[Tom Bishop]

False. There is no way Rowbotham would tell us to put the Bible under the most severe criticism, that the religious and moral aspects are 'possibly' true, and that the religious minded should seek to demonstrate themselves true with evidence and facts. There is absolutely no way those words would be thought by a religious fanatic, or someone who was trying to push a religion on us.

Rowbotham is clearly a learned man of gifted intellect. Rowbotham is speaking in terms of the meaning and ramifications of a Flat Earth under a religious context. Many scholars and historians have since used his research to debate whether the Bible really does depict a Flat Earth or not.

[AATW]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.
His agenda is very clear:

A system of philosophy which makes such havoc with the human soul; which destroys its hope of future rest and happiness, and renders the existence of Heaven impossible, and of a beneficent, ever-ruling God and Father of creation useless and uncertain, cannot be less than a curse---a dark and dangerous dragon, hell-born and tartarean in its character and influence. If all who forget God, who deride and repudiate all ideas of creation, and find a sufficiency of ruling power in the self-operating forces of modern astronomy--in its centrifugal and centripetal universalities--are of necessity rejected of Heaven, then indeed have the blinding philosophies of the day done wondrous service in peopling hell, and adding to the horrors of infernal existence.

When he says "possibly" he is very clearly talking about how an unbeliever, if shown that the scientific theories are "fallacious", will conclude that "possibly their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true. He is talking about converting an unbeliever to avoid "peopling hell":

If it can be shown to the atheistical or unbelieving philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories have no practical foundation, but are fallacious both in their premises and conclusions, and that all the literal expressions in the Scriptures which have reference to natural phenomena are demonstrably true, he will, of necessity, as a truth-seeker, if he should have so avowed himself, and for very shame as a man, be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations, 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 so their conclusion will be:

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, and that he himself, through all his days of forgetfulness and denial of God, has been guarded and cared for as a merely mistaken creature, undeserving the fate of an obstinate, self-willed opponent of everything sacred and superhuman. He may be led to see that the very discussion of his theories with a Zetetic opponent was a loving and mysterious leading into a purer and clearer philosophy for his own eternal benefit.

Very clearly talking about the journey from athiest to Christian and his position on the absolute and literal truth of Scripture is very clear.
I know you like arguing the toss and arguing from a position you don't really believe, but if you're going to post a picture of a cat and then say it's not a picture of a cat then it's not a very interesting discussion.

[Tom Bishop]

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.
His agenda is very clear:

A system of philosophy which makes such havoc with the human soul; which destroys its hope of future rest and happiness, and renders the existence of Heaven impossible, and of a beneficent, ever-ruling God and Father of creation useless and uncertain, cannot be less than a curse---a dark and dangerous dragon, hell-born and tartarean in its character and influence. If all who forget God, who deride and repudiate all ideas of creation, and find a sufficiency of ruling power in the self-operating forces of modern astronomy--in its centrifugal and centripetal universalities--are of necessity rejected of Heaven, then indeed have the blinding philosophies of the day done wondrous service in peopling hell, and adding to the horrors of infernal existence.

Full quote with context:

If this ill-founded philosophy, unsupported as it is by fact or Scripture, or any evidence of the senses, is admitted, the religious mind can no longer rejoice in singing:--

"Far above the sun, and stars, and skies,
In realms of endless light and love,
    My Father's mansion lies."

A system of philosophy which makes such havoc with the human soul; which destroys its hope of future rest and happiness, and renders the existence of Heaven impossible, and of a beneficent, ever-ruling God and Father of creation useless and uncertain, cannot be less than a curse---a dark and dangerous dragon, hell-born and tartarean in its character and influence. If all who forget God, who deride and repudiate all ideas of creation, and find a sufficiency of ruling power in the self-operating forces of modern astronomy--in its centrifugal and centripetal universalities--are of necessity rejected of Heaven, then indeed have the blinding philosophies of the day done wondrous service in peopling hell, and adding to the horrors of infernal existence.

Rowbotham makes mention of terms like 'the religious mind' or 'minded', 'the Christian', 'the religious' multiple times. The context and meaning of that is very clear.

Please show me a video of a religious zealot telling people about "the religious mind" or "the Christian." 

When he says "possibly" he is very clearly talking about how an unbeliever, if shown that the scientific theories are "fallacious", will conclude that "possibly their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true. He is talking about converting an unbeliever to avoid "peopling hell":

If it can be shown to the atheistical or unbelieving philosopher that his astronomical and geological theories have no practical foundation, but are fallacious both in their premises and conclusions, and that all the literal expressions in the Scriptures which have reference to natural phenomena are demonstrably true, he will, of necessity, as a truth-seeker, if he should have so avowed himself, and for very shame as a man, be led to admit that, apart from all other considerations, 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;

The keyword there is, of course, "possibly". If Rowbotham were a zealot there would be no question at all on what is true. This one word alone in this entire work TOTALLY blows any criticism of Rowbotham as being a religious zealot out of the water.

And so their conclusion will be:

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, and that he himself, through all his days of forgetfulness and denial of God, has been guarded and cared for as a merely mistaken creature, undeserving the fate of an obstinate, self-willed opponent of everything sacred and superhuman. He may be led to see that the very discussion of his theories with a Zetetic opponent was a loving and mysterious leading into a purer and clearer philosophy for his own eternal benefit.

Very clearly talking about the journey from athiest to Christian and his position on the absolute and literal truth of Scripture is very clear.
I know you like arguing the toss and arguing from a position you don't really believe, but if you're going to post a picture of a cat and then say it's not a picture of a cat then it's not a very interesting discussion.

Read the whole quote.

"IF it can be shown," then "possibly," here is the conclusion.

The work has big words and complex subjects and themes for some readers, certainly, but this denial is clearly amateur, childish, and deliberate.

[totallackey]

What we are witnessing right now is an illustration of the FE conspiracist mind in action.  To any reasonable person, Rowbotham’s words are self explanatory.  If we had a survey of people, I have no doubt 99/100 would disagree wholeheartedly with Tom Bishop.  Mr. Bishop is using the same exact impossible demands of the Round Earth and applying it to Rowbotham’s own words.

And here is an appeal to numbers (argumentum ad populum).

One could just as easily point out it may well be your concept of, "reasonable person," that is lacking.

If RET is real, it would seem there be no such thing as impossible demands to be made of it.

[totallackey]

Scriptures are teachings that were written by the ancients and adopted into various religions.

Fine. I'll kick the bees nest.
Who are these "ancients" that wrote the scriptures.
The book indicates the scriptures are about 6,000 years old, though the oldest known writing system is 4000 years old (Semitic) with pictograph tablets at 5500 years old (Sumer). Yes, i'm googling as I go.
So, older than the oldest form of writing. I can't conceive of what comes before drawing on rocks.
What are the scriptures?

I would submit the mere fact many ancient structures, such as Gobekli Tepe, have been found to exist, and thoroughly make a laughing stock of the claims regarding, "oldest known texts."

No one constructs structures such as these with out a form of written communication.

[AATW]

Please show me a video of a religious zealot telling people about "the religious mind" or "the Christian."

Unfortunately video was not available in the time of Rowbotham.

The work has big words and complex subjects and themes for some readers

I know. Things like the moon shining with cold moonlight and the moon being translucent. 
Nice wriggling but your trolling is clearly amateur, childish, and deliberate.
For future reference, a good troll shouldn't make it so obvious he is trolling.

The quotes I have given make his beliefs and his agenda very clear no matter how much you wriggle.

[JCM]

If RET is real, it would seem there be no such thing as impossible demands to be made of it.

You mean examples like needing to have a unified theory explaining GR and Quantum Theory in order to say the world is a sphere or explain perfectly how Gravity works down to a subatomic level with no room for every possible scenario in the universe or failings to understand every aspect of the The Big Bang in order to defend a spherical earth?

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.  Forget the math that most seem to not understand.  ENaG is very much tied to the Christian faith as flat Earths greatest scientist demonstrates.  This thread should be stickied so everyone can see flat Earths prophet scientist Rowbotham’s words to unequivocally prop up religion via the flat Earth as he views his religious beliefs are being undermined by round Earth atheists. 

[totallackey]

If RET is real, it would seem there be no such thing as impossible demands to be made of it.

You mean examples like needing to have a unified theory explaining GR and Quantum Theory in order to say the world is a sphere...

Not in the least.

GR or unified theory are only examples.

or explain perfectly how Gravity works down to a subatomic level with no room for every possible scenario in the universe or failings to understand every aspect of the The Big Bang in order to defend a spherical earth?

This will never happen anyway...

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.

I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation. 

Forget the math that most seem to not understand.

Math is easily equated to many scenarios.

Hence the simple operation of casting out 9's. 

ENaG is very much tied to the Christian faith as flat Earths greatest scientist demonstrates.

Who would that be? 

This thread should be stickied so everyone can see flat Earths prophet scientist Rowbotham’s words to unequivocally prop up religion via the flat Earth as he views his religious beliefs are being undermined by round Earth atheists.

Well, go ahead and draw the ire of FE atheists and mount a campaign to have it stickied...

[AATW]

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.

I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.

As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.
Just looking at stuff is not enough to determine truth. Our senses are limited and easily fooled.

[Tom Bishop]

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.

I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.

As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.

I noticed that in your response you needed to justify your model through special pleading with an IF.

[AATW]

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.

I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.

As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.

I noticed that in your response you needed to justify your model through special pleading with an IF.

Yes, The size of the globe affects the observation.
As does the size of a flat earth, I guess. If it's small enough and flat enough that you can see the edges then that changes your observation.

[JCM]

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.

I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.

As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.

I noticed that in your response you needed to justify your model through special pleading with an IF.

The use of IF is commonly used mathematically, as well as in computer coding for that matter.  It is tying step 1 to step 2.  Rowbotham’s use of IF THEN statements are self explanatory in the dozens of quotations above.   He defined step 1 as IF a man questions the world as non flat or ADMITS the world is not flat THEN he cannot be a Christian essentially as it is saying the BIble is false therefore Heaven is false.   Rowbotham even says the flood is only possible on a flat Earth...  That is just one example of him directly trying to use FE theory to justify the Bible. To deny the FE is to deny God himself, he cannot make it any clearer. 

[Tom Bishop]

The use of IF is commonly used mathematically, as well as in computer coding for that matter.  It is tying step 1 to step 2.  Rowbotham’s use of IF THEN statements are self explanatory in the dozens of quotations above.

Rowbotham does say IF in regard to the statements on religion in his chapter. Rowbotham also says that evidence is required to turn IF into something more, and encourages those with faith to seek to provide evidence.

Rowbotham, in fact, tells us that it is faulty to push religion based on belief:

It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge the teaching of Scripture against the theories of the philosopher simply because he believes them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to defend his theories against Scripture for no other reason than that he disbelieves them. The whole matter must be taken out of the region of belief and disbelief. In regard to elements and phenomena belief and disbelief should never be named. Men differ in their powers of conception and concatenation; and, therefore, what may readily be believed by some, others may find impossible to believe. Belief is a state of mind which should be exerted only in relation to matters confessedly beyond the direct reach of our senses, and in regard to which it is meritorious to believe. But in reference to matter, and material combinations and phenomena, we should be content with nothing less than conviction, the result of special practical experimental investigation.

Rowbotham continues:

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. On the other hand, the atheist or the disbeliever in the Scriptures, who is met by the Christian on purely scientific grounds, will be led to listen with more respect, and to pay more regard to the reasons advanced than he would concede to the purely religious belief or to any argument founded upon faith alone.

Rowbotham says that facts trump belief, and recommends the Christian to engage in a collection of evidence to back up belief.

He defined step 1 as IF a man questions the world as non flat or ADMITS the world is flat THEN he cannot be a Christian essentially as it is saying the BIble is false therefore Heaven is false.

To deny the FE is to deny God himself, he cannot make it any clearer.

He does not say that at all. Rowbotham champions evidence of fact.

[titidam]

Please show me a video of a religious zealot telling people about "the religious mind" or "the Christian." 

The keyword there is, of course, "possibly". If Rowbotham were a zealot there would be no question at all on what is true. This one word alone in this entire work TOTALLY blows any criticism of Rowbotham as being a religious zealot out of the water.

"IF it can be shown," then "possibly," here is the conclusion.

Learn to read. The work has big words and complex subjects and themes for some readers, certainly, but this denial is clearly amateur, childish, and deliberate.

Your entire rebuttal of Rowbotham's thesis still consists in picking the phrasing instead of the content. That's not an acceptable reason. You can continue, but the denial, childishness, and lack of reading is on your part.

If you spent more time reading lengthy books, you would see that words like 'possibly' don't weaken an argument. On the contrary, authors strengthen their argument by using logic.

The conclusion of an 'if/then' structure isn't less endorsed by an author. If the author wasn't convinced of the argument, he wouldn't make it. The logical structure only serves to convince others, it doesn't speak of the author's conviction.

Rowbotham doesn't say that Christianity needs to be proven. He says that his book proves Christianity.

"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."

'Earth not a globe' attempts to display the practical evidence that the Scriptures are true, both literally and philosophically, so that Christianity will be strengthened.

"If the truth of the philosophy of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true;

We know, from the previous statement, that this condition is fulfilled by Rowbotham's evidence.

So this "if" doesn't mean that a doubt remains. This "if" means that Rowbotham's work proves the conclusion, which follows "then".

What exactly is this conclusion?

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, and that he himself, through all his days of forgetfulness and denial of God, has been guarded and cared for as a merely mistaken creature, undeserving the fate of an obstinate, self-willed opponent of everything sacred and superhuman."

[totallackey]

Flat Earths fail the simplest of observations.

I would submit looking out your window is the simplest of observations and FE completely fulfills this simple observation.

As does cube earth theory or globe earth theory IF the globe is of sufficient size.
Just looking at stuff is not enough to determine truth. Our senses are limited and easily fooled.

Other options may also completely fulfill the simple observation.

The point was offered to dispute the initial statement, that's all...