The Bible Was Right. The Earth Is Flat.

[buddhist]

how do you know that cat doesn't turn into a rock whenever you're not looking at him?

I wouldn't. Your point?

 

[buddhist]

Did you see Buddha teach this?

Nope, it is simply my belief. But I'm not called to believe in the Buddha or what he taught, but to know the teaching for myself.

 

[ThirtyThree]

i think we should separate the basic theory from the actual evidences built upon them to have a perfect analisis of them.

For example, fake moon landing as a principle could be a 2. I mean, in theory it would make sense to fake a moon landing in case you weren't able to make a real one, considering the race to space against the russians.
but the evidences that fake moon landers provide to backup their theory, well those are all between 6 and 8 on a scale.
Pretending they know best than russians secret service who had all the interests in showing the landing was faked and that never advanced such hipotesis should be enough to rethink their position if they were honest.

9/11 thruthers, in theory it's not unconcievable that an evil govern could go as far as faking an attack. I don't think there's the need or the ability to come up with something the scale of 9/11 but let's say the basic principle could be a 4 on a cockoo level. But the arguments they put forward, like remote controlled or hologram planes with fake phone calls and so on, well that's not even a 10, it's like a 20 or 30 on the cockoo scale.

Flat earth on the other hand it's already a round 10 on the cockoo scale in it's core, and stay on a round 10 with the arguments provided to backup such theory. So all in all flat earth is for sure on the podium of the cockoo scale, togheter with creationism. I actually think the level of ignorance you have to reach to believe in flat earth is way higher than the level of ignorance required to believe in creationism. I mean i wonder how one can even be a functional being while at the same time believing in flat earth.

Brilliantly put together. I give it a level zero on the crazy meter.

 

[Curious George]

Nope, it is simply my belief. But I'm not called to believe in the Buddha or what he taught, but to know the teaching for myself.

What does it mean to be called to believe?

 

[cambridge79]

I wouldn't. Your point?

my point is that according to were you set the bar you actually can't know nothing.
Yet you pretend you know everything while in fact all you can do, always according to where you set the bar, is just live in a world of fantasy you've made up for yourself. You can call that knowledge, wisdom, reality or whatever, but that's just your delusion for your own admission.
That's an inconsistent way to think, therefore everyone has the right to rejecting your claims.

 

[buddhist]

What does it mean to be called to believe?

It means that nobody has the authority to command me to "know" or even "believe" in something I haven't experienced myself.

 

[buddhist]

my point is that according to were you set the bar you actually can't know nothing.
Yet you pretend you know everything.
That's an inconsistent way to think, therefore everyone has the right to rejecting your claims.

No, I fully admit that I know little. When did I pretend that I "know everything"? I've stated repeatedly in this thread that I don't know if the Earth is round or flat.

Why do you believe that I am here to convince others to believe in my claims? It doesn't ultimately matter to me who accepts or rejects my claims. Anyone who participates in chatting with me does so freely on their own accord.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

at least, 9/11 thruthers or moon landing deniers may have a point even if they use all sort of absurdities to prove it.

Except those ideas are just as valid, just as credible, and equally proven false with no special training or training, just plain observation and basic reasoning. The moon landing and round Earth are easily proven with basic knowledge of video editing and lighting, and the 9/11 "truthers" use extremely blurry photos, only dig to the surface (literally for some of their "evidence"), and tend to forget that it wasn't just jet fuel burning but also a massive raging office fire. It's no different than insisting Grissom Air Force Reserve Base is in reality a FEMA death camp where we're all going to rounded up into and executed, and some of their "evidence" is the high-rise barbed wires, observation towers, and bright lights, all of which is clearly visible as you drive past on US 31. And the thing is, all of that stuff is actually there, I've seen them most of my life, but they are there because there is a prison on base. But even though I can see the base lights at night from where I live, and having known a ton of people who have been there (for work and incarceration), and knowing a deal of the history about the place still isn't enough to make people who believe it's a death camp convinced it isn't.

 

[cambridge79]

Except those ideas are just as valid, just as credible, and equally proven false with no special training or training, just plain observation and basic reasoning. The moon landing and round Earth are easily proven with basic knowledge of video editing and lighting, and the 9/11 "truthers" use extremely blurry photos, only dig to the surface (literally for some of their "evidence"), and tend to forget that it wasn't just jet fuel burning but also a massive raging office fire. It's no different than insisting Grissom Air Force Reserve Base is in reality a FEMA death camp where we're all going to rounded up into and executed, and some of their "evidence" is the high-rise barbed wires, observation towers, and bright lights, all of which is clearly visible as you drive past on US 31. And the thing is, all of that stuff is actually there, I've seen them most of my life, but they are there because there is a prison on base. But even though I can see the base lights at night from where I live, and having known a ton of people who have been there (for work and incarceration), and knowing a deal of the history about the place still isn't enough to make people who believe it's a death camp convinced it isn't.

please refer to this

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...the-earth-is-flat.183419/page-20#post-4591847

to understand what i was saying.

 

[allfoak]

Brilliantly put together. I give it a level zero on the crazy meter.

 

[Curious George]

It means that nobody has the authority to command me to "know" or even "believe" in something I haven't experienced myself.

I can understand that, but isn't there cognitive dissonance with certain conceptions such as the flat earth. .specifically, satellites? If not, why not?

 

[allfoak]

I can understand that, but isn't there cognitive dissonance with certain conceptions such as the flat earth. .specifically, satellites? If not, why not?

Why isn't it possible for the earth to be flat and there be satellites as well?

 

[cambridge79]

Why isn't it possible for the earth to be flat and there be satellites as well?

here is a paper with a basic explanation of the math making it work

http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/cms_upload/Thompson07734.pdf

now feel free to convert such model to a flat model instead of a round model and see if the math still works

 

[Curious George]

Why isn't it possible for the earth to be flat and there be satellites as well?

Because of how satellites work. If the earth is not spherical we need some other mechanisms to keep them orbiting. So either satellites do not exist or there is another mechanism by which they orbit. If this is the "aetheral whirlpool" which no one has seen, why should we believe that as opposed to round earth. My point is that either way you must posit "unseen" phenomenon. But are the unseen phenomenon consistent with our other observations.

It is all good and well to take a "I need direct evidence" stance (meaning physically observed of a fact). However, eventually we get to beliefs for which we do not have direct evidence. In those situations we must use inference. For example, I hear a knocking at my door, I believe someone will be there when I open my door. There might be other possible reasons beyond a person. I could for instance posit the existence of some object trapped by the wind.

If after hours of pondering, I get up and examine my doorstep to find a package which could not have produced a knocking, the reason to posit the object trapped by the wind diminishes, because now I must posit a different mechanism for the delivery of the package alongside the mechanism for the knocking.

"But George," you say, "it is completely possible that those two phenomena were not connected."

Sure, it is possible. But as we continue down this curious path of flat earth we stumble upon more and more of these problems. Problems, mind you, that would be completely removed if we were to accept that the earth is spherical. Eventually, the reasoning becomes so tenuous that I cannot describe the argument, short of a Jim Carrey quote "so, your telling me there's a chance?"

It seems like discussing matrix theory of existence or something. Yes, I suppose it is possible that I am plugged into a computer which is simulating life experiences but why would I ever believe that?

For someone to believe flat earth, then they must have a reason. If that reason is that they have not seen the round earth then I would point out they have seen nothing that is inconsistent with round earth.

The question that then arises is which construct requires us to make endless excuses and rationalizations and which does not.

For this reason, I note that this discussion is fitting for religious analogy. Except, in religion we can have theists frame the discussion as though atheists are making excuses and rationalizations or we can have atheists frame the discussion such that it is theists who make excuses and rationalizations. In the debate of flat earth vs round earth, only the flat earth folk are making endless rationalizations and excuses.

From the flat earth perspective I can possibly see only the assertion of needing a 60° field of vision at x altitude to see the curvature of the earth as a rationalization. Beyond that I cannot see how their perspective is in anyway challenging to the concept that we live on a spherical earth.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Why isn't it possible for the earth to be flat and there be satellites as well?

How would you get them up there? The glass ceiling seems pretty impenetrable? Did NASA just manage to drill large enough holes to fit them through? What type of drill bit did they use to penetrate that material?

 

[ThirtyThree]

Except those ideas are just as valid, just as credible, and equally proven false with no special training or training, just plain observation and basic reasoning. The moon landing and round Earth are easily proven with basic knowledge of video editing and lighting, and the 9/11 "truthers" use extremely blurry photos, only dig to the surface (literally for some of their "evidence"), and tend to forget that it wasn't just jet fuel burning but also a massive raging office fire. It's no different than insisting Grissom Air Force Reserve Base is in reality a FEMA death camp where we're all going to rounded up into and executed, and some of their "evidence" is the high-rise barbed wires, observation towers, and bright lights, all of which is clearly visible as you drive past on US 31. And the thing is, all of that stuff is actually there, I've seen them most of my life, but they are there because there is a prison on base. But even though I can see the base lights at night from where I live, and having known a ton of people who have been there (for work and incarceration), and knowing a deal of the history about the place still isn't enough to make people who believe it's a death camp convinced it isn't.

Well written. That is the point I tend to make also, that the photos and video is too blurry to really show what happened.

 

[buddhist]

... I would point out they have seen nothing that is inconsistent with round earth.

This was my personal experience which is inconsistent with a spherical earth.

 

[cambridge79]

This was my personal experience which is inconsistent with a spherical earth.

so you jump full speed on the flat earth nonsense just because you can't grasp the effects of atmospheric refractions?

http://www.livescience.com/32111-how-far-away-is-the-horizon.html

it's like me saying that "objects must have their own will, otherwise they wouldn't be able to move" simply because i can't grasp the concept of gravity.
or "i'm too lazy to understand aerodynamic laws, i'll just pretend that planes fly because people on the ground are praying for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wave from a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation in air density as a function ofaltitude. This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the index of refraction increases) with increased density. Atmospheric refraction near the ground producesmirages and can make distant objects appear to shimmer or ripple, elevated or lowered, stretched or shortened with no mirage involved. The term also applies to the refraction of sound. Atmospheric refraction is considered in measuring the position of both astronomical and terrestrial objects

as the diagram shows you, you can see things you wouldn't be able to see ( like the sun under the horizon ) if you only apply your geometric model because there are things involved to consider other than the pure geometry here.

now the question is: are you gonna aknowledge your total ignorance and lack of understanding on the subject or once again, like for the Focault pendulum and the GPS, you will reject reality because it doesn't fit in the fantasy you built up for yourself?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

please refer to this

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...the-earth-is-flat.183419/page-20#post-4591847

to understand what i was saying.

Yes, and I was saying they are equally bad. If the lunar landing was faked, it would have been discovered, and that being revealed would have been a bigger blow than having the Apollo crew blow up like the Challenger. "Truthers" use the most dubious "evidence," photos that are so blurry you can't honestly say you see a tower if you were looking at just a single cell and not told what it is, and they fail to realize that there is plenty of evidence, from AL-Qaeda, that proves they did it and it was not a cover up/insider job as claimed. And I threw in my favorite "cockoo" situation, the FEMA death camps, because I live just a few miles from an alleged death camp. With the shape of the Earth, knowledge in geometry, relativity, and even an understanding of lighting prove the shape of the Earth. Even the fact that we have the aurora borealis suggests we have a spherical planet (not a perfect circle round but close enough) because the aurora is a reaction from the magnetic field, and at the center of that magnetic field sits a core of iron.
Everything we see in regards to the Cosmos literally points towards a round planet.

 

[Curious George]

This was my personal experience which is inconsistent with a spherical earth.

how large was the lake? How are you certain that what you saw is inconsistent?