Value of Thought

I would go so far as to say that the word 'religion' implies a group of people who adhere to a set of beliefs that are not supported by rational thought. When people call science a religion they do so solely to try and discredit it as a non-rational endeavour.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wonder if there are any 'flat earther' maps of the pacific region and what they would show. Is Freaky perhaps talking about flying West from Taiwan, because he believes going the other way would result in falling off the edge? But even so, where would he get a map to guide him as every single map you can lay your hands on is drawn with a near spherical earth in mind.

Let me google that for you 😉

http://www.livescience.com/14754-ingenious-flat-earth-theory-revealed-map.html

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/gallery/flat-earth-maps?view=layout

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is more complicated than that. Both the people and the religion are to blame. People can be evil with or without religion. People can also attempt to suppress thought with or without religion. Communists in fact turn communism into a religion in order to suppress thought. But I would think this, if anything demonstrates that religion is a useful tool f ...[text shortened]... s the suppression of critical thought as is frequently and amply demonstrated by your good self.

Calling any example of "suppressed thought" a religion seems insulting. What also seems clear is that you don't fully understand religion.

In your haste to denigrate those who adhere to a religion, you also fail to notice that this is exactly the same thing as insulting someone based on race, color, gender or sexual preference. This is called bias, and is generally considered improper in civilized society.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Let me google that for you 😉

http://www.livescience.com/14754-ingenious-flat-earth-theory-revealed-map.html

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/gallery/flat-earth-maps?view=layout

Interesting. Although it is obvious that such maps are in very short supply (I see only two modern ones) and that the large scale ones do use map projections ie they use as their basis maps of a spherical earth.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Calling any example of "suppressed thought" a religion seems insulting.

You feel insulted by anything ever said on this forum that you disagree with. Its about time you got used to it.

What also seems clear is that you don't fully understand religion.
In what way? I am sure you can explain that point further.

In your haste to denigrate those who adhere to a religion, you also fail to notice that this is exactly the same thing as insulting someone based on race, color, gender or sexual preference.
Not true in the slightest.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're getting rather far afield on this one.

[b]Well, it means that their belief in what should be possible is incorrect. So they will not attempt to circumnavigate the world, the consequence is that they'll incur an opportunity cost.
I should not have to tell you that the term circumnavigate means nothing more than to go around, i.e., go ...[text shortened]... adness of which you speak is going to make a pretty big splash in a very short amount of time...[/b]

Easy, I'm not allergic to bee stings and don't need allergy drugs, further I don't like flying so I'm not on the plane.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would go so far as to say that the word 'religion' implies a group of people who adhere to a set of beliefs that are not supported by rational thought.

That's too far.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
That's too far.

How so?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How so?

There's nothing necessarily internally inconsistent about any given religion's ideas, they are not automatically illogical, it's just that their basic tenets are not supported empirically. This does not invalidate them, it just means that they do not regard empirical evidence as being the sole route to truth.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There's nothing necessarily internally inconsistent about any given religion's ideas, they are not automatically illogical, it's just that their basic tenets are not supported empirically. This does not invalidate them, it just means that they do not regard empirical evidence as being the sole route to truth.

Yes, that's what I thought I said. A religious belief is one that you do not think you can demonstrate to someone else via rational discussion, or one that you think someone else cannot so demonstrate. Otherwise you simply call it 'the truth'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How so?

In that some of the beliefs may be supported by rational thought. It doesn't have to be all of the beliefs, and it doesn't have to be only supported by rational thought.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, that's what I thought I said. A religious belief is one that you do not think you can demonstrate to someone else via rational discussion, or one that you think someone else cannot so demonstrate. Otherwise you simply call it 'the truth'.

He said 'empirical' which implies observation of results, does it not? That's not the same as just-rational-thought.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The splash it makes will likely cover you with a somewhat unpleasant odour.

You have not stated how far along in the journey you are. I do find it odd that you have claimed a longer time to fly for the shorter distance. But then thought clearly isn't your strong suit.

Longer time to fly for the shorter distance?

Yes. Taiwan is closer to Alaska than to California (even on the one flat-earther map we have seen), yet you suggested it would take longer to get from somewhere on route to Alaska than for the total journey time from Taiwan to California. Perhaps you looked up flight times and didn't realise they were talking about a smaller slower aircraft?
Or perhaps you were just talking nonsense?

As with the OP I expect you will never actually explain.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes. Taiwan is closer to Alaska than to California (even on the one flat-earther map we have seen), yet you suggested it would take longer to get from somewhere on route to Alaska than for the total journey time from Taiwan to California. Perhaps you looked up flight times and didn't realise they were talking about a smaller slower aircraft?
Or perhaps you were just talking nonsense?

As with the OP I expect you will never actually explain.

Yes. Taiwan is closer to Alaska than to California (even on the one flat-earther map we have seen)
There is no doubt that Taiwan is closer to Alaska than it is to California--- no matter what map one refers to.
Not sure what you're trying to drive at here.

yet you suggested it would take longer to get from somewhere on route to Alaska than for the total journey time from Taiwan to California.
If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, how would it be shorter to go to Alaska diverting from a tack between Taiwan and Los Angeles?
Taiwan and LAX are within six degrees of each other, so very nearly a straight shot, east to west.
Alaska is thirty-six degrees above Taiwan, twenty-eight degrees above LAX--- a huge divergence from the straight shot.

Or perhaps you were just talking nonsense?
Or perhaps you are lazily popping off?

As with the OP I expect you will never actually explain.
Always the pessimist, never the realist.