Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

willpatrick.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#131

Post by jfengel »

lisper wrote: post #127
jfengel wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that I find the data persuasive, but that I find data persuasive. They don't. They reject the notion of data when it doesn't suit them. That makes them not merely wrong, but dangerous to me. They will go out of their way to make my life worse, without being able to judge the cost to themselves. Regardless of what derogatory name I choose to call it, our outlook is fundamentally at odds. They've shown re…

Look, I'm on your side. I agree that YECs are both wrong and dangerous. My point here is that you cannot effectively oppose them on those grounds. They believe that you are wrong and dangerous, so the situation is symmetric. A mere belief that the opposition is wrong and dangerous cannot prevail on its own.

True. It just illustrates how deep a problem we've got here: once you've gone down the rabbit hole, there's no way back.

The only solution, if any, is democratic: containing the damage and reducing the numbers. They cannot be persuaded, but other people can. And unfortunately, I don't think that's all that effective, either -- in part because they ally themselves with other conspiracy theorists who insulate them from some of the consequences of their actions. They may not agree, but don't attack each other, and bolster common causes. Enough to win elections, especially when geographic, demographic, and historic quirks assign more political power to some regions than others.

If it were just creationists, they'd be (relatively) harmless kooks. As it is, they're always a step away from theocracy.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#132

Post by llimos »

simplify wrote: post #67
lisper wrote: post #17

I've been spending quite a bit of time interacting with the young-earth creationist community on Reddit and YouTube. It is closely related to flat-earth, though there is one significant difference: YEC is overtly religious, and specifically Christian. Other than that many of the forms of argument are the same. From that experience I have made two observations: 1. These people are not idiots (at least the YECs aren't,…

> So if science leads you to the conclusion that life has no transcendent purpose (and it does) How does it lead to that? I feel like that's a false assumption that many people make, religious or not.

Science leads you to the conclusion that we are here as the result of a series of chance events. Not because of any "decision" to put us here. If we're all just here by fluke, and when we're gone we're gone entirely and completely, what transcendence could there be?

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#133

Post by lisper »

baddox wrote: post #129
lisper wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never encountered a YEC who concealed their foundational belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. In fact, if you watch Kent Hovind, he opens every single video he makes with, "I believe that the Bible is true and scientifically accurate." If you're going to lob charges of intellectual dishonesty you should be very careful that you're not living in a glass house.

> In fact, if you watch Kent Hovind, he opens every single video he makes with, "I believe that the Bible is true and scientifically accurate." If you're spending lots of effort making what appear to be good-faith arguments toward some conclusion, but that conclusion is in fact an axiom that you hold, then that's intellectually dishonest. If "Bible is true and scientifically accurate" is one of your axioms, then it's…

The axiom is that the Bible is true. The conclusion is that evolution is false. The arguments are about how to reconcile the "fact" that evolution is false with the existence of data that appear at first glance to support its truth.

Now, I am not going to defend Kent Hovind's intellectual honesty. I think he does have a not-so-hidden ulterior motive (tax evasion). But you cannot legitimately accuse him -- or any YEC that I've encountered -- of trying to paper over the fact that he assumes the truth of the Bible.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#134

Post by Folcon »

Folcon wrote: post #43
lisper wrote: post #17

I've been spending quite a bit of time interacting with the young-earth creationist community on Reddit and YouTube. It is closely related to flat-earth, though there is one significant difference: YEC is overtly religious, and specifically Christian. Other than that many of the forms of argument are the same. From that experience I have made two observations: 1. These people are not idiots (at least the YECs aren't,…

So the appropriate argument is to ask why we shouldn't be sun worshipers instead?

It seems my short statement has been taken by some to be flippant rather than serious, it's not.

In history there have been thousands of religions with various beliefs, many of which ascribed purpose to the actions of believers which was considered significant how specifically does the purpose given to those who follow Christianity provide "a logically defensible line of reasoning that leads you to Christianity and thence to the inerrancy of the Bible" over any one of those other religions?

And if every religion gains equal weight then why not follow all of them equally using that same rationale?

I mean I don't particularly care what people believe, but that's a pretty strong statement.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#135

Post by minxomat »

Humdeee wrote: post #95
manfredo wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the moon were a disk, the angle it makes relative to a normal vector coming out from ground demonstrates a spherical earth. You don't even need to factor in the moon, this can be done with the stars. In a flat earth, the same stars would be visible when you're in the southern too of south America as in the northernmost top of north America. This isn't the case since the earth is spherical. Heck, even just the…

I have no clue about any arguments flat earthers make, but I am curious how they would object to some of the fundamental concepts like you provided. I suppose it doesn't make much sense that they would use science to refute your points...

The gist of that is in the article. They never need and rarely do object to "fundamental concepts". Rather, they object to what they perceive to be your belief in them. That way, they never have to address anything directly.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#136

Post by baddox »

lisper wrote: post #133
baddox wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact, if you watch Kent Hovind, he opens every single video he makes with, "I believe that the Bible is true and scientifically accurate." If you're spending lots of effort making what appear to be good-faith arguments toward some conclusion, but that conclusion is in fact an axiom that you hold, then that's intellectually dishonest. If "Bible is true and scientifically accurate" is one of your axioms, then it's…

The axiom is that the Bible is true. The conclusion is that evolution is false. The arguments are about how to reconcile the "fact" that evolution is false with the existence of data that appear at first glance to support its truth. Now, I am not going to defend Kent Hovind's intellectual honesty. I think he does have a not-so-hidden ulterior motive (tax evasion). But you cannot legitimately accuse him -- or any YEC…

> The axiom is that the Bible is true. The conclusion is that evolution is false. The arguments are about how to reconcile the "fact" that evolution is false with the existence of data that appear at first glance to support its truth.

But there is no intellectually honest way to reconcile that factual claim except to reiterate that it is an axiom (or, if you like, a trivial corollary from the axiom that the Bible is true). The supposed existence of missing links is completely irrelevant, because even if those links weren't missing, his conclusion would be that evolution is false. Ancient flood myths are completely irrelevant, because even if such myths weren't widespread, his conclusion would be that evolution is false.

To clarify, I'm not claiming that creationists conceal their beliefs about the Bible. I'm referring to intellectual dishonesty.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#137

Post by sunopener »

trumpersHateMe wrote: post #105
sunopener wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You surround yourself with 7.8 billion people who shit nearly every day. To put it bluntly, you are judging yourself when you take yourself to be judging others, you claim an excuse that associating with others leads to your own self-admitted "badness"... You judge yourself, and rather than taking sentence with those aspects within, you externalize it and make assumptions based upon comparisons of your ideal shitty p…

Does this reply have any coherence at all or is it just me? It reads very similar to a response I received from the owners of a fishing website that I used to frequent when I questioned them about BLM.

"It has been stated that a text coheres only if the world around is also coherent."

Further reading: https://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/69.html

That you'd ask yourself if this reply is coherent is a function of your own mind seeking meaning from what appears to be unresolved processing of a response you received from the owners of a phishing website. Given you used to frequent said site and received a text you deem similar when questioning them about BLM, is understandable, given that the narratives and subtopics generated are still in flux, history is continuing to be written and the echos of the past keep crowning into our collective reality by the mere attention placed upon them.

A world where one loves themselves completely and thoroughly is often seen as incoherent due to the limitations one finds themselves confined in--usually in the form of narratives, beliefs, values aka the "already dead driftwood" of the mind--by taking themselves to be other than what they are, the past self in cahoots with the present self vying for the spotlight of consciousness, really just another form of communication, really.

Where it breaks down and a text seems incoherent is when such attention is placed upon a text... perhaps you've been looking for incoherence ever since you received that response on that website you spoke of and couldn't bear the mind to let it go, so you carry it with you everywhere, perhaps not realizing that this gets triggered every time a text taps on the walls of your own self constructed limitations--in this case it's one of inner reflection and unconditional love for oneself in a world where everyone and everything is interconnected.

That or you can call me a bumbling idiot.

May you be Loved. <3

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#138

Post by toss1 »

esquivalience wrote: post #11
toss1 wrote: post #5

Sadly, this is another topic of questions to add to job interview filters - ask about the moon landings & vaccines. Anyone subscribing to any of this conspiracy nonsense, especially as an identity is (pardon the language) too effin stupid to work in any serious technical endeavor - if they're deeply willing to ignore those facts & reason, what will they ignore on your project? Plus, their deeply ingrained ideas that…

"I'd even filter them out for manufacturing or fast food work." What an awful approach to hiring. But, perhaps you see it as a good way to make sure that all of your colleagues are the "right" sort of people and that you never have to work with someone as lowly as a manufacturer or restaurant server.

Considering that I AM a manufacturer, and also enjoy the company of restaurant servers and practice tipping well, that's a quite ignorant accusation.

The point is that if I'm hiring for manufacturing, or restaurant, I don't want someone in a shop with many hazards who makes a major practice in their life to 1) ignore actual facts, and 2) actively foment mistrust of any 'authority'.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#139

Post by brightball »

baddox wrote: post #121
brightball wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inerrancy is a whole other bag of chips. I teach a Sunday School class and one of my big topics is man made rules that aren’t Biblically supported. Inerrancy falls in that camp from my reading. There’s a single verse that the basis for the entire doctrine. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be…

But of course, that interpretation of 2 Timothy is a post hoc defense of biblical inerrancy. There are much more obvious reasons for religious authorities to emphasize the absolute authority of religious scriptures (particularly when they also claim exclusive authority to interpret those scriptures). It's also important to note that "inerrancy" means very different things to different people. I remember one evangelic…

Psalms and Proverbs are published record essentially. I meant more “written by the people who experienced the events.”

Prophecy falls into that camp. Much of the Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled by Jesus himself though.

Unfulfilled prophecy is tougher.

I generally refer to Bookenders as people who focus on creation and the end of the world.

The message is everything in between and fascinating.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#140

Post by paulryanrogers »

lisper wrote: post #17

I've been spending quite a bit of time interacting with the young-earth creationist community on Reddit and YouTube. It is closely related to flat-earth, though there is one significant difference: YEC is overtly religious, and specifically Christian. Other than that many of the forms of argument are the same. From that experience I have made two observations: 1. These people are not idiots (at least the YECs aren't,…

At one time I flirted with the YEC point of view as a Christian. What helped me change both (I'm an atheist now) was exposure to more points of view and modest experiments applying biblical teachings personally. After years of twisting logic I could no longer justify the magical thinking. Because none of the experiments were convincing. (Don't forget that God can't be tested! Except when it comes to donating to his chosen leaders.)

And within the Christian communities I saw so much harm from the various biases and non-critical methods it was heart breaking. Sadly it can still be hard to leave when you're taught you're choosing pleasure, hell fire, selfishness, and abandoning absolute truth and love.

Post reply on HN