61

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 27, 2018, 02:21:16 AM »

This is a baloney assassination attempt. It's Rowbotham's chapter about what a Flat Earth might mean on a philophical and religious level, is obiously commentary, and nothing more.

I knew you would pick the may instead of the must. Ignoring the fact that this quote proves your previous messages wrong.

As someone already mentioned, your usual method is catastrophic here. It's Rowbotham's words you're denying, not an opponent's.

62

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 27, 2018, 01:10:43 AM »

Does this sound like someone who is a bible fanatic, who only wants to prove God or whatever? Would a priest say that? No. It sounds like someone who values empiricism and critical deduction beyond all else. You are reaching to find whatever it is you want want to find.

Yes, his book is about empirism. He wants to give an empirical and scientific credibility to the Bible. Because he wants Christianity to be considered factually and morally true. He wants his book to demonstrate it, once and for all, so that every other opinion can be considered wrong.

Rowbotham makes reference to both Christian and Jewish religions and its agreement with Flat Earth in that chapter. Sometimes he says Jewish first and sometimes he says Christian first, and seems to be conscious about it. Is Rowbotham both a Christian and a Jew? Is Rowbotham the religion that he references the most by number count? Are you asserting that Rowbotham thinks that the Christian and Jewish religions are factually correct and are the simultaneously the two true religions? You are not making any sense at all on your interpretation of motive. Your position does not make any sense because you are entirely wrong. All of this is a fantasy of yours.

Look, you are contradicting Rowbotham, not me. Yes he thinks that the Jewish and Christian scriptures are both true. You know very well this isn't contradictory because the Christian Bible includes the Jewish Bible. He embraces Christianity as the one true religion though. He declares it as a conclusion of his work: if the Bible can be demonstrated factually true, then it must also be philosophically and spiritually true, then the Christian god exists.

PLEASE show us an example of a religious radical who encourages his audience to criticize scripture. 

That's ridiculous, I'm not saying that a religious should criticize his own beliefs. I'm saying that this particular work referenced by all Flat Earthers is written to encourage people in believing the Scriptures. It isn't just a personal belief from the author without any consequence on his work. It is the central purpose and reason for the whole work, the whole theory. So much that he spent an entire chapter on explaining his motives in great details.

Could you react on this quote found in "Earth not a globe"?

"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."

You have said repeatedly that this book doesn't proclaim the truth of the Christian god, and this quote seems relevant.

63

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 27, 2018, 12:04:18 AM »

First off, in the quote he disclaims "respecting the material world," not all scripture.

Weird argument, your distinction makes no difference. We're discussing how he dismisses all science and scientists that may literaly contradict the Scriptures. Anything else, like the "immaterial" world I presume, bears no weight on science and knowledge, and certainly not on his dismissal of them.

Your distinction is also factually wrong. He does claim that the material truth of the Scriptures implies the truth of their moral and spiritual teachings, even their divine origin:

"The Christian will be greatly strengthened, and his mind more completely satisfied, by having it in his power to demonstrate that the Scriptures are philosophically true, than he could possibly be by the simple belief in their truthfulness unsupported by practical evidence."

"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."

This Christian religion as a grand reality is still a quote from "Earth not a globe".

Secondly, he says that it "will readily be seen," meaning that whole quote is about Rowbotham making a prediction.

It's not a prediction. At the end of the book, his work of proving the Scriptures right is considered definitely accomplished, and any future evidence against them should be considered definitely wrong.

"This has now been done. The process–the modus operandi and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in the early sections of this work; and, as these conclusions are found to be entirely consistent with the teachings of Scripture, we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true."

The purpose of the book cannot be more transparent.

64

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 09:56:32 PM »

I'm not "choosing" to believe this. You are, very visibly, inserting your own meaning into what is being said.

No, I'm not. I'm merely reading the book to you.

"Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated."

65

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 08:51:19 PM »

Rowbotham doesn't say anything about how anything contrary to scripture is necessarily wrong. He is asserting that Copernicus never legitimately overshadowed what came before.

Rowbotham says that every single statement in the Scriptures is literally true, which is equivalent to saying that anybody who thinks they're not is wrong.

He says that any irreligious scientist whose findings disagree with the Scriptures in a literal sense is unconditionnally wrong and should be excluded from science.

The goal of his work in "Earth not a globe" is to provide a definitive proof. He comes up with a theory to use as reference and to condemn, once and for all, all non-Christians to be wrong and unscientific.

All of this is in the book. Flat Earth is merely a tool to achieve this goal. You can choose to interpret it another way but it's Rowbotham's words. Hence my question about TFES denying contingency.

66

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 08:15:09 PM »

None of that reflects the statement that all beliefs contrary to scripture are wrong. Those are statements that Flat Earth shows that scripture was right about the world.

Nothing here, either. You seem to be posting random commentary which does nothing to support your argument.

I'm very satisfied that everybody can see your disingenuity.

67

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 08:08:41 PM »

Where does Earth Not a Globe say that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong? 

"Having detected the fundamental falsehoods of modern astronomy, and discovered that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and the only known material world, we are able to demonstrate the actual character of the universe. In doing this, we are enabled to prove that all the so-called arguments with which so many scientific but irreligious men have assailed the Sacred Scriptures are absolutely false--not doubtful or less plausible, but unconditionally false; that they have no foundation except in fallacious astronomical and geological theories; and, therefore, must fall to the ground as valueless. They can no longer be wielded by irreverent smatterers as weapons against religion. If used at all, it can only be that their weakness and utter worthlessness will be exposed. Atheism and every other form of infidelity are thus rendered helpless. Their sting is cut away and their poison dissipated. The irreligious philosopher can no longer obtrude his theories as things proved wherewith to test the teachings of Scripture. He must now himself be tested. He must be forced to demonstrate his premises, a thing which he has never yet attempted, and if he fails in this respect, his impious vanity, self-conceit, and utter disregard of truth and justice, will become so clearly apparent that his presence in the ranks of science will no longer be tolerated. All theories must be put aside, and the question at issue decided by independent practical evidence. This has now been done. The process--the modus operandi and the conclusions derived therefrom have been given in the early sections of this work; and, as these conclusions are found to be entirely consistent with the teachings of Scripture, we are compelled, by the sheer weight of evidence, by the force of practical demonstration and logical requirement, to declare emphatically that the Old and New Testaments of the Jewish and Christian Church are, in everything which appertains to the visible and material world, strictly and literally true. If, after the severest criticism, and comparison with known causes of phenomena, the Scriptures are thus found to be absolutely truthful in their literal expressions, it is simply just and wise that we take them as standards by which to test the truth or falsehood of all systems or teachings which may hereafter be presented to the world. Philosophy is no longer to be employed as a test of Scriptural truth, but the Scriptures ought and may with safety and satisfaction be applied as the test of all philosophy. They are not, however, to be used as a test of science and philosophy simply because they are thought or believed to be written or dictated by inspiration, but because their literal teachings in regard to natural phenomena are demonstrably true."

Why do you ask me to read the book for you, the one that is cited on the wiki and by all Flat Earthers?

68

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 07:26:47 PM »

Where does Rowbotham say that Flat Earth proves Christ?

He does not say that at all, and unlike Newton, never brings in God to explain anything.

He obviously doesn't say that Flat Earth proves Christ, that would be stupid. He says that his Flat Earth theory is made for Christians to reconcile their beliefs in the Scriptures with modern science. Including the belief in Christ and his Redemption. Many quotes have been cited in this thread already, that are taken directly from "Earth not a globe", stating that all beliefs contrary to the Scriptures are necessarily wrong. And Flat Earth is supposed to make things right. It's absolutely contingent with the theory.

69

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 07:16:44 PM »

"Before Christ," "After Christ"... have you never used the terms B.C. and A.D before?

Those are literally the only mentions of "Christ" at all, and it is in a context of talking about religious philosophy. Hardly a message of "this proves Christ!" as you depict in your OP.

Rowbotham does not say that at all. Your depiction of that is either a mistake or a lie, and I am leaning towards the later.

You're cherry picking because you obviously don't refer to the last one, where Rowbotham imagines what a universe with several planets implies for the Redemption of Christ - whether each planet had their own savior or if the death of our savior works for every other planet. Don't tell me that this isn't aimed at furthering the belief in Christ in the light of modern astronomy.

And I didn't even paste all the quotes regarding Christ, there are more. You could read the book before defending it. This is a major issue in your stance, and you resorting to name calling is an indication of it.

70

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 06:57:39 PM »

A lot of historical scientists were very much religious (it was cool back then), a religious link doesn't make a theory religious.

I'm well aware of that argument and I couldn't agree more. Some religious minds have massively contributed to science and we'd loose a lot by ignoring them.

However, there's a difference between citing a theory from a religious author, and citing a theory that is definitely religious as admitted and advertised by its author. This is the case of "Earth not a globe" and everything that followed.

71

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 06:51:47 PM »

"Christ" isn't mentioned at all. You are either mistaken, or a liar with other motives.

Have you even looked for the word "Christ" in the link you provided (the last chapter of Earth not a globe)? Because it appears numerous times.

The creation of the world, the origin of evil, and the fall of man; the plan of redemption .by the death of Christ, the Day of Judgment, and the final consummation of all things, are, in the Scriptures, invariably associated with this earth alone. A great number of passages might be quoted which prove that no other material world is ever, in the slightest manner, referred to by the inspired writers.

The same stultifying theory of astronomy, with its false and inconceivable distances and magnitudes, operates to destroy the ordinary common sense and Scripturally authorised chronology. Christian and Jewish commentators--except the astronomically educated--hold and teach, on Scriptural authority, that the earth as well as the sun, moon, and stars, were created about 4000 years before the birth of Christ, or less than 6000 years before the present time.

If it be true that the stars and planets are magnificent worlds, for the most part larger than the earth, it is a very proper question to ask "Are they inhabited?" If the answer be in the affirmative, it is equally proper to inquire "Have the first parents in each world been tempted as were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?" If so, "Did they yield to the temptation and fall as they did?" If so, "Have they required redemption?" And "Have they been redeemed?" "Has each different world required the same kind of redemption, and had a separate Redeemer; or has Christ, by His suffering on earth and crucifixion on Calvary, been the Redeemer for all the innumerable myriads of worlds in the universe; or had He to suffer and die in each world successively?

I hope this proves I'm not a liar or have hidden motives. Just that you don't read what you cite.

72

Flat Earth Community / TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 26, 2018, 05:50:13 PM »

Here is TFES take on religion according to the FAQ page https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

Is flat earth theory connected to a religion?
Flat earth theory is neither officially nor unofficially associated with any religion. Throughout the ages various religious institutions have championed a flat earth model for the world. Unfortunately this leaves us with the vestigial thought that flat earth theory and religions are symbiotic. They are not, even though many religions today, both mainstream and otherwise, still teach its followers that the world is flat. While they are not incorrect, believing in a flat earth isn't contingent upon believing in a deity or being a part of any religion.

However, in the couple of paragraphs immediately above this one, two names are cited. Samuel Shenton for being at the origin of the International Flat Earth Research Society, following the Universal Zetetic Society. And Samuel Rowbotham for his experiments on the lack of curvature. His book "Earth not a globe" is even cited and linked, which is often the case in Flat Earth discussions.

These statements are contradictory with the fact that TFES deems those religious connections "vestigial" and not "contingent".

An example of contingency, the reason behind the Universal Zetetic Society reads:

After Rowbotham's death, Lady Elizabeth Blount established a Universal Zetetic Society, whose objective was "the propagation of knowledge related to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based on practical scientific investigation".

The book linked by TFES wiki itself, "Earth not a globe", explains how the Flat Earth theory is written to support Christians against modern science. Here is the last paragraph of the book, in the words of Samuel Rowbotham:

To truthfully instruct the ingenuous Christian mind, to protect it from the meshes of false philosophy, and the snares of specious but hollow illogical reasoning; to save it from falling into the frigid arms of atheistic science; to convince it that all unscriptural teaching is false and deadly, and to induce great numbers of earnest deep-thinking human beings to desert the rebellious cause of atheism; to return to a full recognition of the beauty and truthfulness of the Scriptures, and to a participation in the joy and satisfaction which the Christian religion alone can supply, is a grand and cheering result, and one which furnishes the noblest possible answer to the ever ready Cui bono.

Many other pages in the book explain how his work supposedly reinstate the belief in Christ and the Bible. So by dissociating itself with its Christian roots, TFES is contradicting the one and only source it is built on.

So which one is it? A mere hypocrisy to hide the truth, or an assumed treason of Rowbotham's ideas?

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round

« on: October 24, 2018, 04:52:27 PM »

RonJ You answering questions intended for Flat Earthers gives them an excuse to not answer themselves. It's unclear what your goal is, given that you don't even disagree with the person who asks the question. It is honestly annoying.

74

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Post your best astrophotography efforts and your latitude.

« on: October 24, 2018, 12:56:53 AM »

Here is my M42



and my Moon



43.8° North, 150/750 on HEQ5, Canon EOS 100D


edit - resized images. ~junker

75

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Lenses Distortion Makes Flat Earth Look Spherical

« on: October 23, 2018, 12:25:16 PM »

Captured from above on a 2 dimensional picture, a sphere and a disc have the exact same shape: a circle. This doesn't depend on the type of lense. A flat Earth photographed from space would exhibit the same circular shape. You can see it on the wiki https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps

So, calling this shape false doesn't help flat Earth in any way. If the Earth was flat, a better way to prove it with a satellite picture would be to get antipodes in the same shot. For example Spain and New Zealand. These are impossible to see at the same time on a globe since they are diametrically opposed.

Of course, it has never been achieved.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round

« on: October 22, 2018, 10:03:08 PM »

The higher the radio tower the less dense the air is.

Flat earth can easily say that this is more evidence that supports the flat earth. The higher up the tower goes the less dense the atmosphere is which is exactly why it travels further!

Flat earth can easily say a lot of stuff, that doesn't make it true. Atmospheric pressure doesn't prevent electromagnetic waves from propagating. This is very well known.

You do realize that the variation of atmospheric pressure is ridiculously small at the height of a building?

A radio antenna 250 feet above the ground, where the air pressure is 14.6kPa, successfully transmits a VHF signal up to 20 miles away.

Another antenna 500 feet above the ground, where the air pressure is 14.4kPa so 1% less, transmits the same signal up to 27 miles so 25% more.

The quantity of air travelled by the second signal is much greater than the first one, proving that the atmosphere isn't a limiting factor.

Once again, all you have is an ad hoc explanation that doesn't make sense in any way.

Edit for the source: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-density-volume-d_195.html

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round

« on: October 22, 2018, 06:37:01 PM »

One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.

That's just wishful thinking. There is no evidence. What you're saying contradicts all experiments on radio transmissions.

On a flat Earth, increasing the height of a radio tower wouldn't increase the range of the transmission. In reality, it does.

78

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The use of Polaris for celestial navigation proves a round earth.

« on: October 22, 2018, 06:07:00 PM »

Polaris is constant in its setting and rising, because Polaris doesn't move. It is always fixed on the same location above the North Pole and never setts or rises. As long as you do not change your location, Polaris will always be visible in exact the same spot above the northern horizon. And as long as the light of Polaris enters the atmosphere in a steep angle, refraction is negligible. Only close to the equator where Polaris is close to the horizon refraction can change the angle a little.

Sure, but those are just words, not demonstration. We can't take 'common knowledge' for granted. In this scientific revolution of FET we must start knowledge afresh.

So you've never looked at Polaris ?