The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[allfoak]

What i know about myself fits with the flat earth idea.
i have a magnetic field around my body.
This means that i can be described as both flat and round.

What i also know is that the principle of "As Above So Below" is applicable to every level.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I'd rather not get into the details of flat-earth cosmology as it gets into the realm of circumstantial evidence again, but suffice it to say, the "time zone" issue you've described has been addressed by flat-Earth theory if you care to look into it.

Obviously the time zone issue can only be explained by a round Earth.

While nobody appreciates such an exercise in positivism more than I do,
simply claiming that it has been addressed without bothering to actually address it
is about as feckless as one can get.

The world famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle stated: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance" and "Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory is "wrong" in any meaningful sense.The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

Either way, neither of them are flat-earth arguments.

Once more such a debate serves to prove who has thought through the positivist
nature of the claim of a round Earth, and who is just repeating what others have stated.

Perhaps you do not fully appreciate the nature of why this particular thread is interesting?

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you are even in the discussion?

 

[Curious George]

Discussing circumstantial evidence regarding the shape of the earth can not lead us to a conclusive answer about the shape of the earth. It's pointless and endless, and there are different interpretations from both sides regarding whatever hard data we might present. e.g. "seeing a city skyline from 50+ miles away" (data, and circumstantial evidence) is interpreted by the flat-earther as "evidence of a flat earth"; yet that very same data is interpreted by the round-Earther as "evidence for mirages".

As in the Parable of the Elephant I gave earlier, the blind men can argue with each other all day long about the nature of "elephant," but none of them can come to true knowledge about the whole elephant without experiencing the whole elephant for himself.

Which shall we endeavor to be: the blind man who pursues truth, or the blind man who does not?

 

[Parsimony]

But not certain.
We have no idea what the truth is about anything that we haven't experienced for ourselves.

If you would like to really take a trip down the rabbit hole, try this.
How is it that we know that we know what we think we know?

We simply rely on "expert" opinion.
In other words, all we really know is what someone else has told us.
That means that we don't really know much of anything that we think we know.

I'm well aware that nothing can be known for certain, but that doesn't make all possibilities equally likely. Occam's Razor strongly favors a round Earth.

I believe they exist. I don't know that they exist.

Why believe that they exist? They could just as easily be part of worldwide conspiracies in the same way that a worldwide conspiracy covers up the supposedly flat Earth.

 

[allfoak]

I'm well aware that nothing can be known for certain, but that doesn't make all possibilities equally likely. Occam's Razor strongly favors a round Earth.

Actually a flat earth is much more simple.
The complications associated with the current ball earth understanding are numerous.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not one thing has been proven true here either way.

The basic principles of lighting proves that the moon is round and it revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is flat and revolves around the sun. If any of these things were not so, our lunar cycles would be different, and eclipses could be visible to all the earth at once (the wierd infinity symbol on a globe also helps to explain why not everywhere can see it, as this track represents the tilt of the Earth), and wouldn't have solar and lunar eclipses.
All you really need is a light bulb, a round object that is placed in a manner to revolve it around the light bulb, and a smaller round object that revolves around the larger round object. What you will see are shadows on the round objects that are similar to our lunar cycles and eclipses. With any other shapes, this will not work and the shadows will not resemble our lunar cycles or eclipses.

 

[MARCELLO]

Pls buy a budget airline ticket and sit on the window side. After rising enough you will see that earth is getting the shape of sphere.

 

[buddhist]

... subjective experience, but subjective experience is flawed and unreliable. That is why verifiable evidence is better.

Yes, and that's why I need to verify things for myself. Everything else is subjective.

 

[buddhist]

Which shall we endeavor to be: the blind man who pursues truth, or the blind man who does not?

I prefer to believe that I'm the blind man who pursues truth, witholding final judgment until I see the whole for myself.

 

[buddhist]

Why believe that they exist? They could just as easily be part of worldwide conspiracies in the same way that a worldwide conspiracy covers up the supposedly flat Earth.

It's possible. I have seen little circumstantial evidence that those places don't exist. On the other hand, I've seen much circumstantial evidence that the earth may be flat.

 

[buddhist]

Pls buy a budget airline ticket and sit on the window side. After rising enough you will see that earth is getting the shape of sphere.

As I've heard, airplane windows are curved - not flat. Therefore, they exhibit the same visual distortion issues as found in fish-eye lenses on cameras.

Additionally, even if we see a "round" shape on a plane, is it the roundness of a sphere, or the roundness of a flat circle you're possible seeing?

 

[leibowde84]

All of the evidence shown has been disputed.
Not one thing has been proven true here either way.

If you all want to know the truth you must find out for yourself.
Or you can just accept what you have been told.

Yes, and that's why I need to verify things for myself. Everything else is subjective.

Obviously, you don't know what subjective means. Subjectivity refers to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. You experiencing the world as being flat is the same as when ancient men and women experienced it the same way. The scientific method was designed to combat the flaws with subjective experience by verifying said experience with the experience of other via experimentation, observation, and documentation. If you are going to disregard all evidence that isn't directly coming from your flawed subjective experience, you will most likely end up with the wrong conclusion every time. And, certainly, there is no real reliability associated with it.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, and that's why I need to verify things for myself. Everything else is subjective.

Your own experience is subjective. When experiences of others can be verified through evidence such as pictures, videos, mathematical proofs, etc. they become objectively valid. You are demanding that you rely only on your own subjective experience.

 

[allfoak]

Obviously, you don't know what subjective means. Subjectivity refers to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. You experiencing the world as being flat is the same as when ancient men and women experienced it the same way. The scientific method was designed to combat the flaws with subjective experience by verifying said experience with the experience of other via experimentation, observation, and documentation. If you are going to disregard all evidence that isn't directly coming from your flawed subjective experience, you will most likely end up with the wrong conclusion every time. And, certainly, there is no real reliability associated with it.

I am suggesting that the reason that most "believe" what they do about the earth is because the subjective experience has been deliberately abandoned in academia.

Not sure what you are all arguing about, it is not my fault you won't accept that you have only been taught half of the picture.
And it is not my fault that you are unable to see the other half of the picture.
What i say can be verified by anyone who will learn who they are.

As above so below.
Learn who you are and you will learn that what i say is true.

 

[allfoak]

I am fascinated by the fact that people take this so hard when they hear about the flat earth.
It's almost worse than telling a christian that Jesus is not God.

 

[buddhist]

Obviously, you don't know what subjective means. Subjectivity refers to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. You experiencing the world as being flat is the same as when ancient men and women experienced it the same way. The scientific method was designed to combat the flaws with subjective experience by verifying said experience with the experience of other via experimentation, observation, and documentation. If you are going to disregard all evidence that isn't directly coming from your flawed subjective experience, you will most likely end up with the wrong conclusion every time. And, certainly, there is no real reliability associated with it.

Yes, I understand what subjective means. It's just that I do not perceive a truly "objective" world, and my frames of references are different from yours. Things are still subjective for me if I haven't experienced something for myself, even if others might claim that they've experienced the same thing for themselves.

 

[buddhist]

Your own experience is subjective. When experiences of others can be verified through evidence such as pictures, videos, mathematical proofs, etc. they become objectively valid. You are demanding that you rely only on your own subjective experience.

As I stated, my worldview is different. In my cosmology, philosophy, and theology, the "I" is the center of his or her own universe, essentially the creator. There is no "objectivity" apart from the "I".

 

[buddhist]

I am fascinated by the fact that people take this so hard when they hear about the flat earth.
It's almost worse than telling a christian that Jesus is not God.

Apparently, judging by the posts in this thread, evangelical round-Earthers would drag non round-Earthers to their hells if we didn't believe like they did. LOL!

 

[ThirtyThree]

Why, in 2016, do people STILL Believe the Earth IS FLAT?!

 

[ThirtyThree]