Prove or Disprove Flat Earth Theology

[cladking]

You say i don't get it because i dont agree with you that you can twist the meaning of words do suite your sensibilities. Methinks you project muchly.

Yes words are symbols, symbols of their definitions

Yet every dictionary has a different list of definitions and everybody who parses a sentence gets to use any of the millions of definitions he chooses or that he believes is a definition. You don't seem to get the meaning even of the word "definition" yet every word also has "connotations" that modify and change the meaning of an utterance. You are ignoring the beauty inherent in the flow of words that can describe "reality" and emotion in terms that resonate with some listeners or readers. You are simply ignoring the fact that each listener or reader takes an entirely different meaning of every single word and every sentence. You are ignoring everything I say because it doesn't "sound" right to you and you ignore every word from religion and from those who don't share your beliefs in the "laws of nature". It never occurred to you that there might be no traffic police that watches over nature to make sure that g remains exactly 32 ft/ s/ s. You never considered that we are trying to describe a digital reality and seeing effects rather than causes. You have all the answers just like most believers and just like everybody. When you see religion conflict with your answers you know they must be wrong. Then you go so far as to parse the words so they are illogical rather then looking for the sense in them.

Did you look up "definition"? Do you understand that the words in a definition are composed of more words and these words also have many meanings, connotations, and ways in which they can be used to express thought? If something doesn't make sense to you then why do you assume it is wrong? Is it possible you simply can't understand?

 

[ChristineM]

Yet every dictionary has a different list of definitions and everybody who parses a sentence gets to use any of the millions of definitions he chooses or that he believes is a definition. You don't seem to get the meaning even of the word "definition" yet every word also has "connotations" that modify and change the meaning of an utterance. You are ignoring the beauty inherent in the flow of words that can describe "reality" and emotion in terms that resonate with some listeners or readers. You are simply ignoring the fact that each listener or reader takes an entirely different meaning of every single word and every sentence. You are ignoring everything I say because it doesn't "sound" right to you and you ignore every word from religion and from those who don't share your beliefs in the "laws of nature". It never occurred to you that there might be no traffic police that watches over nature to make sure that g remains exactly 32 ft/ s/ s. You never considered that we are trying to describe a digital reality and seeing effects rather than causes. You have all the answers just like most believers and just like everybody. When you see religion conflict with your answers you know they must be wrong. Then you go so far as to parse the words so they are illogical rather then looking for the sense in them.

Did you look up "definition"? Do you understand that the words in a definition are composed of more words and these words also have many meanings, connotations, and ways in which they can be used to express thought? If something doesn't make sense to you then why do you assume it is wrong? Is it possible you simply can't understand?

Please provide a list if dictionaries with substantially different meanings to defined words

Not only did i know the meaning of definition, i quoted it for you, and quoted the definitions of main words. It seems you have ignored it... Why am i not surprised

 

[firedragon]

So ummm, I took a trip to China in like 2005. I noticed that rather than going from LA to China directly east to west, we instead flew directly north through the Arctic Circle. The official reasoning behind this is that planes need to be near land in case of emergency, but c'mon, this is 2019 and seaplanes were invented during the Midway campaigns of WWII. Pretty sure a water landing is safer than a crash landing in the ice.

However, when you look at one of those overhead maps of the Earth, it suddenly makes sense, as you're flying overland in a mostly straight line.

Brother. You probably know about the Sun rising twice or even occasionally twice in the east from some high vantage points right? There are some mountains where people have experienced this and some people believed that the sun is paying homage to the mountain top which is divine.

This happens because the sun is seen once by people on the top due to the light coming from the sun is refracted through the sea water in the eastern horizon. Then its seen again directly after the sun rises.

This is because the earth is a globe. But im no scientist so yes I am interested in listening to you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mathematics are precise, i gave you an example, just because you dont like it does not make it any less relevant

It is not a definition that make a natural word. Natural words existed and from their uses by a mass of people definition are made/authored.
What one quoted was a mathematical equation one would admit.

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

It is not a definition that make a natural word. Natural words existed and from their uses by a mass of people definition are made/authored.
What one quoted was a mathematical equation one would admit.

Regards

Tell the Oxford English dictionary that, i am quite happy with the definitions of the word "one" and "two"

And you will admit that the equation was real

 

[paarsurrey]

You butt in argument without understanding the context of the argument, cladking.

The topic is about “flat earth”, where scriptures like the Bible and the Qur’an, give picture of flat earth, and not sphere-like planet (oblate spheroid).

Since I was replying to paarsurrey, who believed in the Qur’an, so I gave him verse (20:53) with different translations, which say the Earth was spread out like a “carpet” or “bed”, which is repeated a number of times.

The bed and carpet are merely similes, but it does draw of images of the Earth being “flat” not with roundness of a sphere.

Neither bed, nor carpet, are shaped like a sphere, cladking.

I was also pointing out that the word “round” could apply to any shape with curves that necessarily mean “sphere”, for instances cone, cylinder/disk, circle, oval, arc, rectangle with 4 rounded corners, or box with 8 rounded corners.

I don’t deny a sphere is round, but so is the disk or cylinder, which what some ancient cultures believed the shape of the Earth, like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Israelites, Greeks (before Aristotle), and apparently Arabs in Muhammad’s time.

Do you understand my points as to why I quoted from the Qur’an?

Paarsurrey believed in the Qur’an, so I used the Qur’an to demonstrate Muhammad believed in flat earth, like that of disk in shape, not a sphere.

So what’s your damn problem?

"The topic is about “flat earth”, where scriptures like the Bible and the Qur’an, give picture of flat earth, and not sphere-like planet (oblate spheroid).
Since I was replying to paarsurrey, who believed in the Qur’an, so I gave him verse (20:53) with different translations, which say the Earth was spread out like a “carpet” or “bed”, which is repeated a number of times"

One is wrong and one's thinking is incorrect.The natural word "mahd" (triliteral root mīm hā dāl (م ه د). It occurs 16 times in the Quran, in six derived forms, one could see all such places with references and with the meanings at the following link:
The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary:

Following words have been used by 50+ translators (including some non-Muslims )as per their understanding/interpretation of the natural Arabic word mahd used in Quran verse 20:53:

"a cradle, a bed , a carpet spread out, an expanse, laid out, habitable, a bed spread out, your (safe) haven, a habitat, a flattened expanse, a liveable place".
Ta Ha 20:53

Further, it is Quran's style that it invariably used other alternative words in other places so that there is no ambiguity left. Regarding Earth and Skies another root word farash has been used.

(51:48) farashnāhā We have spread it وَالْأَرْضَ فَرَشْنَاهَا فَنِعْمَ الْمَاهِدُونَ

“a resting-place, couch, a bed, place of restfulness, a carpet, a place of settlement, spread out, a place of repose, a habitat, a carpet, (as) a bedding, habitable, a place of rest, a habitat, a resting place, a habitable place, a base, a settled habitation, a spreading”,
adh-Dhariyat 51:48
and at another place:

(2:22) firāshan a resting place الَّذِي جَعَلَ لَكُمُ الْأَرْضَ فِرَاشًا وَالسَّمَاءَ بِنَاءً
has been translated as “spacious, wide extent, laid out, furnished, stretched it, carpet, prepared its crust, habitable for its inhabitant, a base, cradled , habitable, floor, a (livable) floor” including by some translators as “bed”, for which please see the link.
al-Baqarah 2:22 .

One should not hesitate to investigate it properly which one has not yet done, one should admit. Right, please?

Regards

 

[cladking]

Please provide a list if dictionaries with substantially different meanings to defined words

Every word in the each dictionary has numerous definitions. And each word in each definition has many definitions (by definition)(see the first sentence).

In order to understand either of the sentences (and clauses) above your mind must parse the words as you hear or read them. You do this without even realizing it. Each reader takes a different meaning.

Then we don't argue the ideas, thoughts, or beliefs that gave rise to the words but most of us argue the words themselves. If two people are even conversing on the same subject (sometimes they aren't!) they can be in perfect agreement and still come to fisticuffs over the specific words used to express their ideas.

Unless you can understand the ideas in the above three paragraphs there's no way this can be tied back in so I'm out of the conversation.

 

[cladking]

Not only did i know the meaning of definition, i quoted it for you, and quoted the definitions of main words. It seems you have ignored it... Why am i not surprised

I can't find it and never saw it.

 

[ChristineM]

Every word in the each dictionary has numerous definitions. And each word in each definition has many definitions (by definition)(see the first sentence).

In order to understand either of the sentences (and clauses) above your mind must parse the words as you hear or read them. You do this without even realizing it. Each reader takes a different meaning.

Then we don't argue the ideas, thoughts, or beliefs that gave rise to the words but most of us argue the words themselves. If two people are even conversing on the same subject (sometimes they aren't!) they can be in perfect agreement and still come to fisticuffs over the specific words used to express their ideas.

Unless you can understand the ideas in the above three paragraphs there's no way this can be tied back in so I'm out of the conversation.

So no actual dictionaries then, as expected. But your opinion is noted

 

[ChristineM]

I can't find it and never saw it.

Try post 129 and your response to that on post 130

And post 131.

After which you change track for some reason

 

[cladking]

So no actual dictionaries then, as expected. But your opinion is noted

There are hundreds of lists of dictionaries and thousands upon thousands of dictionaries.

Lists of dictionaries - Wikipedia

Every word in the each dictionary has numerous definitions. And each word in each definition has many definitions (by definition)(see the first sentence).

This is too tedious to continue.

It must be nice to not only know every definition of every word but know what every person means when he uses that word. We are truly Homo Omnisciencis.

 

[ChristineM]

There are hundreds of lists of dictionaries and thousands upon thousands of dictionaries.

Lists of dictionaries - Wikipedia



This is too tedious to continue.

It must be nice to not only know every definition of every word but know what every person means when he uses that word. We are truly Homo Omnisciencis.

You know that i asked you to verify your claim, if you are unable to do so then you are wasting my time

 

[gnostic]

These are symbols, not a natural word of any language , please.

It is not merely symbols.

In religions, symbols can have multiple meanings, meanings that will differed from one person to the next.

This simple arithmetic 1 + 1 = 2 can be proven and tested, just by counting.

For instance, if I was at cattle farm and saw 2 individual cows isolated on the hill, wouldn't 1 cow + 1 cow = 2 cows?

When numbers, counting, maths have real-world application, then they are not just symbols, paarsurrey.

Do you want to know what are symbols?

Try the star of David for Judaism and for Israel, the crucifix or cross of the Christianity, and the crescent moon with or without the 5-pointed star of Islam. All of these are religious symbols, and yet with no real application.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is not merely symbols.

In religions, symbols can have multiple meanings, meanings that will differed from one person to the next.

This simple arithmetic 1 + 1 = 2 can be proven and tested, just by counting.

For instance, if I was at cattle farm and saw 2 individual cows isolated on the hill, wouldn't 1 cow + 1 cow = 2 cows?

When numbers, counting, maths have real-world application, then they are not just symbols, paarsurrey.

Do you want to know what are symbols?

Try the star of David for Judaism and for Israel, the crucifix or cross of the Christianity, and the crescent moon with or without the 5-pointed star of Islam. All of these are religious symbols, and yet with no real application.

The counting does not finish with the symbols one and or two , it goes further. There are societies in the world their counting does not even exceed the symbol ten and finish even earlier. Yet, they enjoy life and live a happy natural life. They are not interested in whether the Earth is flat or round. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Dredging this up, to explain why it's relevant.

Btw, in the weeks and months since I started this thread, someone has started a campaign against flat Earth thought (in both search engines and on Youtube, the search engines bumped any searches for "flat Earth", "round Earth is wrong", "round Earth is stupid" , etc to instead yield results either for the opposite, or in some cases outright mocking the concept).

The thing is, while this is great and all that there now appears to be a consensus on the way people think... a consensus on the truth is dangerous. At one time, it was consensus that slavery was okay, that women ought to be regarded as second-class. At one time, it was consensus that the Party in Soviet Russia or Big Kim in North Korea shouldn't be questioned. Hell, at one point or another, people believed in geocentrism and flat Earth, but if consensus is proof of any kind of truth, we shouldn't change things.
No! By all means, people should be able to believe and research whatever they want online, even if it's "huffing kittens." I abhor censorship more than any other thing. If I want to research really weird porn, then by golly no person, no matter how well-intentioned ought to suppress my depraved lusts.

And no, I'm not trying to convince you to all to believe in what I say about flat Earth. But there is a point. At this moment, I am watching a movie called The Perfect Stranger. The premise is that some girl is on a date with Jesus, but that's not relevant. The relevant part of this is that at one part, she says other people had these different religions and they seemed to work for them, and he says people used to believe in a flat Earth too (yes, I am aware of things like irony) but at some point what seemed to work failed them. So, the thing about consensus is that potentially everyone can be wrong. Suppose all of us believed radium was safe to use in toothpaste.

That actually happened! For real (in addition to putting it in chocolate and many other products)! And they believed it had healing properties!

Suppose you used a map to chart a course (which was the case before electronic navigation, and is the case again if power fails at sea). You would draft a line using a series of tools, including your map.

Now, I'm not a sailor, and don't have to know or care whether a chart works, but if I take a trip (like the one I took in December to Texas), I know if you don't trust the guidebook atlas thingy to provide a straight line and instead "adjust for curvature" while driving a car when the road says there are no curves, sooner or later, you are going to drive off the road. The same is true if we assume something's flat when it isn't, or round when it isn't.

The primary problem is heliocentrism and round Earth is that it asks us to doubt our own senses, which tell us that the Earth is not spinning 1000+ mph and orbiting 67000 mph, which tell us many many other things that our eyes are gonna tell us is wrong. The average atheist will tell me that they cannot see God, (although I see God in everything that exists) by that logic they are wrong. No, whatever your senses lead to, you should be able to trust maps.

I feel like I'm rambling, and I kinda wanna keep watching the movie, so I guess that was my point or something. That censorship and consensus opinion sucks, and more people need to learn to use maps and stop with those damned GPS devices.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dredging this up, to explain why it's relevant.

Btw, in the weeks and months since I started this thread, someone has started a campaign against flat Earth thought (in both search engines and on Youtube, the search engines bumped any searches for "flat Earth", "round Earth is wrong", "round Earth is stupid" , etc to instead yield results either for the opposite, or in some cases outright mocking the concept).

The thing is, while this is great and all that there now appears to be a consensus on the way people think... a consensus on the truth is dangerous. At one time, it was consensus that slavery was okay, that women ought to be regarded as second-class. At one time, it was consensus that the Party in Soviet Russia or Big Kim in North Korea shouldn't be questioned. Hell, at one point or another, people believed in geocentrism and flat Earth, but if consensus is proof of any kind of truth, we shouldn't change things.
No! By all means, people should be able to believe and research whatever they want online, even if it's "huffing kittens." I abhor censorship more than any other thing. If I want to research really weird porn, then by golly no person, no matter how well-intentioned ought to suppress my depraved lusts.

And no, I'm not trying to convince you to all to believe in what I say about flat Earth. But there is a point. At this moment, I am watching a movie called The Perfect Stranger. The premise is that some girl is on a date with Jesus, but that's not relevant. The relevant part of this is that at one part, she says other people had these different religions and they seemed to work for them, and he says people used to believe in a flat Earth too (yes, I am aware of things like irony) but at some point what seemed to work failed them. So, the thing about consensus is that potentially everyone can be wrong. Suppose all of us believed radium was safe to use in toothpaste.

That actually happened! For real (in addition to putting it in chocolate and many other products)! And they believed it had healing properties!

Suppose you used a map to chart a course (which was the case before electronic navigation, and is the case again if power fails at sea). You would draft a line using a series of tools, including your map.

Now, I'm not a sailor, and don't have to know or care whether a chart works, but if I take a trip (like the one I took in December to Texas), I know if you don't trust the guidebook atlas thingy to provide a straight line and instead "adjust for curvature" while driving a car when the road says there are no curves, sooner or later, you are going to drive off the road. The same is true if we assume something's flat when it isn't, or round when it isn't.

The primary problem is heliocentrism and round Earth is that it asks us to doubt our own senses, which tell us that the Earth is not spinning 1000+ mph and orbiting 67000 mph, which tell us many many other things that our eyes are gonna tell us is wrong. The average atheist will tell me that they cannot see God, (although I see God in everything that exists) by that logic they are wrong. No, whatever your senses lead to, you should be able to trust maps.

I feel like I'm rambling, and I kinda wanna keep watching the movie, so I guess that was my point or something. That censorship and consensus opinion sucks, and more people need to learn to use maps and stop with those damned GPS devices.

You are confused about what your senses tell you. You cannot sense "speed". What you sense is acceleration. That is why you can fall asleep on a jet airliner moving at 500 mph and forget where you are. As long as there is no turbulence there is little difference from flying at that speed than sitting on the tarmac. Also as far as driving goes the amount of change by any curvature is so small as to be lost to all of the other course adjustments that one must make, even if one foolishly followed line of latitude rather than driving in a straight direction. .

What heliocentrism does is to tell you that you do not understand motion. It does not tell you not to trust your senses.

 

[rational experiences]

Planes fly the actual shortest route in 3-dimensional space. On a planet like earth, which is a slightly oblate spheroid (not a perfect sphere), that shortest route between any two points is called a geodesic, or a "great circle." When you look at these routes on maps, which are flat, unlike the surface of the earth they are intended to depict, these routes look distorted, because the map is distorted. For many, many routes in the northern hemisphere, these great circles include polar or near-polar approaches. But they actually do save time and distance (and thus fuel).

As the planet is not a circle itself, you are experiencing what is not a circle actually.

And if any human mind wants to argue relativity, every thing you look at is defined from a flat brain mind state....of a chemically reacted brain condition that is also not a circle.

The eyes, a seeing feed back interactive relationship in its environment lives in an atmospheric gas mass, that is a plane by dimension of its gas state, its mass, why you do not see as circles, but relative to planes.

O only MASS owns a circle.

Consciousness tells you all that information.

Now if you are not a rational thinker, you then claim that consciousness told you that O Earth is not a circle, for in reality it is not O a true circle...correct advice.

And in the information you told self that mass is not a circle...and irrational thinkers then say, I got told that Earth is not a circle and then go about trying to convince how they perceive the rest of the information in gas and light states that exist also not as a circle...but surrounding the circle.

 

[ChristineM]

Dredging this up, to explain why it's relevant.

Btw, in the weeks and months since I started this thread, someone has started a campaign against flat Earth thought (in both search engines and on Youtube, the search engines bumped any searches for "flat Earth", "round Earth is wrong", "round Earth is stupid" , etc to instead yield results either for the opposite, or in some cases outright mocking the concept).

The thing is, while this is great and all that there now appears to be a consensus on the way people think... a consensus on the truth is dangerous. At one time, it was consensus that slavery was okay, that women ought to be regarded as second-class. At one time, it was consensus that the Party in Soviet Russia or Big Kim in North Korea shouldn't be questioned. Hell, at one point or another, people believed in geocentrism and flat Earth, but if consensus is proof of any kind of truth, we shouldn't change things.
No! By all means, people should be able to believe and research whatever they want online, even if it's "huffing kittens." I abhor censorship more than any other thing. If I want to research really weird porn, then by golly no person, no matter how well-intentioned ought to suppress my depraved lusts.

And no, I'm not trying to convince you to all to believe in what I say about flat Earth. But there is a point. At this moment, I am watching a movie called The Perfect Stranger. The premise is that some girl is on a date with Jesus, but that's not relevant. The relevant part of this is that at one part, she says other people had these different religions and they seemed to work for them, and he says people used to believe in a flat Earth too (yes, I am aware of things like irony) but at some point what seemed to work failed them. So, the thing about consensus is that potentially everyone can be wrong. Suppose all of us believed radium was safe to use in toothpaste.

That actually happened! For real (in addition to putting it in chocolate and many other products)! And they believed it had healing properties!

Suppose you used a map to chart a course (which was the case before electronic navigation, and is the case again if power fails at sea). You would draft a line using a series of tools, including your map.

Now, I'm not a sailor, and don't have to know or care whether a chart works, but if I take a trip (like the one I took in December to Texas), I know if you don't trust the guidebook atlas thingy to provide a straight line and instead "adjust for curvature" while driving a car when the road says there are no curves, sooner or later, you are going to drive off the road. The same is true if we assume something's flat when it isn't, or round when it isn't.

The primary problem is heliocentrism and round Earth is that it asks us to doubt our own senses, which tell us that the Earth is not spinning 1000+ mph and orbiting 67000 mph, which tell us many many other things that our eyes are gonna tell us is wrong. The average atheist will tell me that they cannot see God, (although I see God in everything that exists) by that logic they are wrong. No, whatever your senses lead to, you should be able to trust maps.

I feel like I'm rambling, and I kinda wanna keep watching the movie, so I guess that was my point or something. That censorship and consensus opinion sucks, and more people need to learn to use maps and stop with those damned GPS devices.

At the equator you move at around 1600 kilometres per hour
The earth travels around the sun at almost 108000 kph
Our solar system with us travels around our galaxy at over 788500 kph
Our galaxy is speeding along at almost 1000 kilometres per second (yes that was per second)

And moving in 3 dimensions at truly astounding speeds you cannot feel the speed.

The comedian Rich Hall told a joke that there are roads in America where the only curve is the curvature of the earth.

 

[HonestJoe]

The thing is, while this is great and all that there now appears to be a consensus on the way people think... a consensus on the truth is dangerous. At one time, it was consensus that slavery was okay, that women ought to be regarded as second-class. At one time, it was consensus that the Party in Soviet Russia or Big Kim in North Korea shouldn't be questioned. Hell, at one point or another, people believed in geocentrism and flat Earth, but if consensus is proof of any kind of truth, we shouldn't change things.

There isn’t really a general consensus and never has been. For the vast proportion of the population, now and in the past, it doesn’t matter what shape the planet is, it doesn’t directly impact our day-to-day lives in any way. We don’t really know or believe anything, it’s just information that exists.

It is only people for whom the shape of the planet is directly relevant to what they do who have a definitive understanding; people managing satellites, planning long-distance air travel, studying global phenomena like weather patterns, continental drift or the oceans, etc. Their understanding is based directly on their studies and practical experiences. They obviously all started out on the assumption of the globe earth model but if that was incorrect in any way, it would quickly become apparent in their work.

No! By all means, people should be able to believe and research whatever they want online, even if it's "huffing kittens." I abhor censorship more than any other thing. If I want to research really weird porn, then by golly no person, no matter how well-intentioned ought to suppress my depraved lusts.

Who said flat Earth hypotheses can’t be studied? You’re free to study anything you want but when you present conclusions you should expect to be challenged on them (especially conclusions that appear to contradict established facts or start talking about cover-up conspiracies to account for that).

Now, I'm not a sailor, and don't have to know or care whether a chart works, but if I take a trip (like the one I took in December to Texas), I know if you don't trust the guidebook atlas thingy to provide a straight line and instead "adjust for curvature" while driving a car when the road says there are no curves, sooner or later, you are going to drive off the road. The same is true if we assume something's flat when it isn't, or round when it isn't.

The curvature of the Earth is only significant for very long distances. The scale of the planet means the difference it has over shorter distances are within normal margins of error in things like road building or ship navigation (one of the reasons navel navigation used to use that point-to-point system is to account for error, including from the curvature of earth).

The primary problem is heliocentrism and round Earth is that it asks us to doubt our own senses, which tell us that the Earth is not spinning 1000+ mph and orbiting 67000 mph, which tell us many many other things that our eyes are gonna tell us is wrong.

Your inability to understand how that works isn’t evidence for anything. That is exactly what you called it; your problem. Why would you expect us to do anything different because of it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As the planet is not a circle itself, you are experiencing what is not a circle actually.

And if any human mind wants to argue relativity, every thing you look at is defined from a flat brain mind state....of a chemically reacted brain condition that is also not a circle.

The eyes, a seeing feed back interactive relationship in its environment lives in an atmospheric gas mass, that is a plane by dimension of its gas state, its mass, why you do not see as circles, but relative to planes.

O only MASS owns a circle.

Consciousness tells you all that information.

Now if you are not a rational thinker, you then claim that consciousness told you that O Earth is not a circle, for in reality it is not O a true circle...correct advice.

And in the information you told self that mass is not a circle...and irrational thinkers then say, I got told that Earth is not a circle and then go about trying to convince how they perceive the rest of the information in gas and light states that exist also not as a circle...but surrounding the circle.

Sorry, but you really aren't making any sense at all.