, would you vote for them, would you feel comfortable with their leadership, would you think that they were competent to lead? It was not a question about any limits that should or should not be imposed upon the religion of government leaders. I personally don't see any snarkiness and think it is a legitimate question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Albeto. I love you, but I want to let you know that on here anyone who has not publicly proclaimed to be Christian is not allowed to quote scripture because they do not have a true understanding. No matter if that person has a background in theology or not. Just want to give you a heads up. ???????????????????????????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I'm positive this is EXACTLY what you meant by your snarky little comment. Our Constitution specifically protects the rights of non-believers so it is completely irrelevant what beliefs the President and the majority of the members of Congress hold. Their actions are constrained by the Constitution, and the judiciary has been extremely zealous in striking down anything that could remotely be considered the imposition of religion (overly so, many believers would argue). Sadie does not live in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I found a rather nifty article (Scientific American) by a psychologist on science and trust or belief in the message. Related, I think...and a short read: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=just-thinking-about-science-triggers-moral-behavior Edit...page 2 seems most relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 ???????????????????????????????? Yeah. I know. I was on a thread a while back when someone said that a stance she had was because she was Christian. I decided to go ahead and produce quotes from the Bible that were completely counter to what she was talking about only to be told that because I did not state in my signature or profile or some nonsense that I was Christian I could not possibly have an understanding of what the biblical scripture actually meant. Not once did the poster ask me if I had studied theology or even come back with scripture to counter me and support her stance. Nor was there an attempt to have a rational discussion. The entire thing was so absurd I was left going :huh: :ohmy: :confused1: I was blown away that when I presented Biblical quotes to show her error since she was using the Bible as a means to support her (IMHO erroneous) stance that I shut down on the grounds that I wasn't "Christian" in her opinion. I felt Alebto. would like to be made aware. Crimson Wife: My comment in no way had anything to do with you personally even though the conversation in this thread was with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albeto. Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Don't play dumb. Your assumption of my intent is wrong, and frankly, tiresome. You don't don't have to answer my question, but kindly don't accuse me of playing you or anyone here. I'm positive this is EXACTLY what you meant by your snarky little comment. Our Constitution specifically protects the rights of non-believers so it is completely irrelevant what beliefs the President and the majority of the members of Congress hold. Their actions are constrained by the Constitution, and the judiciary has been extremely zealous in striking down anything that could remotely be considered the imposition of religion (overly so, many believers would argue). Crimson, I didn't say anything about the rights of anyone. This point is irrelevant to my comment. I asked if people who are happy to extend this tolerance and courtesy about a belief that goes against evidence would be extended to say, Vladimir Putin believed the earth was flat. Would that create a sense of concern, or would people sincerely not care? That's all. There is no right or wrong answer, I'm just curious and asked a legitimate follow-up question to a comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Constitution? Rights? No one is talking about anyone's rights to believe or not believe in...anything. ?? Either you've misread or this is just a strawman. Also, I don't see anyone being snarky. It's a legitimate question. Sure, everyone has the right to believe in whatever craziness they want, but do you want persons in positions of power and influence holding the idea--for example--that the earth is flat? Is it wrong to question beliefs that have no basis in facts or science? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom in High Heels Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I am…speechless. I have to say, my jaw literally opened. I cannot believe people like this exist. Mermaids are not sparkly. Where's your proof? I think that animal planet link is a hoax. Of course mermaids are sparkly! They even have different color tails; some are blue, some are green, some are pink, and they all sparkle! Lots of people thought that about vampires, too, until Twilight was published. At least, I did. Ha! Yes, indeed! Vampires AND mermaids are sparkly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrookValley. Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Vampires? Mermaids? I'm sorry, but no. David Bowie is sparkly. And only David Bowie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 My google says: Is the elf on the shelf real? Is the everlasting gobstopper real? Is the Elvis convention cancelled? Is the e cigarette safe? Apparently my google doesn't give a crap about the earth's shape, and just sticks to the really important questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 My google says: Is the everlasting gobstopper real? Abso-freaking-lutely. Duh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Abso-freaking-lutely. Duh! I'd rather have a snozzberry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancingmama Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Mine says Is the EPA an independent agency Is the elf on the shelf real Is the Edward jones dome heated Is the end near What the heck is the Edward jones dome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I'd rather have a snozzberry. All Willy Wonka products are real. The trouble is finding The elusive Dahl's Dimension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfknitter.# Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Tangential regarding snozzberries: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-filthiest-joke-ever-hidden-in-childrens-movie/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Tangential regarding snozzberries: http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-filthiest-joke-ever-hidden-in-childrens-movie/ Ummm, I'll take the everlasting gobstopper please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwik Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 This thread has brightened up my Sunday afternoon. I am not American but I always found the "god is on our side a bit scary" (starting going to church hasn't changed that. I would be worried if the person with the final say on space exploration didn't believe in gravity! We have a guy who started up a political party here who appears to believe contrails are actually mind controlling chemical drops or some such thing (at least he refuses to deny he believes it). But the flat earth guys are wrong - the south pole is the centre of the world. Eta. My google came up with elf yourself elf on the shelf that elf on the shelf is new to me - and very creepy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 If an omnipotent God wanted to, He could create a light that merely appears "old". His motivation as for doing so is what I have trouble wrapping my brain around. I don't disagree with the YEC's that it COULD have happened that way. God can do anything. But just because He *CAN* do something, doesn't necessarily mean that He did. That's always been a claim that troubled me because essentially it's a claim that Good is a deceiver. We're given free well and reason but it's useless because the whole world is essentially set up so that the search for knowledge about it is a useless wild house chase? It's more troubling theologically then scientifically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Vampires? Mermaids? I'm sorry, but no. David Bowie is sparkly. And only David Bowie. I will accept that David Bowie may sparkle but not vampires. I will accept that mermaids likely "glisten" since they are probably wet. I am not sure about sparkly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I am having trouble posting links so you will have to Google the Angkor Thom dinosaur to see it. There was a T-Rex found with tissue in the 90s. It seems unlikely that tissue survived millions of years, hundreds or even thousands, maybe. Millions? Unlikely. In 1925 someone discovered several dinosaur figurines at the base of El Toro Mountain in the valley of Acambaro, about 180 miles north of Mexico city. (Again having trouble posting links, please Google or tell me how.) El-Kanatir a Jewish synagogue built in 400 to 700 AD has what appears to be dinosaurs attacking. There is also the Nile Mosaic from Palestrina. I'm on my phone and having trouble with links too but I've been googling and found out some stuff. The dinosaur tissue isn't as unlikely as you'd think. It's been discovered that the iron in the bones helped preserve it and there may be a lot more in fossils then we realized before. It WAS a matter and did seem unlikely when the tissue was first discovered but further study has cleared up the issue. The most likely explanation for the El Toro figurines is that they are contemporary creations by locals meant for the tourist trade. The dating that out them at 6500 years old hadn't been replicated and in science, one test means nothing. If a result can't be replicated then there's no result, rather simply some error or mistake or fraud. I looked at the El Kanatir relief and I have to admit that I think interpreting it as a dinosaur is akin to seeing pictures in clouds. It's an interpretation that relies entirely on modern eyes attempting to fit an extremely vague figure into the context of modern knowledge. At best it's wishful thinking but it's not evidence of anything. To approach the status of evidence we'd have to ask further questions. If huge bipedal dinosaurs were attacking animals back then why is the representation of them limited to one small relief? Wouldn't they be more important and represented in much greater numbers j in the art? Why haven't we found any physical evidence of those dinosaurs at those sites? I also saw a claim that a relief at a Cambodian temple was a stegosaurus. But then you'd expect to find fossils there wouldn't you? No stegosaurus fossils have been found in Cambodia, let alone from the time period if the temple. I found lots of creationist sites that claimed all of the above were evidence but neglected to mention either new information (as with the dinosaur tissue) or ask any scientific questions that would help people properly evaluate the claims made. This is common. Badly outdated or horribly limited information is kept in circulation even when it was debunked long ago. I remember an AiG page that even bemoaned that fact. Thank you for posting about those things though! If you want links about any of the above just let me know and I'll post them once I get on the computer. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa in Australia Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 my Google search came up with is the elbow joint congruent is the elbow joint congruent or incongruent is the exorcist scary is the eastern freeway a toll road is the earth round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I got: Is the Edinburgh panda pregnant? Is the earth flat? L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I disagree. I think she's simply not censoring this comment as it is an objective statement of fact. As a matter of fact, the argument you defend lacks evidence. No evidence has yet to be found to support it. As a matter of fact, all evidence that exists, points towards the conventional scientific theory, the one your argument denies; ergo the lack of logic. In any case, for a believer, it should come as no surprise that nonbelievers think it's "foolishness" (1 Corinthians 2:14: The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit). Okay, you got a smile out of me with that quote but I have to admit, I get a little irked when someone arguing for logic and evidence scripture quotes in that way. There is now and has been for some time a healthy secular community of biblical scholars that has established methods and systems for looking at the bible. Not a one would likely agree that pulling a line of scripture out as you did is odd any value. It's rather like pointing to one vague relief on a Cambodian temple and claiming that somehow says something about when the dinosaurs walked the earth, no? I get that waaaay too many Christians do just that and it scouts a good ironic point but if we're arguing from position of logic and evidence shouldn't we always be careful to demonstrate that in every context? As with the fossil record and the temple relief, so with the ancient documents that the bible represents? And now that I'm at the end of this response I realize I'm asking myself these questions as well as you because I've done exactly the same thing as you did and I don't challenge Christians on scripture quoting enough. I'll have to think about this myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I'd rather have a snozzberry. But you must pronounce it as in the original movie - snozzbUrry, or was it snozzBry? Very Brit either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Ummm, I'll take the everlasting gobstopper please. Now I need to google gob to see if it's worth stopping. Sounds like Benadryl is in order, but who knows what Dahl meant by gob???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Now I need to google gob to see if it's worth stopping. Sounds like Benadryl is in order, but who knows what Dahl meant by gob???? Gobstopper is a real sweety - it's the 'everlasting' that might be harder to find. L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Gobstopper is a real sweety - it's the 'everlasting' that might be harder to find. L Oh... Jawbreakers. Very 1970's of my childhood. The big ones were a thrill when you passed by that, this-will-now-exactly-fit-in-my-windpipe moment. There's a youtube time lapse of a couple with way too much free time slowly devouring a huge homebuilt gobstopper over many days. Yikes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Χά�ων Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Oh... Jawbreakers. Very 1970's of my childhood. The big ones were a thrill when you passed by that, this-will-now-exactly-fit-in-my-windpipe moment. There's a youtube time lapse of a couple with way too much free time slowly devouring a huge homebuilt gobstopper over many days. Yikes. You can't post that without the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatHomeschoolDad Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 You can't post that without the link. Searching. No luck yet. What's another name for jawbreaker / gobstopper? This thing was a bowling ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Your assumption of my intent is wrong, and frankly, tiresome. You don't don't have to answer my question, but kindly don't accuse me of playing you or anyone here. Crimson, I didn't say anything about the rights of anyone. This point is irrelevant to my comment. I asked if people who are happy to extend this tolerance and courtesy about a belief that goes against evidence would be extended to say, Vladimir Putin believed the earth was flat. Would that create a sense of concern, or would people sincerely not care? That's all. There is no right or wrong answer, I'm just curious and asked a legitimate follow-up question to a comment. When someone is a broken record on this forum about a particular subject (and often in a very rude and confrontational manner), is it any wonder when people see a post and think the record is playing the same old tiresome tune? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.