10 ms·

I don't get how you compare religious videos with flat earthers but I agree with your conclusion.

Solvitieg 6y ago
It's an obtuse statement but it seems fair. Both have theories about the world that can't be reconciled with scientific data.
- Cyph0n 6y ago
  Not really. Lack of data is very different from proof. Flat earthers believe in something that empirically and rigorously has been proven to be false. There is no discussion required here, philosophical or otherwise. Religion might be false based on the absence of evidence, but it has never been - and probably never will be - empirically proven to be false.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    Claims about the Earth being only several thousand years old have been proven false.
    - Cyph0n 6y ago
      Of course.
    - dane-pgp 6y ago
      What about claims of the Earth being only five minutes old? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Five-minute_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Five-minut...
      - Alupis 6y ago
        One of the common "excuses" for earth's timeline in religion is the notion of time. What is time, and is it measured the same from all beings and perspectives? We understand time in relation to Earth. If a being is not from Earth, or has some other non-human perspective, the notion of time can get very tricky to reconcile.
    - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
      Except the Bible never claims such a thing. It's been claimed by some religious figures over the last 1000 years and never been accepted as canon by any major Christian church (except maybe some minor sects I've never heard of but then those aren't "major", any belief system has fringes).
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I would argue this is more than a fringe belief, as 38% of Americans think "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years". [1] That said, do you think that religions who preach this view should be banned from youtube? https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-...
        RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        The churches for some reason I don't understand, do nothing to dissuade that belief even though no major church teaches it (nor ever has). Same as some people think the earth is flat right? And no, I don't think anyone should be banned unless they break the law.
        epsteinisntdead 6y ago
        A single shred of doubt has a lot of power. As a comment above mentioned, ~38% of Christians believe in a young Earth. They are more than likely the ones who believe in the so-called "infallibility of Scripture". The percentage of the ~38% that might consider evidence brought to them by an authority they respect may also consider the fallibility of other parts of the Bible that those authorities endorse actively in comparison. That's my best guess at why church leaders don't ever talk about myths perpetuated by the congregation.
        RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        Damn that's a good point. I had forgotten about that "infallibility of scripture" belief. I think it's misguided and I generally avoid engaging deeply with anyone who holds to it, because to me any meaningful conversation is nuanced. That position is markedly not nuanced..
  - wlll 6y ago
    I'd phrase it another way. > Flat earthers believe in something that empirically and rigorously has been proven to be false by there existing a contradictory proof that the earth is mostly spherical. I'd suggest that rather than prove the earth wasn't flat, it was proved it was ~sperical, a proof that was in direct contradiction to the flat theory, thereby nullifying it. So, should the flat earthers have their videos removed? I dunno. It used to be funny, but now seems to have turned rather toxic. Some people might religiously believe that it's flat, and they should be allowed to continue to believe that if it makes them happy, and part of that faith, as with many others it seems, is attempting to convince others of your delusions.
    - Cyph0n 6y ago
      Yes, it is a proof by contradiction. And yes, it's not black-and-white with flat earthers. However, I think the story becomes quite different with conspiracy theories that directly impact the health and lives of other people.
      - wlll 6y ago
        Whatever the reasons for flat earthers believing what they do (ignoring the ones who don't actually believe it, but are doing this for attention), are they really that different than other religions? There's enough cases of "regular" religions promoting views that are harmful or cruel and can have a direct negative impact on the health and happiness of others.
        Cyph0n 6y ago
        > Whatever the reasons for flat earthers believing what they do (ignoring the ones who don't actually believe it, but are doing this for attention), are they really that different than other religions? Yes, they are different. Please refer to my original comment. > There's enough cases of "regular" religions promoting views that are harmful or cruel and can have a direct negative impact on the health and happiness of others. True, which unfortunately goes against what religion should be doing in the first place... welcome to the human race :) Still, I don't really see how you can compare health and happiness in this context. Every idea is bound to make someone, somewhere unhappy.
- asadlionpk 6y ago
  In my study of both, I have actually seen scientific data compliment my religious views. It's usually the religious leader's interpretation that is sometimes flawed and outdated (like church vs. science era).
metalliqaz 6y ago
Lets set aside for a moment that the flat earth movement is actually a religious movement disguised as science-based. FE videos might be removed because they explicitly promote falsehoods as fact. By that standard, religious videos would be similar.
- baddox 6y ago
  I don't think it's particularly "disguised as science-based" any more than, say, Christian apologetics groups like Answers in Genesis. Both groups seem pretty honest about the fact that their fundamental beliefs are religious, and the pseudoscience they do is pretty explicitly in service of that.
  - metalliqaz 6y ago
    Really? At least on YouTube, the main channels seem to put up exclusively pseudoscience. I didn't know how religious the movement was until I saw "Behind the Curve" from HBO.
    - derefr 6y ago
      People don't tend to bother believing something weird without a motivation. I mean, there's contrarians, who believe all sorts of weird things just because they like the satisfaction of being proven right (which means they tend to only believe things that it seems like some fringe has evidence for somewhere.) But other than them, if you're taking a heterodox position on something, it tends to be because it confirms or fits in better with the rest of your existing world-view in some way. And in what world-view, does hypothesizing the Earth to be flat make things you already believe make more sense? A Creationist one.
      - tsegratis 6y ago
        Cool! Could you show me where in Genesis? The best I've found: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers Or: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing -- Funnily enough, Big Bang started as a Christian theory
_proofs 6y ago
They both are areas of thought which promote ideas (sometimes framed as facts) without sufficient demonstrable evidence (otherwise validating the so called framework of facts). But I would add neither should be taken down unless the videos promoting such ideas are also promoting violence. Misinformation, disinformation -- whatever -- the onus is on the audience to educate themselves and arrive at hopefully an informed conclusion. If someone walks away from a video with the belief, that god or some god is real, or that the earth is flat, then so it goes. Youtube is ofc welcome to moderate how they see fit here. However it is a laughable double-standard to selectively allow one faith-based belief system (religion) over another (flat-earth).
- DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
  > They both are areas of thought which promote ideas (sometimes framed as facts) without sufficient demonstrable evidence (otherwise validating the so called framework of facts). "Sufficient" (emphasis mine) for what? If you're applying a particular approach to epistemology, I think you'll have a hard time defending it as unquestionably superior to the epistemologies held by others.
  - _proofs 6y ago
    i am not exactly sure i understand your question -- are you asking if i think the perspective (mine), which thinks the two do not provide sufficient reasoning/knowledge/whatever, is unquestionably superior? if that is your question, then my answer is: i do not hold the notion, that an approach (employed by me or by anyone), is unquestionably superior -- i do think, however, and am happy to point out, that via known, reliable approaches, these perspectives do not provide anything more than just words and reasoning (perhaps more specifically, philosophical argument). nothing quantifiable, observable, measurable, reproducible; just philosophizing. therefore, i consider them equivalent in this regard and moreover think it strange for YouTube to moderate them differently (as if, because one is theological, therefore it must be regarded as a loftier, more sophisticated (?) pursuit, and untouchable). in short, i think words are just words, and i'll continue to ask both camps to demonstrate, that their words are actually something more, via known approaches, or alternative ones.

It's an obtuse statement but it seems fair. Both have theories about the world that can't be reconciled with scientific data.

Cyph0n 6y ago
Not really. Lack of data is very different from proof. Flat earthers believe in something that empirically and rigorously has been proven to be false. There is no discussion required here, philosophical or otherwise. Religion might be false based on the absence of evidence, but it has never been - and probably never will be - empirically proven to be false.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  Claims about the Earth being only several thousand years old have been proven false.
  - Cyph0n 6y ago
    Of course.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    What about claims of the Earth being only five minutes old? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Five-minute_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis#Five-minut...
    - Alupis 6y ago
      One of the common "excuses" for earth's timeline in religion is the notion of time. What is time, and is it measured the same from all beings and perspectives? We understand time in relation to Earth. If a being is not from Earth, or has some other non-human perspective, the notion of time can get very tricky to reconcile.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    Except the Bible never claims such a thing. It's been claimed by some religious figures over the last 1000 years and never been accepted as canon by any major Christian church (except maybe some minor sects I've never heard of but then those aren't "major", any belief system has fringes).
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      I would argue this is more than a fringe belief, as 38% of Americans think "God created humans in present form within last 10,000 years". [1] That said, do you think that religions who preach this view should be banned from youtube? https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-...
      - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        The churches for some reason I don't understand, do nothing to dissuade that belief even though no major church teaches it (nor ever has). Same as some people think the earth is flat right? And no, I don't think anyone should be banned unless they break the law.
        epsteinisntdead 6y ago
        A single shred of doubt has a lot of power. As a comment above mentioned, ~38% of Christians believe in a young Earth. They are more than likely the ones who believe in the so-called "infallibility of Scripture". The percentage of the ~38% that might consider evidence brought to them by an authority they respect may also consider the fallibility of other parts of the Bible that those authorities endorse actively in comparison. That's my best guess at why church leaders don't ever talk about myths perpetuated by the congregation.
        RonanTheGrey 6y ago
        Damn that's a good point. I had forgotten about that "infallibility of scripture" belief. I think it's misguided and I generally avoid engaging deeply with anyone who holds to it, because to me any meaningful conversation is nuanced. That position is markedly not nuanced..
- wlll 6y ago
  I'd phrase it another way. > Flat earthers believe in something that empirically and rigorously has been proven to be false by there existing a contradictory proof that the earth is mostly spherical. I'd suggest that rather than prove the earth wasn't flat, it was proved it was ~sperical, a proof that was in direct contradiction to the flat theory, thereby nullifying it. So, should the flat earthers have their videos removed? I dunno. It used to be funny, but now seems to have turned rather toxic. Some people might religiously believe that it's flat, and they should be allowed to continue to believe that if it makes them happy, and part of that faith, as with many others it seems, is attempting to convince others of your delusions.
  - Cyph0n 6y ago
    Yes, it is a proof by contradiction. And yes, it's not black-and-white with flat earthers. However, I think the story becomes quite different with conspiracy theories that directly impact the health and lives of other people.
    - wlll 6y ago
      Whatever the reasons for flat earthers believing what they do (ignoring the ones who don't actually believe it, but are doing this for attention), are they really that different than other religions? There's enough cases of "regular" religions promoting views that are harmful or cruel and can have a direct negative impact on the health and happiness of others.
      - Cyph0n 6y ago
        > Whatever the reasons for flat earthers believing what they do (ignoring the ones who don't actually believe it, but are doing this for attention), are they really that different than other religions? Yes, they are different. Please refer to my original comment. > There's enough cases of "regular" religions promoting views that are harmful or cruel and can have a direct negative impact on the health and happiness of others. True, which unfortunately goes against what religion should be doing in the first place... welcome to the human race :) Still, I don't really see how you can compare health and happiness in this context. Every idea is bound to make someone, somewhere unhappy.
asadlionpk 6y ago
In my study of both, I have actually seen scientific data compliment my religious views. It's usually the religious leader's interpretation that is sometimes flawed and outdated (like church vs. science era).

metalliqaz 6y ago

Lets set aside for a moment that the flat earth movement is actually a religious movement disguised as science-based. FE videos might be removed because they explicitly promote falsehoods as fact. By that standard, religious videos would be similar.

baddox 6y ago
I don't think it's particularly "disguised as science-based" any more than, say, Christian apologetics groups like Answers in Genesis. Both groups seem pretty honest about the fact that their fundamental beliefs are religious, and the pseudoscience they do is pretty explicitly in service of that.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  Really? At least on YouTube, the main channels seem to put up exclusively pseudoscience. I didn't know how religious the movement was until I saw "Behind the Curve" from HBO.
  - derefr 6y ago
    People don't tend to bother believing something weird without a motivation. I mean, there's contrarians, who believe all sorts of weird things just because they like the satisfaction of being proven right (which means they tend to only believe things that it seems like some fringe has evidence for somewhere.) But other than them, if you're taking a heterodox position on something, it tends to be because it confirms or fits in better with the rest of your existing world-view in some way. And in what world-view, does hypothesizing the Earth to be flat make things you already believe make more sense? A Creationist one.
    - tsegratis 6y ago
      Cool! Could you show me where in Genesis? The best I've found: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers Or: He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing -- Funnily enough, Big Bang started as a Christian theory

_proofs 6y ago

They both are areas of thought which promote ideas (sometimes framed as facts) without sufficient demonstrable evidence (otherwise validating the so called framework of facts). But I would add neither should be taken down unless the videos promoting such ideas are also promoting violence. Misinformation, disinformation -- whatever -- the onus is on the audience to educate themselves and arrive at hopefully an informed conclusion. If someone walks away from a video with the belief, that god or some god is real, or that the earth is flat, then so it goes. Youtube is ofc welcome to moderate how they see fit here. However it is a laughable double-standard to selectively allow one faith-based belief system (religion) over another (flat-earth).

DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
> They both are areas of thought which promote ideas (sometimes framed as facts) without sufficient demonstrable evidence (otherwise validating the so called framework of facts). "Sufficient" (emphasis mine) for what? If you're applying a particular approach to epistemology, I think you'll have a hard time defending it as unquestionably superior to the epistemologies held by others.
- _proofs 6y ago
  i am not exactly sure i understand your question -- are you asking if i think the perspective (mine), which thinks the two do not provide sufficient reasoning/knowledge/whatever, is unquestionably superior? if that is your question, then my answer is: i do not hold the notion, that an approach (employed by me or by anyone), is unquestionably superior -- i do think, however, and am happy to point out, that via known, reliable approaches, these perspectives do not provide anything more than just words and reasoning (perhaps more specifically, philosophical argument). nothing quantifiable, observable, measurable, reproducible; just philosophizing. therefore, i consider them equivalent in this regard and moreover think it strange for YouTube to moderate them differently (as if, because one is theological, therefore it must be regarded as a loftier, more sophisticated (?) pursuit, and untouchable). in short, i think words are just words, and i'll continue to ask both camps to demonstrate, that their words are actually something more, via known approaches, or alternative ones.