Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

In the book "Chris Crawford on Game Design" (whose author is working with me on a project ), one of the last sections is called "A Tyrannosaurus Rex for Ideas". One of the things it says is this:



Of course, Chris isn't saying that you should kill every idea that you have. He's saying that you must filter your ideas, saving only the few that are flawless, or at least have a good chance of being or becoming so.

As you might guess, I suggest that people should have the same kind of Tyrannosaurus for their beliefs. A belief on shaky ground is not worth believing. A belief can be on shaky ground no matter how firmly you believe it. What I mean is this: nobody here believes Earth is flat (I hope). But if I did, and asserted this strongly, my belief is on shaky ground. This ground quakes when presented with photos from space, globes and maps of Earth, navigational techniques of sailors and aircraft, such as the "great circle", not to mention how everything fits nicely together with a round world that orbits the sun (it explains the cyclical appearance and disappearance of the sun and moon, as well as seasons, and so on), and it doesn't fit so nicely in a flat world. My argument tumbles apart, with my only choices really consisting of "Well, it looks flat... so it is!" and "Lies! All lies!"... neither of them really holding any water because they conveniently ignore mountains of evidence for the sole purpose of justifying what I already believed. Not a very good way to argue, is it?

Yet I often see this kind of Flat Earth thinking. Creationism is one instance, although that's an argument for another thread (which we already have, of course) -- I don't mean the idea that God created the universe, but I mean when in opposition to the Theory of Evolution (which does have mountains of evidence, by the way... I'm going to have to revisit the thread and present some of it). When I see a specific hole in somebody's thinking, I let my Tyrannosaur on it. (This is why I continually "pick on" fahooglewitz over a certain point -- sorry, fahooglewitz, but it's my job.)

And that's why I'm writing this post: so that future posters know that I'm armed with a Tyrannosaur, and it will savagely decimate flawed thinking. But you too can join the Tyrannosarmy! (Lamest... H*R reference... ever.) As always, I invite others to do the same for me. But you probably won't have to very often because whatever flawed notions I had, my Tyrannosaur probably got it first. I'm not saying I'm always right, of course, but I am saying that when I'm wrong, at least I'm not likely to be on entirely weak ground when I am. I can be, of course -- everybody has some silly, irrational notions. But it's not common for me. If you want to try to show otherwise, go ahead! Muahahahaha!

And if you don't like my Tyrannosaur, well, that's just tough.
Cave Tyrannosaurum.

- Kef

But.. it doesn't look flat.

What about "I know in my heart that it's flat," or "the only way you'll understand how flat it is is by believing that it is, and its flatness will come to you," or "its flatness is incomprehensible to mere mortals".

Okay, now I'm being snarky. Moving along.

_________________

Kef:

Here's the deal with me. I believe I have good reason to trust the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. Without them, we know absolutely nothing about the man, other than he might have existed. I also feel I can trust the Gospel accounts, since the men responsible for their essential content, the apostles (at least most of them), suffered torment and were killed for what they believed. Had they simply made the stories up or exaggerated them, then I doubt they could have faced death like that with a clear conscience, especially given the importance that Jesus himself placed on honesty.

There. The life and ministry of Jesus Christ, specifically his death and resurrection. The foundation of my own faith is historical in nature. Pretty solid ground from where I stand.

So where does that leave my stance on creationism? Simple. If God is in any way involved in the functioning of the universe (as his actions in history seem to demonstrate), then the creation is not an accident.

Now I will allow slack for those who believe in creationistic evolution (the belief that God created through the process of evolution). I am not a stickler for a literal interpretation of Gen 1. But I would like to point out, however, that since no human being was actually there to witness the beginning, there can be no certainty how it took place. There are some gaps in our understanding. But since I feel like I can trust the Gospels, and since Jesus himself seemed to trust the Old Testament, I feel like I can too. Shaky ground? Not from where I stand.

Now, I will give you this: you want to challenge people's thinking. That's a good thing. What's more, you are not simply trying to rip apart our faith based on some stupid TV show you watched last night.

Also, I would suggest defining your terms. By Creationism, do you mean the belief that Genesis 1 is a literal history, or simply the belief that the world was created by God?

Incidentally, the "flat earth" theory was refuted by Ptolemy in the 2nd century, when he proved the earth was round. His theory was the dominant worldview until the time of Galileo. The myth that Medieval Christians believed the earth was flat is just that: a myth. I could even provide you a quote from a noted 12th theologian on the subject, if I were less lazy. I bring this up because it is such a popular legend and is often used in such arguments in attempts to make the Medieval church look stupider than it actually was.

Finally, it seems to me this topic has already been fairly well covered in that other thread. Why are we starting a new one here to cover the same topic?

_________________

I think you misconstrued much of my post -- I wasn't attacking any particular beliefs, not even creationism (which, by the way, I explicitly stated in the sense of being opposed to evolution; whether or not God created the world or universe is not important to science), merely using it as an example, and when I get around to it, I'll explain my own viewpoints in that thread. This thread, as you may recall, is about a Tyrannosaurus Rex. I'm just pointing out that as long as we're going to discuss volatile topics, and people's feelings may be hurt if we say something too harsh or people take it the wrong way, we can't soften up to the point that "everybody is right" whether the Earth is round or flat (or whatever).

But anyway...



I could of course argue with such things, being that I don't share the same views, but that's not necessarily an example of poor thinking. Though one can believe such things for entirely the wrong reasons (I did, once). Not saying you are, and not saying you aren't. I won't really address the bit of how it relates to creationism since as we both noted, it's not that relevant here.



Well, I never stated otherwise, but in any case, that's not the full story. There were occasional nuts who insisted on a flat Earth throughout history, and a few of them did make this argument on religious grounds (but to my knowledge it wasn't ever consensus in any Christian community). Of course the contemporaries of Christopher Columbus knew full well the world was round, as did many in centuries before. Such people who believed the world is flat were likely the exception rather than the rule, but that is not the point. Wikipedia documents the "flat earth" view through history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Furthermore, it's a rather European-centric view. Europeans occasionally had to educate others that the world is round (such as American Indians, Africans).

I gotta return some video tapes now, so I'm cutting off a bit short. Sorry!

- Kef

Here comes furrykef, the ultimate standard in truth...

It's not truth I'm after here. It's clarity of thinking. Notice I never said that the alternative interpretation of the Biblical passage is right, nor did I ever say yours is wrong, merely that the passage as a whole is unclear (however clear you think it is). Is the presence of clarity an objective truth? Obviously not, since it's more clear to you than it is to me. You seem to think it is, though, by implying "It is clear, period."

Also, I would like to point out that I think a belief that one cannot defend is not worth having. This is why I have a bit of a beef with fahooglewitz in the matter (sorry fahooglewitz, I'm sure you're sick of me using you as an example, but you're about the only one I got), as he obviously feels otherwise. This is one reason I made this post: to make it clear I play hardball here. You're trying to defend your belief, which is good (although I would prefer you at least acknowledge the possibility you might be wrong, which you haven't; see my thread on religious conviction), though frankly I don't think you're doing a good job of it.

- Kef

Yes, we're in a "Cold War" type strife.

OOOH! I'll play Gorbachev.

We could play Balance of Power, a computer game my idol (Chris Crawford) designed and programmed about the Cold War.

It's also an add-on pack for x-wing vs. tie fighter (another cool game).

Actually, believe it or not, some people actually DO believe the Earth is flat. Honestly. And here's the weird fact: the Flat Earth Society was founded by a geography teacher.

_________________
"They've taken Mr Rimmer! Sir, they've taken Mr Rimmer!"
"Quick, let's get outta here before they bring him back!"

The Flat Earth society is a joke. Just check out their web page some time.

_________________

yeah, that does seem like a hoax. There used to be a real flat earth socity though. the newsletter "Flat Earth News" was published during the seventies.

From the Peoples Alamanac

"Published by fundamentalist Christians Charles and Marjory Johnson, the News is dedicated to proving that the earth is flat and there is hardly one word of truth in modern astronomy and phsysics. (Skylab was a hoax, the sun and moon are 32 miles across and 3000 miles from the earth"

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free

The Flat Earth Society was real. It seems it has fallen apart in 2001, though. http://www.flat-earth.org does not seem to be the website of the real Flat Earth Society, which can easily be verified by the assertion on the website that the group was formed in 1993. The "real" Flat Earth Society is over 100 years old. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

- Kef

and i found this website

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

_________________
if you could choose your ancestors, and grow just like a weed
pick a stud to congeal your blood and get your earlobes free

The Flat Earth Society spoof is great. I'd recommend giving it a look. :20x6:

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

_________________

Probably just another spoof. I don't think an organization that's been around for 100+ years would need a URL three levels deep for the homepage if they wanted one. They could get their own domain name.