The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: MyHeadisasFlatastheEarth on March 16, 2018, 01:40:03 AM
-
Hi there,
I am currently researching the Flat Earth Society for my school in the subject Applied Philosophy. I was hoping to get an insight into the people who believe in the Flat Earth Theory as well as those who believe in the Round Earth Theory on their stories that relate to the Flat Earth Society. I hope we can have a great and civilised discussion within the forum.
Cheers, Toby
-
If nobody replies with a direct answer, I recommend just reading through several topics. You'll get the idea.
-
If you actually ask a question, I'll try to answer it.
-
If you actually ask a question, I'll try to answer it.
How did you become a Flat Earther?
-
If you actually ask a question, I'll try to answer it.
How did you become a Flat Earther?
I came to the flat earth society forum (the other website) because I thought the idea of a flat earth is absolutely ridiculous and I wanted to find out why people would have such ideas. However, I soon found that people like Tom Bishop and Thork easily debunked the arguments I had for a round earth. Wanting to prove them wrong I delved deeper into the FE theory, and the more I read about it and looked at the evidence at hand, the less convinced I became of a flat earth.
-
Tom Bishop and Thork easily debunked the arguments I had for a round earth.
Did they?
Have to say they hasn't my experience, do you have some example threads where they did that?
-
That was seven years ago, I'm not going to go back and check when enlightenment hit me exactly. You are free to pour through my post history.
-
How did you become a Flat Earther?
I believe God brought about circumstances that moved my life in a direction that led to discovering FET, I was already Geocentric as I could not reconcile the scripture record with the Heliocentric model. Then after watching a show on Antartica on youtube, I read "the earth is flat" in the comment section and I realised that the cosmology was much closer to the Biblical narrative so I rang up my Minister and told him I now reject Copernicanism and that move had me swiftly silenced and eventually ejected from the church.
-
How did you become a Flat Earther?
I believe God brought about circumstances that moved my life in a direction that led to discovering FET, I was already Geocentric as I could not reconcile the scripture record with the Heliocentric model. Then after watching a show on Antartica on youtube, I read "the earth is flat" in the comment section and I realised that the cosmology was much closer to the Biblical narrative so I rang up my Minister and told him I now reject Copernicanism and that move had me swiftly silenced and eventually ejected from the church.
Do you still believe that the flat earth lines up better with the Biblical narrative despite your (former) church, minister included, disagreeing? Why do you think they disagree?
-
Why do you think they disagree?
I believe its because they respect the opinions of men more than the truths of Gods word.
At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
-
I realised that the cosmology was much closer to the Biblical narrative so I rang up my Minister and told him I now reject Copernicanism and that move had me swiftly silenced and eventually ejected from the church.
Seriously?
Wow.
That minister sucks.
As you know, I don't agree with your interpretation of Scripture. But what kind of minister ejects someone from a church for something like this?
I hope you found a better church.
-
That was seven years ago, I'm not going to go back and check when enlightenment hit me exactly. You are free to pour through my post history.
I checked, nothing stood out to me. You went from being against FET, to posting one word responses to RET questions ("Yes"), to linking new comers to the FES wiki. Whatever enlightenment occurred it wasn't publicly available in your post history.
What I can gather though is that it had something to do with physics and light bending. Your first pronounced FET post was challenging someone to argue physics with Bishop and Thork. I'm really interested in why that suddenly changed your view point when not long before that you were basically saying the same thing every RE proponent has brought up here, with nothing proving those points invalid.
-
When I first heard about the Flat Earth Society I thought that the concept of a Flat Earth was incredibly amusing. I was lost in wonder and driven by humor to see what they had to say. After observing a few people on the forums questioning generally accepted science, against a collective of science literate students and professionals who were unable to really show why the science was true, no matter how much they googled, I realized that the basics of science can be questioned and scrutinized. It is not as set in stone as we were taught. It was an enlightening moment.
After that I ordered a copy of Earth Not a Globe, immediately read it cover to cover, and became fascinated with Samuel Birley Rowbotham's ability and courage to question the unquestionable. Even in the mid 1800's the shape of the earth was taught to be a certainty.
I began arguing against the globe on the forums, and, over time, generally came to the conclusion that an alternative earth form, even if it doesn't reflect the standard FET model, is possible. It is difficult to debunk the idea that the earth is not a globe, or to demonstrate that the earth is a globe. And because it is so difficult, it has only encouraged me to discover what the truth actually is.
-
... I ordered a copy of Earth Not a Globe, immediately read it cover to cover, and became fascinated with Samuel Birley Rowbotham's ability and courage to question the unquestionable. Even in the mid 1800's the shape of the earth was taught to be a certainty.
But wouldn't you agree that humankind has moved on since then, in a host of different ways, one of which is - Orbital Space Flight ....?
Do you really think if Rowbotham were alive today, he would repeat what he did in the 1800s?
I began arguing against the globe on the forums, and, over time, generally came to the conclusion that an alternative earth form, even if it doesn't reflect the standard FET model, is possible. It is difficult to debunk the idea that the earth is not a globe, or to demonstrate that the earth is a globe. And because it is so difficult, it has only encouraged me to discover what the truth actually is.
None of this paragraph indicates any real certainty on your part. You 'argue against' but do not prove. You 'come to a conclusion', but don't show a proof.
Why is it 'difficult' for you to 'demonstrate that the earth is a globe'? Humankind has orbited it multiple times, manned and unmanned. We've photographed it from various viewpoints, also manned and unmanned. Independent agencies monitor the manned and unmanned craft on a daily basis. etc etc
-
I realized that the basics of science can be questioned and scrutinized. It is not as set in stone as we were taught.
I wasn't taught that. Scientific ideas should always be open to testing and scrutiny.
The scientific method is about proposing a model which explains observations and conducting experiments to test that model.
The reason that the heliocentric model and a globe earth became the standard is because it passed all the tests.
Your model, with respect, does not. It doesn't in any way match observations.
And in order to test and challenge scientific ideas you have to understand them, and you repeatedly show on here that you don't, despite claiming to.
-
The reason that the heliocentric model and a globe earth became the standard is because it passed all the tests.
Really?
Michelson - Morley Null Result
Airy's Failure.
Sagnac Experiment.
When an experiment fails in the Heliocentric model then its time to hit the blackboard.
-
The reason that the heliocentric model and a globe earth became the standard is because it passed all the tests.
Really?
Michelson - Morley Null Result
Airy's Failure.
Sagnac Experiment.
When an experiment fails in the Heliocentric model then its time to hit the blackboard.
Yet again, please explain measured distances and the angle of the sun.
-
The reason that the heliocentric model and a globe earth became the standard is because it passed all the tests.
Really?
Michelson - Morley Null Result
Airy's Failure.
Sagnac Experiment.
When an experiment fails in the Heliocentric model then its time to hit the blackboard.
50+ years of orbital space flight - success.
-
I realized that the basics of science can be questioned and scrutinized. It is not as set in stone as we were taught.
I wasn't taught that. Scientific ideas should always be open to testing and scrutiny.
The scientific method is about proposing a model which explains observations and conducting experiments to test that model.
The reason that the heliocentric model and a globe earth became the standard is because it passed all the tests.
Your model, with respect, does not. It doesn't in any way match observations.
And in order to test and challenge scientific ideas you have to understand them, and you repeatedly show on here that you don't, despite claiming to.
and Tom cannot explain how he would test the size and shape of the earth.
-
The reason that the heliocentric model and a globe earth became the standard is because it passed all the tests.
Really?
Michelson - Morley Null Result
Airy's Failure.
Sagnac Experiment.
When an experiment fails in the Heliocentric model then its time to hit the blackboard.
I had to Google a couple of those but it seems all of them were experiments designed to test the aether theory.
It was partly the Michelson - Morley result which showed the aether theory to be incorrect and Relativity made more sense of the result.
This is how science works.
I'm not clear how you think any of those experiments show that the idea of a globe earth may be wrong.
-
I'm not clear how you think any of those experiments show that the idea of a globe earth may be wrong.
Thanks AATW :)
The experiments also prove that the earth is stationary, this is consistent with the many scriptures which state in no uncertain terms that the world is fixed and immovable. We are not living on a sphere flying through endless space. There is an up (heaven) and there is a down (hell) Heliocentricity is a neat way of denying God through nihilistic abstraction.
-
I'm not clear how you think any of those experiments show that the idea of a globe earth may be wrong.
Thanks AATW :)
The experiments also prove that the earth is stationary, this is consistent with the many scriptures which state in no uncertain terms that the world is fixed and immovable. We are not living on a sphere flying through endless space. There is an up (heaven) and there is a down (hell) Heliocentricity is a neat way of denying God through nihilistic abstraction.
We are clearly living on a sphere as all measurements and observations show.
-
We are clearly living on a sphere as all measurements and observations show.
In a Geocentric motionless globe earth model, Hell is elevated to the centre of God's known universe.
Not an option for a Biblical Christian worldview, which shows a clear distinction between Heaven and Hell.
Also, as I already stated, observations and experiments have proved stationary earth.
-
The experiments also prove that the earth is stationary, this is consistent with the many scriptures which state in no uncertain terms that the world is fixed and immovable. We are not living on a sphere flying through endless space. There is an up (heaven) and there is a down (hell) Heliocentricity is a neat way of denying God through nihilistic abstraction.
No, those experiments do not prove the Earth is stationary.
I'm sorry that a sphere flying through space is more than you can believe, but you (and the tiny minority of Christians that believe in FEH) are wrong. It has been proven beyond any doubt. At this point you're just lying to yourself. Ask yourself this - is believing in FEH relevant to salvation? If you're allowing it to come between you and fellowship with others, maybe it isn't really all that important? I know you've been as to leave churches over this. Seems to not be worth it, to me.
-
I'm sorry that a sphere flying through space is more than you can believe
And I'm sorry I just don't have enough faith to believe in your science fiction which you treat as fact.
-
I'm sorry that a sphere flying through space is more than you can believe
And I'm sorry I just don't have enough faith to believe in your science fiction which you treat as fact.
And the source of yours is tested?
-
The experiments also prove that the earth is stationary
No, they don't. The experiments were based on the idea that light has to move through a medium, this was called the "aether" and these experiments were designed to test that.
It was the results of these experiments which led to the theory of the aether being rejected. That is how science works.
And the Mickleson-Morley result was later explained by Relativity which showed that the speed of light is absolute.
There is plenty of proof that we live on a spinning globe - The Coriolis effect and Foucault pendulums to name just two.
This is where you really need to do a bit of research on Confirmation Bias. It's something we are all prone to but I see a lot of it on here and your post is an example of it.
this is consistent with the many scriptures which state in no uncertain terms that the world is fixed and immovable. We are not living on a sphere flying through endless space.
You know, I actually agree that Scripture can be read this way. And were we having this conversation a few hundred years ago I might well agree with your interpretation.
But we're not, so I don't. Our understanding of the world has moved on. So either
1) All modern science is wrong and you're right.
2) Our understanding of Scripture has to change.
I choose 2. As does most of the modern church. As I've said I've never been in a church which teaches a flat earth, you say you were thrown out of a church for your beliefs about it.
I do think the minister acted in a very unchristian way but it does rather demonstrate you are somewhat isolated in this interpretation, what makes you think you know better that most Christians?
I don't understand why you think this is so important. Why do you think that Scripture should be read literally and treated like a scientific text?
Do you actually think the important message in Scripture is the shape and age of the earth?
For me there are deeper, more important truths.
Genesis tells me I am a creation, it tells me who I was created by and what I was created for.
It tells me about our rebellion and the consequences of it which created the need for us to be redeemed.
The rest of the Bible is basically the rescue plan which culminates in the events of Easter.
These are the deeper truths. Compared to that why does the age or shape of the earth matter?
-
1) All modern science is wrong and you're right.
2) Our understanding of Scripture has to change.
1) God's word is truth, and believing in FET doesn't rule out all of modern science.
2) I agree, we should look at the scriptures as being truth.
I may have asked you this before, but in your opinion, what is the approximate age of the earth?
-
I'm sorry that a sphere flying through space is more than you can believe
And I'm sorry I just don't have enough faith to believe in your science fiction which you treat as fact.
Oh no, I don't believe in science fiction. I believe in verifiable science fact that can be reproduced and tested. Do you not see the irony in posting a message implying science is fake from a device that required centuries of scientific discoveries to be built.
-
1) All modern science is wrong and you're right.
2) Our understanding of Scripture has to change.
1) God's word is truth, and believing in FET doesn't rule out all of modern science.
2) I agree, we should look at the scriptures as being truth.
I may have asked you this before, but in your opinion, what is the approximate age of the earth?
God's word IS the truth but as I've said I don't believe it should be regarded as an accurate scientific text. As I said there are deeper, more important truths. And while not ALL modern science is concerned with the shape or age of the earth or a heliocentric model, enough of it is to make it hard to just dismiss. That being so, modern science is indicating that the earth is billions of years old. There is very good evidence that it is not thousands of years old. Again, I don't believe Genesis is to be read like a scientific text, it contains deeper truths than that.
I don't believe the message of the Bible, best summed up by John 3:16, changes one bit if the earth is older than young earth creationists suppose.