An Annoyance That I'm Sick Of

Ok, I'm really getting pissed that people are equating Christains with the FE theory. I doubt even a billionth of a percent of Crhistians are FE sided. Too many RE's say that everything RE is atheist, when it's not. Nothing about the RE theory... no fact, says that people can't be Crhistian and RE. I am Christian and I think FE is bull. Huge bull. So don't make any more topics about how you have to be a Christian to be FE. It's really offensive.

Completely true. In fact, most of the FE's on this site are atheists.

So don't make any more topics about how you have to be a Christian to be FE. It's really offensive.

How many such topics have you seen here? The majority of the regular users here, FEer or REer, are atheists.

Yeah, no even freakish evangelical Christians are stupid enough to think the Earth is flat.

At least, not until Jerry Farwell says it is.

Meat Monkey, I am not a follower of evangelists. Unless you consider the Pope an Evangelist, I am a Catholic. Also, that was offensive to several people I am sure. And there are quite a few I have seen that say something relating to religion offensively, mainly posts by members replying to topics.

Ok, I'm really getting pissed that people are equating Christains with the FE theory. I doubt even a billionth of a percent of Crhistians are FE sided. Too many RE's say that everything RE is atheist, when it's not. Nothing about the RE theory... no fact, says that people can't be Crhistian and RE. I am Christian and I think FE is bull. Huge bull. So don't make any more topics about how you have to be a Christian to be FE. It's really offensive.

You are quite correct. Almost no Christians are flat-earthers. In fact, many of them think that evolution actually occurred, and some would even go so far as to say that Jesus was not born of a virgin. However, the amount of Christians who think that evolution is a myth perpetuated by the scientific establishment is appallingly large, and the amount who think that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth is even more appallingly large, given that this is a scientific impossibility. So how is unjustly equating Christianity with flat-earthism any more offensive than somewhat justly equating it with anti-evolutionism, or entirely justly equating it with virgin-birthism.

I find the FE'ers being aetheist (or at least agnostic) raher strange. I mean, the similarities between the FE'ers and radical religious groups are amazing. They both believe in ancient texts. They both believe in an supreme power (God & The Conspiracy). They ignore overwhelming evidence telling them they are wrong, choosing to believe in their narrow interpretation of things.

I mean, if the FE'ers were religious, that would at least give them an excuse for believing in something so ridiculous. The fact that many of them claim to be men of science is embarrasing for true scientists everywhere.

I find the FE'ers being aetheist (or at least agnostic) raher strange. I mean, the similarities between the FE'ers and radical religious groups are amazing. They both believe in ancient texts. They both believe in an supreme power (God & The Conspiracy). They ignore overwhelming evidence telling them they are wrong, choosing to believe in their narrow interpretation of things.

I mean, if the FE'ers were religious, that would at least give them an excuse for believing in something so ridiculous. The fact that many of them claim to be men of science is embarrasing for true scientists everywhere.

You've just been branded as an embarrassment to scientists everywhere.

Have a nice day.

I'm a Christian and a Round Earther.

Anyone who thinks there's people believe we must believe in God simply because of an ancient text is what is considered ignorant, hopefully.

Ok, I'm really getting pissed that people are equating Christains with the FE theory. I doubt even a billionth of a percent of Crhistians are FE sided. Too many RE's say that everything RE is atheist, when it's not. Nothing about the RE theory... no fact, says that people can't be Crhistian and RE. I am Christian and I think FE is bull. Huge bull. So don't make any more topics about how you have to be a Christian to be FE. It's really offensive.

Yeah, isn't it annoying when people make illogical claims?

Meat Monkey, I am not a follower of evangelists.

I am very happy to hear that.

As for offending Evangelical Christains, I could care less. Know why? Becasue screw them.

According to Wikipedia, The Flat Earth Society actually did spring from a fundamentalist reading of certain bible passages that describe the Earth and cosmos (the "firmament" of heaven for instance.) Is this not true?

I find the FE'ers being aetheist (or at least agnostic) raher strange. I mean, the similarities between the FE'ers and radical religious groups are amazing.

Not really.

They both believe in ancient texts.

If you're referring to Earth Not a Globe, it was published in 1881, many years after Newton's book of lies was first circulated (yet REers fawn to this man's work).

What's more, we don't "believe in" it in the same way as a Christian believes in the Bible. Many FE'ers dismiss quite a lot of the theories posed in the book, myself included.

 They both believe in an supreme power (God & The Conspiracy).

Most of the FEers here are atheists or agnostics. As for the Conspiracy, we generally accept that it's an entirely material network of completely fallible human beings and their doings.

 They ignore overwhelming evidence telling them they are wrong, choosing to believe in their narrow interpretation of things.

You've obviously not been at this site long if you think of FEers as narrow interpreters! Zip over to Alternative Science and see just how open-minded we are.

Quote from: "Kwaun Se"

Ok, I'm really getting pissed that people are equating Christains with the FE theory. I doubt even a billionth of a percent of Crhistians are FE sided. Too many RE's say that everything RE is atheist, when it's not. Nothing about the RE theory... no fact, says that people can't be Crhistian and RE. I am Christian and I think FE is bull. Huge bull. So don't make any more topics about how you have to be a Christian to be FE. It's really offensive.

You are quite correct. Almost no Christians are flat-earthers. In fact, many of them think that evolution actually occurred, and some would even go so far as to say that Jesus was not born of a virgin. However, the amount of Christians who think that evolution is a myth perpetuated by the scientific establishment is appallingly large, and the amount who think that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth is even more appallingly large, given that this is a scientific impossibility. So how is unjustly equating Christianity with flat-earthism any more offensive than somewhat justly equating it with anti-evolutionism, or entirely justly equating it with virgin-birthism.

"many" cannot be very many. The majority of Christians are Catholics, and we deny evolution. Orthodox doesn't either, and they're in second. Major protestant churches also deny evolution. Maybe, "a few" would be appropriate here.

Meat Monkey, I am not a follower of evangelists. Unless you consider the Pope an Evangelist, I am a Catholic. Also, that was offensive to several people I am sure. And there are quite a few I have seen that say something relating to religion offensively, mainly posts by members replying to topics.

You know what I find offensive?  Catholics going around Africa telling people that if they use condoms then their genitals will fall off.  I don't just find that offensive, I find it morally abhorrent.  That occurs in your name and in the name of what you stand for.  I think calling you any number of names is incomparable to the evils committed by the Catholic church.

I find the FE'ers being aetheist (or at least agnostic) raher strange. I mean, the similarities between the FE'ers and radical religious groups are amazing. They both believe in ancient texts. They both believe in an supreme power (God & The Conspiracy). They ignore overwhelming evidence telling them they are wrong, choosing to believe in their narrow interpretation of things.

I mean, if the FE'ers were religious, that would at least give them an excuse for believing in something so ridiculous. The fact that many of them claim to be men of science is embarrasing for true scientists everywhere.

You breathe air. You know who else breathed air? Hitler. That guy was a dick. Oh, and Hitler had hair and wore pants, too. I mean, the similarities are just STRIKING. You're a spitting image!

~D-Draw

Quote from: "Kwaun Se"

Meat Monkey, I am not a follower of evangelists. Unless you consider the Pope an Evangelist, I am a Catholic. Also, that was offensive to several people I am sure. And there are quite a few I have seen that say something relating to religion offensively, mainly posts by members replying to topics.

You know what I find offensive?  Catholics going around Africa telling people that if they use condoms then their genitals will fall off.  I don't just find that offensive, I find it morally abhorrent.  That occurs in your name and in the name of what you stand for.  I think calling you any number of names is incomparable to the evils committed by the Catholic church.

Oh please. Like anyone actually cares about the people in Africa. It's basically a dead continent now. So much disease and famine, and yet they keep spreading STDs, and having civil wars. Not my problem. And it's the principle of a religion that is good. No religion is bad. But the rreason Atheism and Agnosticism are bad is because they base themselves on the needs of people, not of moral values. Therefore, in their quest for knowledge, they indulge all of the bad of religion and none of the good. People by nature are literally bad. Original Sin is what we call it, you probably call it instinct, or some other crap. Whatever.

Would God say I'm a bad person? No, because he created me. But if God came back as an impure instead of Jesus, would he call me a bad person? Absolutely. To do the important things you have to get your hands dirty.

Actually the evidence of Marc Hauser, who is a Harvard biologist, is that everybody of any religious belief or culture (including atheists) has exactly the same core moral beliefs.  This is true for over 95% of the population of any given group.  Where the morals differ is in who the people define as fitting particular groups.  For example I believe that all people are worth saving.  You, probably due to your religious beliefs, believe that Africans are not worth saving.

I'm an atheist and you're a Catholic.  I think our views on Africa demonstrate the moral differences between atheism and religion perfectly.

Source for the work by Marc Hauser

edit: To be clear on this point:  I think we should try to save all of humanity.  You think we shouldn't care about the people of an entire continent and indeed, that it's ok to take actions that lead to their painful deaths. - Atheism morals vs Religious morals.

edit: To be clear on this point:  I think we should try to save all of humanity.  You think we shouldn't care about the people of an entire continent and indeed, that it's ok to take actions that lead to their painful deaths. - Atheism morals vs Religious morals.

Great sweeping generalizations, Batman!

I think it was fairly obvious I was making generalisations.  There are obviously exceptions.  The point was not that all religious people don't care about Africans - it's that religion defines which people should be treated with respect - while atheism essentially says that we're all equal and we should all be treated with the same respect.  Religion divides people, atheism accepts everybody.

edit: and when I say "atheism" - I clearly mean my atheism, which is atheism based on scientific evidence.  Not the atheism of communism, which is based on opposition to religious oppression, or even more likely, opposition to other powers.

I think we should try to save all of humanity.  You think we shouldn't care about the people of an entire continent and indeed, that it's ok to take actions that lead to their painful deaths. - Atheism morals vs Religious morals.

Oh please. What makes you so sure it's your religious views which cause your ethics to be so strikingly different from his? I think there's a much more obvious and likely explanation: you're not a prick.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh.  However what Marc Hauser demonstrated by studying the morals of cultures on every inhabited continent in the world is that we all have the same core morals but that specifically religion effects who we apply those morals to.  An atheist is much more likely to apply their morals to everybody, while people of religion are more likely to apply their morals only to those of the same religion, or in opposition to particular minority groups.

The African comment - while not something specifically that all religious people believe, is a great example of how one person applies their morals only to specific people while another applies their morals to a much wider group of people.

Actually the evidence of Marc Hauser, who is a Harvard biologist, is that everybody of any religious belief or culture (including atheists) has exactly the same core moral beliefs.  This is true for over 95% of the population of any given group.  Where the morals differ is in who the people define as fitting particular groups.  For example I believe that all people are worth saving.  You, probably due to your religious beliefs, believe that Africans are not worth saving.

I'm an atheist and you're a Catholic.  I think our views on Africa demonstrate the moral differences between atheism and religion perfectly.

Source for the work by Marc Hauser

edit: To be clear on this point:  I think we should try to save all of humanity.  You think we shouldn't care about the people of an entire continent and indeed, that it's ok to take actions that lead to their painful deaths. - Atheism morals vs Religious morals.

Hey retard, Africa is MY pov, not my religion's. And all posted was claerly stated as my pov. I even stated God would consider me a bad person.

So your morals are not based on your religious views?

What are they based on?

Oh please. Like anyone actually cares about the people in Africa. It's basically a dead continent now. So much disease and famine, and yet they keep spreading STDs, and having civil wars.

PEOPLE do.

Fundy wankers like yourself don't.

No matter what your opinion is Kwuan, Beast is still correct about the way the church deals with sexual education in Africa (hell, in America they do similarly false sex ed programs).

No matter what your opinion is Kwuan, Beast is still correct about the way the church deals with sexual education in Africa (hell, in America they do similarly false sex ed programs).

Reproduction is meant for just that. And so there is no point in condoms.

Get a little perspective, too.  The problems in Africa are mostly due to warring peoples.  Starving each other, etc...  Luckily here in America we simply killed all the previous inhabitants fighting for their land on this continent, so we don't have to worry about such problems anymore.  We, America, are no different from anyone else.  We were just much more effective at our genocide.

Reproduction is meant for just that. And so there is no point in condoms.

It would be nice if issues were so black and white.  Unfortunately, reproduction is much more complex.  STD's throw a pretty malicious wrench into the works.  Condoms are an effective solution (99.9% when used properly) to STD's.  However, the church's view is that people are going to start having rampant sex and have a total disregard for the sacred institution of marriage.  

If we didn't have marriage we'd never get anything done!  Whole cities would grind to a standstill as men donned a condom to plunder pleasure from every pair of legs nearby.  Okay, I took that a little too far; but it's funny...

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

No matter what your opinion is Kwuan, Beast is still correct about the way the church deals with sexual education in Africa (hell, in America they do similarly false sex ed programs).

Reproduction is meant for just that. And so there is no point in condoms.

Reproduction may be meant to reproduce, but it also happens to be quite a lot of fun. Why is having sex for fun any less moral than posting on the Flat Earth Society Forums for fun, assuming it is between consenting adults? If there's nothing wrong with it, what is wrong with using condoms to avoid the unnecessary consequence of children? If it is immoral, then why?

Quote from: "Kwaun Se"

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"

No matter what your opinion is Kwuan, Beast is still correct about the way the church deals with sexual education in Africa (hell, in America they do similarly false sex ed programs).

Reproduction is meant for just that. And so there is no point in condoms.

Reproduction may be meant to reproduce, but it also happens to be quite a lot of fun. Why is having sex for fun any less moral than posting on the Flat Earth Society Forums for fun, assuming it is between consenting adults? If there's nothing wrong with it, what is wrong with using condoms to avoid the unnecessary consequence of children? If it is immoral, then why?

Because, when those kids get to be 18, into the armed forces they go!

Sorry, channelling a little George Carlin there.