flat earth vs ""'science'""

[tzor]

Exactly. Rooted in religion.

Way too many twisteds for my taste.

OK let's go with this religion. I'm assuming, for the moment you mean the Christian Religion. That's the religion that gave us images like this ...



What's in his left hand? That's a Globus cruciger. It represents the earth, as a sphere.

Holding the world in one's hand, or more ominously, under one's foot, has been used as a symbol since antiquity. To citizens of the Roman Empire, the plain round globe held by Jupiter represented the world, or the universe, as the dominion held by the emperor. A 2nd-century coin from the reign of Emperor Hadrian shows the Roman goddess Salus with her foot upon a globus, and a 4th-century coin from the reign of Emperor Constantine I shows her with a globus in hand. The orbis terrarum was central to the iconography of the Tetrarchy, representing the Tetrarchs' restoration of security to the Roman world. Constantine I claimed to have had a vision of a cross above the sun, with the words "In this sign, you shall conquer", at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. His soldiers painted crosses upon their shields, and then defeated their foe, Maxentius.

With the growth of Christianity in the 5th century, the orb (in Latin scriptures orbis terrarum, the 'world of the lands', hence the word "orb") was topped with a cross (hence globus cruciger), symbolising the Christian God's dominion over the world. The emperor held the world in his hand, to show that he ruled it on God's behalf. To non-Christians already familiar with the pagan globe, the surmounting of a cross sent a message about the triumph of Christianity. In medieval iconography, an object's size, relative to that of nearby objects, indicated its relative importance; so the world was small and the one who held it was large, to emphasize the nature of their relationship

It's a globe, not a pancake.

Here is an icon for comparison. Again, it's a globe not a pancake. "Religion" has nothing to do with this flat earth nonsense.

[UCAbears]

Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

[tzor]

Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

No, but no bridge is actually level with the surface of the earth. Large bridges are actually designed to be quite bouncy.

[Dukasaur]

Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

No, but no bridge is actually level with the surface of the earth. Large bridges are actually designed to be quite bouncy.

Click image to enlarge.

By Didier Descouens - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=44163562

Ponte delle Tette is a small bridge in Venice, Italy. It takes its name ("Bridge of the Tits") from the use of the bridge by prostitutes, who were encouraged to stand topless there to entice and convert suspected homosexuals.[1]

The Carampane di Rialto was one of the red-light districts of Venice in the fifteenth century, by official decree. Sex workers there would open their legs wide or display their breasts from nearby balconies to attract business. The Serenissima supported this heterosexual sex in order to help stem the tide of a growing wave of homosexuality, which had grown into a social problem. By 1509, one writer estimated that there were some 11,565 courtesans working in Venice. Nearby was the Traghetto Del Buso, where courtesans crossed the Grand Canal to another legal red light district, again per orders of the Serenissima. Taxes on prostitution in 1519 helped finance excavation at the Arsenale.

[UCAbears]

Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

No, but no bridge is actually level with the surface of the earth. Large bridges are actually designed to be quite bouncy.

Click image to enlarge.

By Didier Descouens - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=44163562

Ponte delle Tette is a small bridge in Venice, Italy. It takes its name ("Bridge of the Tits") from the use of the bridge by prostitutes, who were encouraged to stand topless there to entice and convert suspected homosexuals.[1]

The Carampane di Rialto was one of the red-light districts of Venice in the fifteenth century, by official decree. Sex workers there would open their legs wide or display their breasts from nearby balconies to attract business. The Serenissima supported this heterosexual sex in order to help stem the tide of a growing wave of homosexuality, which had grown into a social problem. By 1509, one writer estimated that there were some 11,565 courtesans working in Venice. Nearby was the Traghetto Del Buso, where courtesans crossed the Grand Canal to another legal red light district, again per orders of the Serenissima. Taxes on prostitution in 1519 helped finance excavation at the Arsenale.

That bridge was definitely pretty bouncy, by the sounds of it.

[jonesthecurl]

Sorting through my books I found something called "Is the Bible from Heaven? Is the Earth a globe?" from the late 1800's. I don't have time to talk more about it now, I'm off to catch a plane - but it seems to have a lot of stuff that flatties are still using.

[Serbia]

tzor, I'm going to forgive your ignorance, because you're, well, ignorant. When I say something is "rooted in religion", that doesn't make it "right". ISIS is "rooted in religion". I'm not debating the legitimacy of their interpretation of Islam, just like I'm not debating the legitimacy of Christians believing in a flat earth. To be honest with you, and in fact any follower of any religion, to presume that you are correct in your beliefs while casting doubt on the faith of others has always been amazing to me, but that's not what we're talking about right now. For some, rightly or wrongly according to your version of the religion, their version of the same religion calls them to believe in a flat earth. I am not interested in your religious examples of "proof", science is all the evidence I need to justify my belief. But for some, whether you agree or not, their belief in a flat earth IS a matter of religion. This is not up for debate, and is extremely presumptuous of you to argue.

If you seek a religious debate, go seek these religious flat-earthers out and have your stupid debate. I'll offer you a warning though; if you come at them with the writings and art of man, you will be dismissed. Their evidence comes from the bible, not man's pathetic drawings.

[Serbia]

In fact, the more I think about your argument the more laughable and ridiculous I find it. You're trying to tell me that the beliefs of someone I am related to, and know personally, aren't based on religion without any evidence to the contrary. And, your arguments against are based on Catholic iconography, which your OWN DESCRIPTION OF tells me is rooted in paganism! Never mind the fact that early Christians would have pointed out to you that these drawings depicting their Lord are "graven images" and were considered idolatrous. I'm not a religious flat-earther, yet even I can completely dismiss your feeble attempts by using your own arguments against you.

You don't know what you're talking about tzor. Give it up.

[hotfire]

where is the like button?

[william18]

Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

No, but no bridge is actually level with the surface of the earth. Large bridges are actually designed to be quite bouncy.

Bridges are supposed to withstand moderate storms and earthquakes. They shouldn't be so rigid as to require consideration of the earth curvature during it's design.

[tzor]

tzor, I'm going to forgive your ignorance, because you're, well, ignorant.

Psychologically projecting much are we?

When I say something is "rooted in religion", that doesn't make it "right".

And when you say something is "rooted in science" that doesn't make it right either. Remember Phrenology?

I'm not debating the legitimacy of their interpretation of Islam, just like I'm not debating the legitimacy of Christians believing in a flat earth. To be honest with you, and in fact any follower of any religion, to presume that you are correct in your beliefs while casting doubt on the faith of others has always been amazing to me, but that's not what we're talking about right now.

But you have to bring it up. The smugness in your text is so deep I have to use a steam shovel to dig it up. If we are not talking about it, why did you bring it up? The "legitimacy" of some people in the name of religion to prove a flat earth is as false as the "legitimacy" of people claiming "in the name of science" that bumps on your head prove you are a criminal. Admit it, you hate religion so any time you can see an attachment of something bad to a claim of "religion" you raise it high for all to see.

Flat Earth has as much to do with religion as it does with science ... that is NOTHING AT ALL.

[Serbia]

tzor, you're a presumptuous fool, and I do not say that lightly. Hate religion? You obviously do not know me.

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion. That's a debate you can never win. In fact, sir, how dare you question another's faith. You truly are a fool.

[tzor]

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion.

Why? I have a friend of mine who is a DEMOCRAT. I could explain to her why she's wrong until the cows come home and it still won't matter. When people don't want to listen they don't listen ... PERIOD. His insistence doesn't make it true. His fake excuses doesn't make it true. Whether those fake excuses invoke religion, science or even politics.

[Serbia]

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion.

Why? I have a friend of mine who is a DEMOCRAT. I could explain to her why she's wrong until the cows come home and it still won't matter. When people don't want to listen they don't listen ... PERIOD. His insistence doesn't make it true. His fake excuses doesn't make it true. Whether those fake excuses invoke religion, science or even politics.

This obviously is beyond your comprehension.

[notyou2]

Serb you are arguing with a zealot.

[notyou2]

He claims he is catholic, yet he says the pope is wrong. He's a dinosaur from another era.

[riskllama]

wrong about what, exactly?

[DoomYoshi]

tzor, you're a presumptuous fool, and I do not say that lightly. Hate religion? You obviously do not know me.

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion. That's a debate you can never win. In fact, sir, how dare you question another's faith. You truly are a fool.

So here's a question. If something is "false" hockey and is in fact baseball, can you say you are going to a hockey game at Fenway park?

Similarly, I spent much time trying to convince universalschiro and AslantheKing that creationism has no Christian precedent before the 1800s. Therefore, it is from "false" Christianity and I could just as well call it hockey.

So under your definition, I could just as easily say your cousin's beliefs are rooted in hockey, could I not?

People hold beliefs because of social groups, not because of any roots at all.

[notyou2]

wrong about what, exactly?

Adam and Eve, evolution and the creation of the universe.

[riskllama]

well, i was kinda waiting for tzors' response, but thx 4 responding!!!

[notyou2]

well, i was kinda waiting for tzors' response, but thx 4 responding!!!

I assumed you were talking to me, especially considering your question appeared to be directly related to my comment above it.

[Serbia]

tzor, you're a presumptuous fool, and I do not say that lightly. Hate religion? You obviously do not know me.

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion. That's a debate you can never win. In fact, sir, how dare you question another's faith. You truly are a fool.

So here's a question. If something is "false" hockey and is in fact baseball, can you say you are going to a hockey game at Fenway park?

Similarly, I spent much time trying to convince universalschiro and AslantheKing that creationism has no Christian precedent before the 1800s. Therefore, it is from "false" Christianity and I could just as well call it hockey.

So under your definition, I could just as easily say your cousin's beliefs are rooted in hockey, could I not?

People hold beliefs because of social groups, not because of any roots at all.

What the fuck are you going on about?

[tzor]

Adam and Eve, evolution and the creation of the universe.

Wait one second. Are you saying that I have stated that the Pope is wrong on "Adam and Eve, evolution and the creation of the universe?"

That's impossible. I don't even know Pope Francis quotes on "Adam and Eve, evolution and the creation of the universe."

And I'm not a Dinosaur. I have a diaphragm. (It's hard to do a capella singing without one.)

Speaking of which, it's time for a really bad musical evolution joke.

This scientist approached one day this Rock and Roll singer. "You know,'" he stated. "You realize that you descended from the monkeys."

The singer looked in shock. "I don't think so. I'm pretty sure I descended from the beatles."

What can I say? It's been a hard day's night.

[tzor]

What the **** are you going on about?

Space shuttles flying o'er your head.
But that doesn't mean that you are currently brain dead,
Thinking's not for ye,
No
You'll never understand what needs no explaining,
Because you see
You're too dumb to argue with me.

[Serbia]

What the fuck are you going on about?

Space shuttles flying o'er your head.
But that doesn't mean that you are currently brain dead,
Thinking's not for ye,
No
You'll never understand what needs no explaining,
Because you see
You're too dumb to argue with me.

Fucking fixed the word "fuck", ya fucking prude.

Bollocks, fuckhead.