Flat Earth?

psalms 91 said:

I keep seeing people who really believe in this flat earth and no amount of proof can convince them otherwise. Everything is fake or a conspricy. Makes me wonder about the sanity of these people. I could go on but suffice it to say that I think they are a couple fries short of a happy meal. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Some intelligent people fall for conspiracy theories. The theories are insane but the believers can be sane if a little bit odd.

One thing with a lot of conspiracy theories is that they do match some elements of truth to some observations, so there's always something about them that connects. They usually fall down because they don't match the rest of reality.

An analogy I found on another board and liked relates to medical treatment. If you have a headache it might mean you are dehydrated, it might mean you've been exposed to loud noises or paint fumes, it might be due to drinking too much red wine the night before, it might mean you have a brain tumor, and it might mean anything in between. The same symptom could be indicative of multiple underlying causes. Most people would figure a headache means they need to drink more water, or stay out of the sun, or use a respirator when painting if they had been doing that. Most people wouldn't immediately assume a headache means they have a brain tumor. If they take an aspirin and lie down and the headache doesn't go away, and they have recurring headaches that last several days, then it would be more reasonable to be concerned it was something more than temporary dehydration and get it checked out. The doctor will look for other symptoms before concluding that a headache is caused by a tumor and expect to tick a lot of boxes. The conspiracy theories often involve some form of faulty twisting of logic - noting that one symptom of a brain tumor is a headache and therefore flipping it around and concluding a headache is indicative of a tumor.

I believe in a global conspiracy as spoken of in revelations so its good to stay on guard. Its a conspiracy that cannot point to a certain group but is a "goal" to amend by many groups, hence a "conspiracy".
When nazism was at its core none of the contributors where even aware that they were involved, ie the train conductor who took the jews to their grave, he had no clue just thought he was going about his daily business and dropped them off.
The devil conspires and is very smart/good at it! So good that its impossible to file a legit claim against any group in particular because there is just so much involvement.
As for flat earthers, I was for a while open to the idea but there are so many fail proof ways of observing a round Earth -regardless if you believe NASA is "pulling our leg".

Don't believe for a second that a world wide "conspiracy" is not possible, the devil conspires with his followers -its biblical prophecy, we are reminded that God produces good works in us thus we are not of this global satanic agenda.

psalms 91 said:

I keep seeing people who really believe in this flat earth and no amount of proof can convince them otherwise. Everything is fake or a conspricy. Makes me wonder about the sanity of these people. I could go on but suffice it to say that I think they are a couple fries short of a happy meal. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Although it has always been around, Flat earth theory got a major injection into the internet a few years ago (2015 if not a year or so before) by a man named Eric Dubay. Since then I have seen believers grow and many now are open about their beliefs on facebook, even sporting avatars that depict the classic model.

While they have many sound arguments which extend beyond the flatness of the earth (for instance, the distance of the moon, sun and stars, the fact that we cannot simply see those kinds of distances, the way light and shadows work, obvious forgeries by NASA and a better explanation for why objects sink, rise or stay the same in a given medium than simply gravity to name but a few) -

The weak point in their presentation is the circular map. It is clearly incorrect on many levels (major faults, such as too long distances between continents, how stars trail in the southern hemisphere, the sun's path when viewed in winter months (southern hemisphere's summer) is completely contradictory to their map. I've found the explanations for these faults laughable and absurd, but alas it has become a bit of a cult. Their flat circular map is just flat wrong. That being said, this does not prove globe earth, it only gives globe believers something to laugh at (and rightly so).

About missing some fries in a happy meal:

If you weren't surrounded by Christians (like on this website or in your personal life), but had to witness to a bunch of savages who knew nothing of your religion, would you feel comfortable dogmatically stating you believed that reptiles and donkey's talked and men could walk on water? Everyone would laugh at you for believing things they consider absurdities. Would you have the strength to stand by your convictions if you had to live with the group, or would you simply cave because your position needs approval from men?

The bible states that the sun moves and stands still (which is in agreement with flat earth theory). Christians who laugh and mock while at the same time stating the bible is the Word of God should maybe humble themselves for clearly talking out of both sides of their mouth and expecting their position to be believed.

SilkenBast said:

Although it has always been around, Flat earth theory got a major injection into the internet a few years ago (2015 if not a year or so before) by a man named Eric Dubay. Since then I have seen believers grow and many now are open about their beliefs on facebook, even sporting avatars that depict the classic model.

While they have many sound arguments which extend beyond the flatness of the earth (for instance, the distance of the moon, sun and stars, the fact that we cannot simply see those kinds of distances, the way light and shadows work, obvious forgeries by NASA and a better explanation for why objects sink, rise or stay the same in a given medium than simply gravity to name but a few) -

The weak point in their presentation is the circular map. It is clearly incorrect on many levels (major faults, such as too long distances between continents, how stars trail in the southern hemisphere, the sun's path when viewed in winter months (southern hemisphere's summer) is completely contradictory to their map. I've found the explanations for these faults laughable and absurd, but alas it has become a bit of a cult. Their flat circular map is just flat wrong. That being said, this does not prove globe earth, it only gives globe believers something to laugh at (and rightly so).

About missing some fries in a happy meal:

If you weren't surrounded by Christians (like on this website or in your personal life), but had to witness to a bunch of savages who knew nothing of your religion, would you feel comfortable dogmatically stating you believed that reptiles and donkey's talked and men could walk on water? Everyone would laugh at you for believing things they consider absurdities. Would you have the strength to stand by your convictions if you had to live with the group, or would you simply cave because your position needs approval from men?

The bible states that the sun moves and stands still (which is in agreement with flat earth theory). Christians who laugh and mock while at the same time stating the bible is the Word of God should maybe humble themselves for clearly talking out of both sides of their mouth and expecting their position to be believed.

Click to expand...

You seem familiar?

The trouble with a lot of what is called proof is that it invariably comes from a third party and the question ceases to be one of proof but whether the third party is trustworthy.

For those that believe in a flat earth the very existence of an agency like NASA is a farce and therefore it should surprise nobody to think that an agency whose very existence is fraudulent would seek to perpetuate the fraud. After all if the only purpose of NASA is to soak up a chunk of the national budget, ostensibly for space exploration but really for some black-budget operation, we should hardly be surprised at NASA being less than forthcoming about not doing anything they allegedly do, and instead coming up with images that provide "proof" of what our tax dollars are funding.

A line I sometimes used when dealing with people who refused to believe in Christianity because they had yet to witness something specific with their own eyes, was to refuse to believe that the state of Nevada exists. You know, there are some deluded people who claim to have been there and some crackpots even claim to live there but I don't believe there's any land west of the Mississippi. I haven't seen it, I've never been there, so I don't believe it exists. And of course if you put me in a plane and flew me to Nevada I'd just claim that you'd taken me to some part of Kentucky I'd never seen before and told me it was Nevada.

SilkenBast said:

Although it has always been around, Flat earth theory got a major injection into the internet a few years ago (2015 if not a year or so before) by a man named Eric Dubay. Since then I have seen believers grow and many now are open about their beliefs on facebook, even sporting avatars that depict the classic model.

While they have many sound arguments which extend beyond the flatness of the earth (for instance, the distance of the moon, sun and stars, the fact that we cannot simply see those kinds of distances, the way light and shadows work, obvious forgeries by NASA and a better explanation for why objects sink, rise or stay the same in a given medium than simply gravity to name but a few) -

The weak point in their presentation is the circular map. It is clearly incorrect on many levels (major faults, such as too long distances between continents, how stars trail in the southern hemisphere, the sun's path when viewed in winter months (southern hemisphere's summer) is completely contradictory to their map. I've found the explanations for these faults laughable and absurd, but alas it has become a bit of a cult. Their flat circular map is just flat wrong. That being said, this does not prove globe earth, it only gives globe believers something to laugh at (and rightly so).

About missing some fries in a happy meal:

If you weren't surrounded by Christians (like on this website or in your personal life), but had to witness to a bunch of savages who knew nothing of your religion, would you feel comfortable dogmatically stating you believed that reptiles and donkey's talked and men could walk on water? Everyone would laugh at you for believing things they consider absurdities. Would you have the strength to stand by your convictions if you had to live with the group, or would you simply cave because your position needs approval from men?

The bible states that the sun moves and stands still (which is in agreement with flat earth theory). Christians who laugh and mock while at the same time stating the bible is the Word of God should maybe humble themselves for clearly talking out of both sides of their mouth and expecting their position to be believed.

Click to expand...

Why does the moon appear upside down in Australia but in the Northern hemisphere upright? Also the stars and constellations as well, if we were on a flat body wouldn't we all witness the same side upright?
Australia is a the southern hemisphere but according the flat Earth theory there is no southern hemisphere when compared to the round earth model, we should all see the same side of the moon upright...
Are not the Australians upside down and that confirms their moon upside down?

DHoffmann said:

Why does the moon appear upside down in Australia but in the Northern hemisphere upright? Also the stars and constellations as well, if we were on a flat body wouldn't we all witness the same side upright?
Australia is a the southern hemisphere but according the flat Earth theory there is no southern hemisphere when compared to the round earth model, we should all see the same side of the moon upright...
Are not the Australians upside down and that confirms their moon upside down?

Click to expand...

Take a real life example and see if that assumption holds up.

You are standing at the North end of a square room with a flat ceiling and a flat floor. On the ceiling is a single painting of a human standing up, feet closest to you, head farthest. That is, the feet of the painting are closer to your end of the room, and the head is further away from your vantage point, to the south of you.

A person on the polar opposite end of the room, the south side, is looking at the same painting. Although to them, the image is flipped. The head is closest to them on the south side, and they must follow along the ceiling northward with their eyes to see the feet of the painted figure.

At any point in this simple observation is it necessary for either person to assume they are on opposite sides of a giant ball, instead of on a flat floor?

Note that the example is to illustrate the simple concept of perspective from within a relatively small space where both people can see each other. The painting could be seen by anyone in the room, but as the earth is larger, the object (in this case the moon) can only be seen by someone who happens to be closer to it.

Flat earth theory includes the concept that the "ceiling", or firmament, moves. How it moves is up for debate (as I have noted the popular circular model is flawed in how the sun moves and also how the stars move depending on where you are at (southern or nothern hemi-plane).

The bible also states that the sun and moon move, and that the earth is stationary. As I said before, it takes quite a bit of cheek to say one believes the bible is the word of God, then also say in effect "well, er..not really..umm...it was written by primitive people with primitive notions of things...so it's sort of fibbing when it says this. We at space.com or Nasa have the real truth, don't you know...but I am sure that snakes and donkeys talk, and Jesus walked on water...because it says so right here see...". Anyone in said position really has no room to be talking about fries missing from happy meals, lol.

TurtleHare said:

You seem familiar?

Click to expand...

As familiar as any of the people participating in these threads who were arguing for the position that the earth is flat?

(google search) flat earth site:www.christianforums.com

There are plenty of Christians who believe this.

SilkenBast said:

As familiar as any of the people participating in these threads who were arguing for the position that the earth is flat?

(google search) flat earth site:www.christianforums.com

There are plenty of Christians who believe this.

Click to expand...

Nope, there's plenty more of similarities between you and this dude Stravinsk.

SilkenBast said:

As familiar as any of the people participating in these threads who were arguing for the position that the earth is flat?

(google search) flat earth site:www.christianforums.com

There are plenty of Christians who believe this.

Click to expand...

This is the guy they are talking about on the same topic, to me every Flat Earther has the same mannerism and argument (respectfully) but you seem to have a broader vocabulary compared to him.
http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?t=3071

SilkenBast said:

Take a real life example and see if that assumption holds up.

You are standing at the North end of a square room with a flat ceiling and a flat floor. On the ceiling is a single painting of a human standing up, feet closest to you, head farthest. That is, the feet of the painting are closer to your end of the room, and the head is further away from your vantage point, to the south of you.

A person on the polar opposite end of the room, the south side, is looking at the same painting. Although to them, the image is flipped. The head is closest to them on the south side, and they must follow along the ceiling northward with their eyes to see the feet of the painted figure.

At any point in this simple observation is it necessary for either person to assume they are on opposite sides of a giant ball, instead of on a flat floor?

Note that the example is to illustrate the simple concept of perspective from within a relatively small space where both people can see each other. The painting could be seen by anyone in the room, but as the earth is larger, the object (in this case the moon) can only be seen by someone who happens to be closer to it.

Flat earth theory includes the concept that the "ceiling", or firmament, moves. How it moves is up for debate (as I have noted the popular circular model is flawed in how the sun moves and also how the stars move depending on where you are at (southern or nothern hemi-plane).

The bible also states that the sun and moon move, and that the earth is stationary. As I said before, it takes quite a bit of cheek to say one believes the bible is the word of God, then also say in effect "well, er..not really..umm...it was written by primitive people with primitive notions of things...so it's sort of fibbing when it says this. We at space.com or Nasa have the real truth, don't you know...but I am sure that snakes and donkeys talk, and Jesus walked on water...because it says so right here see...". Anyone in said position really has no room to be talking about fries missing from happy meals, lol.

Click to expand...

I get what you are saying but here is a video of the illustration I am trying to convey.
https://youtu.be/NGZEXkSX9wI

Btw, if the Sun and moon are a lot dimmer while closer to us as Flat Earthers propose and lights withdraw/recedes as they pass over the individual, then what of the stars and constellations? Now lets say you are right (whatever your answer is) and tell me why polaris never moves and shouldn't it be viewable by all even if its fixed?

DHoffmann said:

Btw, if the Sun and moon are a lot dimmer while closer to us as Flat Earthers propose and lights withdraw/recedes as they pass over the individual, then what of the stars and constellations? Now lets say you are right (whatever your answer is) and tell me why polaris never moves and shouldn't it be viewable by all even if its fixed?

Click to expand...

Regarding the video, I've seen it, but it's not something I want to go through point by point at this time. Suffice to say that I think it is erroneous to come to a conclusion about the levelness or the curvature of the ground you stand on just by what can be seen above from a certain vantage point.

In the previous example I gave it is likewise erroneous. If the room with the flat ceiling and floor were much much bigger, then someone standing closer to the painting on the ceiling would be able to see it, and the person much further away, would not. These observations don't tell the observers anything about the ground below them, curved or flat.

However, there are certain instruments that do. Like gyroscopes. If a plane travels halfway across the world, and they are flying straight, then apart from ascent and descent the plane's gyroscope is going to remain level. There is no special electronics in it to account for gravity, the supposed curve or anything else. It is a simple tool that tells the pilot whether or not they are flying level.

Flying halfway across the world means covering a lot of curve. A level gyroscope on which the pilot depends is going to mean that a steady gain in altitude would constantly have to be addressed.

Simple logic. Simply fact.

SilkenBast said:

Regarding the video, I've seen it, but it's not something I want to go through point by point at this time. Suffice to say that I think it is erroneous to come to a conclusion about the levelness or the curvature of the ground you stand on just by what can be seen above from a certain vantage point.

In the previous example I gave it is likewise erroneous. If the room with the flat ceiling and floor were much much bigger, then someone standing closer to the painting on the ceiling would be able to see it, and the person much further away, would not. These observations don't tell the observers anything about the ground below them, curved or flat.

However, there are certain instruments that do. Like gyroscopes. If a plane travels halfway across the world, and they are flying straight, then apart from ascent and descent the plane's gyroscope is going to remain level. There is no special electronics in it to account for gravity, the supposed curve or anything else. It is a simple tool that tells the pilot whether or not they are flying level.

Flying halfway across the world means covering a lot of curve. A level gyroscope on which the pilot depends is going to mean that a steady gain in altitude would constantly have to be addressed.

Simple logic. Simply fact.

Click to expand...

I took X ray class before so I can see why Flat Earth vs Round Earth is spreading.
You can get the same result two different ways, if the sun is dimmer but closer or brighter far away both scales will fit.
It's been a decade ago but we had to learn to tweak exposure time and adjust the ratio and get the perfect contrast for a perfect x ray photo and there were two ways to perform this but the important thing was to have as less exposure time as possible...
Without proof that the Earth is round then we can say yes its flat, but come on man, there was a space race to the moon and it was a big deal, even the Russians don't deny it and they started the program.
For it to be all a lie will take a lot of support and it all comes down to trust regardless of what model you use, 2 ways remember?
How do you make a flat map of a 3d model? Its impossible without distorting it a little, this is why the UN made a convenient logo of the round earth on a 2 dimensional map, so you can see all the continents, and how did they make a 3d image into 2d? They made adjustments, a huge adjustment, putting the continent Antarctica lining the edge.
Trust is the issue here and I can't tell you what to believe, but what if you are right then I guess we will find out soon enough right? It's not like NASA will go bankrupt anytime soon. As long as you are grounded on this Earth you can not say its flat or round, if you are an astronaut I guess you would know what is truth or not, and we can take their word for it or not, it's your right.
As I mentioned in another thread, the bible never says the world is flat nor does it say its round. immovable just means it is fixed and firm and today we call that 'calm' the effects of gravity and atmosphere.
We can exchange ratio math all we want to fit are own theories into how we wish while we are 'grounded' like I said but you may still be ultimately wrong in the end, heck I never seen the pyramids of giza but that doesn't mean it's not there, aren't I relying on others to believe such a thing? They say its a bunch of 2 ton blocks stacked on top of each other, sounds crazy but I am pretty sure it exist without ever seeing it for myself.
Again, "trust" is the issue not equations or math flipping, trust is all we can use to support the round Earth or lack of trust to deny it.

Also, what happens when we switch back to flat earth and then centuries down the line a group starts gathering a "Round Earth Society"? This could go on forever, so let NASA prove you wrong so we can settle it, they plan on sending humans to mars in the next decade and to the moon as well so let's see. I relate with you I really do, if God knocked on my door and said to me "Now don't lie to me, but is the Earth truly round or truly flat?" I would answer "no I dont want to lie to you God so I honestly do not know"

Over the last while I have been pondering a phenomenon that has actually been going for a very long time. I am referring to Denialists and Conspiracy Theorists. While they might seem to be different behaviours, I think they have a commonality in the sort of mind that subscribes to them. What also struck me as curious is the number of them that are centered around science, technology and medicine. Let me list a few.

>> the link between tobacco and cancer, particularly lung cancer

>> the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay

>> the role of chlorofluorinated hydrocarbons in the deterioration of the ozone layer

>> the build up of DDT in the food chain and its effect on both reproduction success in birds and human health.

>> the link between HIV and AIDS

>> the role of vaccination in causing other health issues

>> the historicity of the moon landings

>>UFOs and aliens

>>flat earth

>> chemtrails

>> the human role in CO2 production and climate change

This is hardly an exhaustive list and it is easy to also point out others that have very little, if any, linkage to science, technology or medicine. For example, the historicity of the Holocaust, of the Twin Towers, of the assassination of President Kennedy and of both President Obama's birth place and religion.

What most puzzles me most is the state of mind of both those who advocate these theories and those who so readily subscribe to them. I will throw out a few random thoughts here in the hope that they will generate some discussion.

>> fear and powerlessness --- people feel overwhelmed by events that are beyond their control and require a scapegoat on which to pin their frustration and their anger.

>> fear and ignorance --- people are frightened by their own lack of understanding of the concepts and issues involved and suggest that 'the intellectuals' are trying to put one over on them.

>> the 'little guy syndrome' --- people fear big organizations, big government in particular, and feel the need to lash out at them by suggesting that the little guy is being somehow exploited.

>>contrarianism --- some people love to be different just for the sake of it

>>special knowledge syndrome --- a form of elitism where people like to feel they have some special or secret knowledge that makes them feel smarter and/or better informed than the rest, even if it doesn't have much practical application.

>> religion and political ideologies --- in at least a few cases the culprit is viewed as challenging religious and/or political beliefs.

To illustrate this last point we could look at two examples.

Political --- the fluoridation of water supplies to prevent tooth decay was opposed as a tactic by communists to poison the whole nation. This was particularly effective in the days of the 'red menace' but has a modern counterpart in the paranoia surrounding international terrorism.

Religious --- new technologies are viewed as challenging religious understandings. This goes back a long way in history. Two hundred years ago Timothy Dwight, Presbyterian minister and president of Yale University wrote “If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.” Today we see an echo of that religious fear in the debate surrounding stem cell research.

My final observation is that it seems to me that denialists, conspiracy theorists, and biblical fundamentalists / creationists are often the same people.

SilkenBast said:

As familiar as any of the people participating in these threads who were arguing for the position that the earth is flat?

(google search) flat earth site:www.christianforums.com

There are plenty of Christians who believe this.

Click to expand...

You aren't Christian and not sure why you put that forum up there unless you're from that site?

JRT said:

Religious --- new technologies are viewed as challenging religious understandings. This goes back a long way in history. Two hundred years ago Timothy Dwight, Presbyterian minister and president of Yale University wrote “If God had decreed from all eternity that a certain person should die of smallpox, it would be a frightful sin to avoid and annul that decree by the trick of vaccination.” Today we see an echo of that religious fear in the debate surrounding stem cell research.

Click to expand...

I can't help wonder what kind of lame god Timothy Dwight is talking about, if a decree made by that god from all eternity could be defeated because its creation figured out a vaccine. The logic is terrifyingly lame - you might as well not go to see the doctor at all because it would be such a sin to try and annul a divine decree that this was your time to die. What if it was a divine decree from all eternity that you should see the doctor and be healed, or that a technological advancement would save you from a horrible death?

.
Luke was a practitioner of modern medical healing, if would have been pro vaccine for small pox im sure