Flat Earth Society and Young Earth Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

Some say gravity is caused by upward acceleration.

Who says that "gravity exerts a force towards the mass of the Earth"? Flat, hollow Earth will always have gravity downwards and at right angles from it's surface. All sub-surface phenomena should comply.

I always say: religion is a matter of faith. It's useless to argue the existence/nonexistence of gods, unless the argument is amicable and based upon objectivity--rather than personal biases.

The only proof offered, in almost all cases, is personal revelation/lack thereof.

Yes. I would agree if we can come to some agreement as to just what "religion" and "faith" really mean.

For almost 3 decades now, the most cruelly despotic arbiters of "truth" are the sycophants of relativism.

If "true" is only true because it pleases your ego then there is no such thing as "true".

Faith does not equal facts!

Religion, I believe, was created when people wanted to "make sense" out of the world.

Some people seemed to have had revelations, and were, in "primitive" times, revered as medicine men, shamans, etc.

They never inquired intellectually into whether there are gods or not. This only started, really, around the time of the Renaissance in the "western" world I'm sure there were some people who were skeptical, especially when good fortune didn't come their way.

Religion, it is generally held, is why Homo sapiens began to produce that cave art that you see today. It is said that the animals depicted are representatives of spirits.

If you believe that then you'll believe anything as long as it's popular, arrogant and completely stupid.

Are you suggesting kraftie did not come to this conclusion on his own?

This insult makes no sense. The theories Kraftiekortie presents are popular among archeologists and sociologists but why would it then follow that he would believe anything popular, even if it had no scientific backing. The theories are neither arrogant nor stupid so why assume he would believe things that are? Instead of a cryptic insult, why not just fisk his post to explain which parts you think are wrong and why.

Everyone, from the time they're big enough to watch the television, is brainwashed with that impossible nonsense.

A well organised bunch of publicity agents and censors do a very good job of convincing most people of average intelligence that they are very clever for coming to the conclusions that are planted into their minds; even though those conclusions will not bear scrutiny by any kind of logic or science.

Years of foolishly thinking that such opinions are simply mistaken and that most people are amenable to reason have left me with no illusions. Most people that believe that stuff do so because they want to and they don't care about logic or science. It's an ideology that can only defend itself by proclaiming that anything that agrees with it is "science" and anything that doesn't agree with it is "religion".

David, you really don't understand your audience in this forum. Sure, some are bound to follow the rhetoric that they have gained by osmosis, but to assume that of anyone here is the height of hubris.

Many of us have absorbed the so called "facts" and logic of the masses and come to a different conclusion because the ASD brain (generally speaking) does not do the social conformity thing. Of all the 'types' in this world, people with ASD are often the most independent thinkers. So please... don't lambast people here with your grand assumptions about where they are coming from. If anything, such assumptions are myopic and prejudicial to any debate, let alone being an assumption of your own superiority.

Which impossible nonsense? Exactly what point are you disputing?



Which conclusions are you disputing and why?



What do you think logic and science shows?

You have been very vague in the latter part of this thread. You throw out insults about people stupidly acepting something or other but never specify what it is that you think they have accepted or why you think it is wrong or what you think would be more correct.

KraftieKortie posted a set of widely accepted archeological and sociological theories about the origins of religion. It seems you are objecting to them (although that isn't entirely clear) but you haven't come up with any specific rebuttal to what is wrong about these theories.

I admire that you're a farmer/stockman. You put up with lots of crap, and must have lots of common sense to survive. I understand that you have faith in your notions/theories....but the objective truth veers away from those notions.

I don't attack/value judge your faith. Please don't insult us for having views who are not yours. Instead, let's have rational discussions.

Otherwise, we'll think of you as being an iconoclast solely for the sake of iconoclasm--even if it veers from objective truth.

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.