So non-flat-earthers - what do you think of those who accept a flat earth?

by AlanF 86 Replies latest jw experiences

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    AK-Jeff, as I explained in your original thread, and as Hillary_Step pointed out, I was not making light of your post or having fun at your expense with my parody here. I was making a very serious point by using your reasoning. And I will state for the record that I have no self-esteem problems, so your evaluation of my motives is clearly off base.

    In your 2nd post (5404; 18-Jul-07 13:20) you said:

    : My original thread was an attempt to bridge the chasm that exists between those who worship science and those who do not.

    This shows two levels of the problem I was trying to illustrate: (1) you confuse respect for the methods of science with worship of science; (2) there will never be other than a chasm between those who respect the methods of science and those who do not.

    Most scientists, and non-scientists who apply the methods of science to determine their world-views, do not in any sense "worship" science. Such claims are often made by people who have little or no training in the sciences, or who for whatever reason do not understand how science works or reject it altogether. Such people invariably form their worldviews by nonrational or even irrational means. For example, geocentrists almost always base their views on the Bible, and reject the methods of science because of their belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Such people almost invariably claim that anyone who rejects geocentrism worships science. They confuse their own worship of some god with mere respect for how rational people deal with the world.

    Geocentrism has no empirical support in today's world. Nor does flat earthism. Nor does young-earth creationism. Nor does belief in gods of any kind. Anyone who believes in gods despite the lack of empirical evidence does so because of faith, which is based on nonrational or even irrational criteria. People who believe in something in spite of complete lack of empirical evidence are by definition rejecting the methods of science, which are inherently empirical. Such people cannot logically claim to respect the methods of science. Hence there is a built-in chasm between these two classes of people.

    Let me ask you some pointed questions.

    Do you actually respect flat-earthers?

    Do you actually respect geocentrists?

    Do you actually respect people who believe in astrology?

    Note that I'm not talking about respecting their beliefs, which I assume you're saavy enough to reject. I'm talking about respecting the people themselves.

    However you answer, I'm sure you can see where I'm going with these questions.

    AlanF

  • Gregor
    Gregor

    Journey-On, I think that you and ak-Jeff should form a new website, suggested title- "Sappy XJW's" Basic ground rule #1 - "Don't post here unless you either agree with us or, if you don't agree, be very,very, careful that you make nice when you gently disagree."

  • Warlock
    Warlock
    This is not a Kingdom Hall, and a quick trip around the Internet discussion groups will evidence that at its very worse, this Board is rather benign in its reactions to posts.

    Now, this point is VERY true.

    So if we hold this board in context of what else is out there, it is rather "insult" free.

    The problem with this and other boards, is you cannot see a persons facial expresssions as they post their statements. If we were all in a room together, I think what may seem insulting is in fact sarcasm, or meant to be good natured teasing.

    There would also be some things unsaid, because it could lead to a bloody nose or black eye.

    Warlock

  • RAF
    RAF

    The creation account versus evolution, is as pointless as the cross vs stake controversy, regarding to the question of GOD

    Believers as not believers can be spiritual enough to realize that evolution takes place in every matter and ways (materialy / spychologically)

    But when evolution doesn't mean, better than yesterday. Maturity is supposed to take yesterday's experience in consideration.

    No proof = no proof
    Do we really need to know ?
    is this most important thing ?

    To me the priority is elswere and I guess it have more to do with respect than improvable truth.

    The evolution therory is not a proof (no link when we should have them) and the creation account is an image (well ... at this point anybody can just make a choice) it wouldn't exclude God anywa (but again it all depends on how we see/imagine God) then of course this can be what will make the difference in the choice.

  • Backed away
    Backed away
    The problem with this and other boards, is you cannot see a persons facial expresssions as they post their statements. If we were all in a room together, I think what may seem insulting is in fact sarcasm, or meant to be good natured teasing.

    Well said and very true

  • The wanderer
    The wanderer

    Dear Alan F:

    My perspective regarding this issue is that I know the man he is my friend
    and we speak on almost a weekly basis. He is a man of honor and reputation
    and I only wish that I were half the man that he is.

    After reading both threads and considering both sides of the “argument” it maybe
    true that your intent was not to make “light” of A.K. Jeff’s thread or that you were
    trying to show him your perspective on the matter.

    However, he and other individuals on the board perceived the outcome of the
    thread as a negative.

    As I formerly mentioned, even though you were showing him your perspective
    on the matter he was hurt by the method chosen—that is the issue.

    I think it is fair to state an apology is in order.

    Respectfully,

    Richard

  • ozziepost
    ozziepost

    Enough!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit