[Lord Dave]

The ultimate fallacy is trusting in some pseudoscience and rejecting that which doesn't suit your needs.

So... Religion.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The ultimate fallacy is trusting in some pseudoscience and rejecting that which doesn't suit your needs.

So... Religion.

I love how you guys like to quote one thing out of a post and not address the rest of it. I am talking about heliocentric theory and evolution in regards to flat earth theory. Religion isn't science, though if you want to be technical the Church controlled science for about a thousand years, much to the retardation of the entire field... interestingly enough, equally pervasive and persistent authoritarian sects still control it to this day, much to the retardation of the entire field. It comes down to funding. Same with any study into say, environmental impact, paid for by Exxon, goes in with a particular positive result in mind, other wise it won't get published. No one is interested in coming out of this rabbit hole of error we've dug into that is evolution.

Anyway, I said what I had to say. My point is still valid, and if you are A. Not a believer in God, or B. A believer in an oblate spheroid hurling through space, then this thread is not for you anyway.

[Lord Dave]

A thread of discussion only for those who agree with you is a poor thread.

[Rushy]

The point of this entire thread is to point out the obvious that you CAN NOT through stricly scientific means convince the general public that the earth is flat.

If that's the case, then the point of this thread goes against the very purpose of the Flat Earth Society.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The point of this entire thread is to point out the obvious that you CAN NOT through stricly scientific means convince the general public that the earth is flat.

If that's the case, then the point of this thread goes against the very purpose of the Flat Earth Society.

I may have worded it incorrectly... The advancement of the theory will not take place solely through the scientific community. Considering "flat-earther" is a derogatory term I'd hope you would agree.

[magic]

TheTruthIsOnHere,
Here are potentially some divergent thoughts to this discussion.

I do not believe in creationism as described by any religion.
I do not believe in evolution as described by the non-religious.

I believe that the lack of evidence firmly placing our ancestral lineage to align with the events as it corresponds with any religion or evolution is not reconcilable. Through the time we have been here reproducing our next generations there has been a concerted effort to distort the relative time that we have been here in addition to creating a multitude of divisions within society in furtherance of distorting our true history in this environment, we call Earth. Language is of the most persistent and prevalent of the factors restraining humanity's capacity to unify and answer our most technically challenging questions regarding our environment.

The argument of the chicken or the egg is simply answered by taking a completely unsupported (religious?) belief that they both came into existence simultaneously and by a quantity sufficient to sustain a balanced growth and attrition through its tenure in this environment. This applies to all matter within our environment.

The limitations we are aware of contribute to this spontaneous existence of which begs the question, what is the catalyst, and to what is the catalyst of the catalyst? The explanation we desire is a linear explanation that simply provides best to our sensibility, given our conditioning through generations. My current approach to this question is that while there is a design we can identify given its limitations, a substrate, physical or otherwise, is not required to produce this environment and manage it from outside, or in another layer superior to our own.

We see the division in place to prevent movement towards unveiling the answers to these absolute truths. Addressing the question of our environment is the most attainable as it we can collectively experience this truth and may provide insight to the two other questions representing true value.

I would wholeheartedly believe that this is not a novel concept, and that the management of humanity is in place to prevent absolute chaos upon realization of our condition here. This same management entity would comprise of those that control the functions of society in order to facilitate the further acquisition of truth if it hasn't yet been found in conjunction to suppressing this from being known.

It is more like an ant farm, I want to break the glass, at any cost to see what happens.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?

That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.

[Lord Dave]

Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?

That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.

You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post.  Not sure what you expect.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?

That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.

You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post.  Not sure what you expect.

You can not believe in God or that the Earth is flat but you have to agree with the sentiment of this thread.

[Lord Dave]

Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?

That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.

You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post.  Not sure what you expect.

You can not believe in God or that the Earth is flat but you have to agree with the sentiment of this thread.

No.  Because the thread assumes the Earth can be proven flat.  Invoking God proves nothing as God can't be proven.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?

That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.

You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post.  Not sure what you expect.

You can not believe in God or that the Earth is flat but you have to agree with the sentiment of this thread.

No.  Because the thread assumes the Earth can be proven flat.  Invoking God proves nothing as God can't be proven.

Obviously there is a disconnect here.

People believe in God.

85% of them in America, in fact.

The bible says that the world is flat and stationary.

Thus, it should be easier to advance the flat earth theory to the people that believe in God.

That is the sum of my argument.

Thanks for reading.

[Lord Dave]

Can anyone deny the logical validity of my idea?

That is, trying to use the scientific community as a vehicle of flat earth outreach is impossible, and that it would gain much more traction among the religious community.

You asked people wbo dom't agree not to post.  Not sure what you expect.

You can not believe in God or that the Earth is flat but you have to agree with the sentiment of this thread.

No.  Because the thread assumes the Earth can be proven flat.  Invoking God proves nothing as God can't be proven.

Obviously there is a disconnect here.

People believe in God.

85% of them in America, in fact.

The bible says that the world is flat and stationary.

Thus, it should be easier to advance the flat earth theory to the people that believe in God.

That is the sum of my argument.

Thanks for reading.

The Church admits it is not.
The Pope admits it is not.

Thus, saying it is is going against your current interpretation of religion which is infinitely harder than disproving science.

A person can be tricked into thinking science is wrong.  Not so with their religion.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The Church admits it is not.
The Pope admits it is not.

Thus, saying it is is going against your current interpretation of religion which is infinitely harder than disproving science.

A person can be tricked into thinking science is wrong.  Not so with their religion.

The other caveat about that 85% data I been talking about, those people are becoming increasingly less affiliated with a particular denomination. More people are abandoning traditional religion but still maintaining their belief in God.

So what the pope says is of little importance to, first of all, a very large portion of Christianity, and even less so to those that do not identify with a major denomination.

It's not about being tricked, it's more about people becoming more critical of tradition and taking things for granted, and more willing to find their own path and think for themselves.

[Lord Dave]

The Church admits it is not.
The Pope admits it is not.

Thus, saying it is is going against your current interpretation of religion which is infinitely harder than disproving science.

A person can be tricked into thinking science is wrong.  Not so with their religion.

The other caveat about that 85% data I been talking about, those people are becoming increasingly less affiliated with a particular denomination. More people are abandoning traditional religion but still maintaining their belief in God.

So what the pope says is of little importance to, first of all, a very large portion of Christianity, and even less so to those that identify with a major denomination.

It's not about being tricked, it's more about people becoming more critical of tradition and taking things for granted, and more willing to find their own path and think for themselves.

Those 85% also don't read the bible or take it literally.
ALSO...

How do you become more critical of tradition and taking things for granted then say "Read the bible, the old traditional book, as it has one or two passages about the Earth's shape."?  It's contradictory. 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

How do you know? How can you make that assumption, do you have any data to back it up?

The common thread in all monotheistic religions is that we were created by a benevolent God. Not that we are a spec of dust in a vast universe without very much significance. Hermeticism, a philosophy that unites a lot of Christian and Jewish tradition with that of ancient religions, without having to do an absolute literal interpretation of "The Bible," seems to corroborate this reality.

Whether or not that influences the shape of the Earth, it definitely goes against the scientific interpretation of our existence. I'm not sure there are many true christians, hebrews, or muslims that believe in the Big Bang, which effectively is the glue that holds heliocentric theory together.

This thread only seeks to point out the irony in believing in God and science's model of our universe. Thus you can't invalidate my point that flat earth theory, which puts humanity back in the center of God's creation, would be better suited being geared towards those that already believe in intelligent design.

[Lord Dave]

How do you know? How can you make that assumption, do you have any data to back it up?

The common thread in all monotheistic religions is that we were created by a benevolent God. Not that we are a spec of dust in a vast universe without very much significance. Hermeticism, a philosophy that unites a lot of Christian and Jewish tradition with that of ancient religions, and without having to do an absolute literal interpretation of "The Bible," seems to corroborate this reality.

Whether or not that influences the shape of the Earth, it definitely goes against the scientific interpretation of our existence. I'm not sure there are many true christians, hebrews, or muslims that believe in the Big Bang, which effectively is the glue that holds heliocentric theory together.

This thread only seeks to point out the irony in believing in God and science's model of our universe. Thus you can't invalidate my point that flat earth theory, which puts humanity back in the center of God's creation, would be better suited being geared towards those that already believe in intelligent design.

The early religions also didn't see that the American continents existed so there's that.
Plus, lets not forget the other religions that had various fun ways the world came about, such as it being the dead body of a god.

[Woody]

Most religious people I know and have meet in m life regard writings in religious books are not to be taken literally.

I also can find many people advocating the Bible proving the Earth is round.

http://www.revelation.co/2009/06/19/does-the-bible-say-earth-is-flat-or-round/ 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

The above are just a sample. You can find many people interpreting the Bible in a way that supports the Earth not being flat.

Really depends on how you want to interpret what you read.  I for one have not read any verse in the Bible that makes an absolute statement as to the Earth being flat or spherical. I have only read the English translations so that maybe why I have not seen any definitive statement. 

Just curious why you believe God would create a flat Earth and not a roundish one?

[Pongo]

At the author's request, I split the debate off this topic and moved it here:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4780.0

It wasn't a clean split, so I apologize. Feel free to repost your thoughts so long as it's on topic. Thank you.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Most religious people I know and have meet in m life regard writings in religious books are not to be taken literally.

I also can find many people advocating the Bible proving the Earth is round.

http://www.revelation.co/2009/06/19/does-the-bible-say-earth-is-flat-or-round/ 

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

The above are just a sample. You can find many people interpreting the Bible in a way that supports the Earth not being flat.

Really depends on how you want to interpret what you read.  I for one have not read any verse in the Bible that makes an absolute statement as to the Earth being flat or spherical. I have only read the English translations so that maybe why I have not seen any definitive statement. 

Just curious why you believe God would create a flat Earth and not a roundish one?

Christianity has always had a knack for assimilating whatever popular opinion is at the time so it could be more all-inclusive. It's no surprise to see "Christian scientists" trying to rectify heliocentric theory and their religion.

Some biblical passages that seem to support flat, stationary, geocentric earth:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Proverbs 8:27 When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Joshua 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

One commonly misused passage is:
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out   the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

Some people say that circle used here implies the earth is round, but the actual Hebrew word used here translates more accurately to "encircle."
Used also in:
Job 26:10 He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.

Job itself is actually the oldest book in the Bible, predating even Genesis. Job 26 is fascinating in and of itself and has a lot of insight into how the ancients viewed the Earth.


 

[Jura-Glenlivet]

But.... 270 years before christ Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric system with the Earth as a ball, and 190 bc Seleucus of Seleucia took it up, as an awful lot of stuff from around that time is lost it's a good bet they weren't alone and as they were the leading lights in science as it was then do we listen to them or a bunch of desert cultists?