[jimbob]

To make the decision to support the flat earth hypothesis obviously one has to make a conscious decision to abandon what could be described as conventional theory (the majority view). It obviously takes courage and conviction to do this. I would be interested to know the key reasons of the individuals who espouse to this concept. The key facts that each considers to be the most important to them and instrumental in their decision.

[Science, bitch!]

To make the decision to support the flat earth hypothesis obviously one has to make a conscious decision to abandon what could be described as conventional theory (the majority view). It obviously takes courage and conviction to do this. I would be interested to know the key reasons of the individuals who espouse to this concept. The key facts that each considers to be the most important to them and instrumental in their decision.

I'd be genuinely interested in that as well.

...assuming there are actually people on here who truly believe in FET and the whole FES is not just a joke (Before junker warns me, I'm aware the FAQ states it's not... Doesn't mean I have to believe the FAQ though 😁)

[Scroogie]

Look, I may well be banned for stating the blatantly obvious, but the reason is religious fundamentalism. A fundamentalist believes what he/she interprets the bible to be saying and let no one come between the fundamentalist and his beliefs. If the fundamentalist believes that the bible says that the earth is flat, then it must be so. As a result the fundamentalist will forsake many thousands of years of accumulated knowledge, science, mathematics and even the ability to reason in order that they may cling tenaciously to their beliefs.

These same people are also fundamentally lazy, which, in tandem with the fallacy of their beliefs, explains the zero sum total of knowledge contributed to mankind by Flat Earthers (and Creationists). Research, to them, consists of either posting hopelessly bogus YouTube videos they find OR lying in the sand on a beach and staring across a bay with a telescope.

[AATW]

There is definitely some of that going on but not all the FE people here are religious. Some seem to have come to this belief for...reasons, ones which I have yet to understand. But once they have come to that belief it does seem to have become like a religion for them, it becomes part of their identity. Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias does the rest.

I feel the same way about FE as I do young earth creationism. Fine if that is what you want to believe, but spare me the pseudoscience and bullshit and made up rules of perspective and other things. If they can’t see how ridiculous it is to sneer at gravity because gravitons are theoretical and then in the next breath talk about UA being powered by made up “dark energy” then I don’t know how to help them.

[jimbob]

...assuming there are actually people on here who truly believe in FET and the whole FES is not just a joke (Before junker warns me, I'm aware the FAQ states it's not... Doesn't mean I have to believe the FAQ though 😁)
[/quote]


I see from the discussion forum that there are lot of people explaining why the earth is round and few contradicting this. To have adopted a concept that flies in the face of a widely held belief, takes conviction, I would have expected FE to be passionate about there belief. So I wonder too if there any who truly believe....I guess one is entitled not to believe the "frequently asked questions" in much the same way as one is entitled to believe the Earth is round/flat/ and as I am entitled to believe that the earth has no fixed/consistent geometrical shape.

[J-Man]

Musk will be sending a ship to Mars next year and you the taxpayers can fork up the fake money. It looks and sounds so fake it must be true.

It is written the earth doesn't move and it can't be moved. Man had a handle on how the earth worked thousands of years ago. It's not till recently that greed, sex and rock and roll ruined it all. I pledge allegiance to the flag, one nation under, used to be God, now satan runs the roosters now with gravitational pull...he he

[AATW]

It is written the earth doesn't move and it can't be moved.

It is. But even the Catholics have admitted that a literal interpretation of those verses is not correct and posthumously apologised to Galileo

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html

The Bible is not to be read or understood like a science book

“Religion tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”
- Galileo

[Dither]

Look, I may well be banned for stating the blatantly obvious, but the reason is religious fundamentalism.

A Christian FE view:

Sorry to burst your bubble Scroogie, but the Fundies arn't interested in FE.
And either are the Young Earth Creationists, they hate us too, just read all the anti FE material they produce.
They are terrified of being tarred with this brush, it might ruin their street cred.

So what kind of person takes an interest in FET? Well its mostly the Truthers.
And yes there are Christians involved but its not the movers and shakers.
From what I can gather from talking to them, its the ordinary joes who arn't to proud to be foolish.
Who read the bible and see that the earth is described as fixed and stationary. And say OK.

I believe Flat Earth has made me much less Fundamental, losing your church can do that to you.
Ordinary people pay the price for believing in FE, you can keep all the Pharisees, they are not interested.   


 

[jimbob]

Since all motion is relative, you are right! The earth doesnt move. If we take our universe and "hold it" by the earth, everything will move around it.

Which Satan runs the show, Putin or Trump?

Blame it on the greed and the sex if you like, but I believe Rock and Roll is innocent.....pop music now thats a different story.

It is written the earth doesn't move and it can't be moved. Man had a handle on how the earth worked thousands of years ago. It's not till recently that greed, sex and rock and roll ruined it all. I pledge allegiance to the flag, one nation under, used to be God, now satan runs the roosters now with gravitational pull...he he
[/quote]

[AATW]

So what kind of person takes an interest in FET? Well its mostly the Truthers.

Isn't "truther" just a polite name for "conspiracy theorist"?
The mindset is basically the same. The accepted version of events is "x" so you believe "y" not because there is any good evidence for "y" or that the evidence for "x" doesn't stack up but simply because "y" isn't "x".
The rest is just confirmation bias and, as truthers make that a big part of their identity, cognitive dissonance.

It does basically require dismissing or shouting "FAKE!" with no basis all the evidence for "x" and clinging on to any scraps of evidence for "y" even though they don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Treep Ravisarras]

I believe Flat Earth has made me much less Fundamental, losing your church can do that to you.
Ordinary people pay the price for believing in FE

Do we need to believe in Flat Earth or do we know? What we see and experience of the world is the extent of our total knowledge. In order for something to be considered a truth it must be shown as the best available evidence is empirically based.

Why do we need to believe in Flat Earth?

[Spycrab]

I believe Flat Earth has made me much less Fundamental, losing your church can do that to you.
Ordinary people pay the price for believing in FE

Do we need to believe in Flat Earth or do we know? What we see and experience of the world is the extent of our total knowledge. In order for something to be considered a truth it must be shown as the best available evidence is empirically based.

Why do we need to believe in Flat Earth?

Oh trust me buddy, it's a belief.
There are so many holes it isn't viable anymore.
No map, though this would be easy to do accurately for little money, and it would be transferring a flat surface to a flat surface to make it even easier.
No explanation for several aspects, gravity, the moon landing, why maps have distortion, sunsets, how the moon cools stuff*, you get the idea.
No reasoning behind doubting the mountains of evidence to the contrary other than, as J-Man would put it,
"Nasa = satan because you can't spell satan without nasa. Ha ha you are all fools those are weather balloons god is good amen."
If I am mistaken, perhaps you would care to present some behavior to the contrary?
Take your time, honesty doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

*actually I should start a new thread about that...

[Parallax]

To make the decision to support the flat earth hypothesis obviously one has to make a conscious decision to abandon what could be described as conventional theory (the majority view). It obviously takes courage and conviction to do this. I would be interested to know the key reasons of the individuals who espouse to this concept. The key facts that each considers to be the most important to them and instrumental in their decision.

Personally, I've never believed the moon landing happened. Okay, maybe when I was a kid, but as I grew up and looked into it I realised what a hoax it was.

I read Dr Rowbothams work after hearing about flat earth. I thought they must be mad, but it piqued my curiosity and after reading it I found it made perfect sense. It's a bit like wonderland, Earth not a globe is the start, how far down the rabbit hole you go is up to you.

[xenotolerance]

I believe Flat Earth has made me much less Fundamental, losing your church can do that to you.
Ordinary people pay the price for believing in FE

Do we need to believe in Flat Earth or do we know? What we see and experience of the world is the extent of our total knowledge. In order for something to be considered a truth it must be shown as the best available evidence is empirically based.

Why do we need to believe in Flat Earth?

specifically because it contradicts the best available evidence.

You have been shown the shape of the Earth. You have seen for yourself why it must be round. The Earth has been measured, repeatedly, with independent methods, to be a globe.

concluding the Earth is flat requires rationalizing this evidence away, or ignoring it prima facie. it's one big argument from ignorance.

so yes, flat Earth belief is a belief, unto a faith. it is neither true nor justified, so it cannot rightly be called knowledge.

[Treep Ravisarras]

I read Dr Rowbothams work after hearing about flat earth. ... I found it made perfect sense.

Mr. Samual made respectable observations. But then not real Flat Earthism. Mr. Samual was using rationalization - speculation and conjecture to arrive at the conclusion. Not following proper flat earth process, which is observe and experience, make direct conclusion from that or otherwise leave subject as unknown.

For example perspective at sea. Would be better saying: I see perspective I cannot explain. Maybe earth is round, maybe not, maybe other phenomena that I don't understand, but maybe found out about in the next 100 years of science. I leave the subject as unknown. Mr. Samual wrote his book roundabouts 1860.

Maybe perspective maybe not, but simple mathematics cannot be used to be argued against round earth. Better to leave subject unknown.

[Tontogary]

I read Dr Rowbothams work after hearing about flat earth. ... I found it made perfect sense.

But then not real Flat Earthism. Mr. Samual was using rationalization - speculation and conjecture to arrive at the conclusion. Not following proper flat earth process, which is observe and experience, make direct conclusion from that or otherwise leave subject as unknown.

For example perspective at sea. Would be better saying: I see perspective I cannot explain. Maybe earth is round, maybe not, maybe other phenomena that I don't understand, but maybe found out about in the next 100 years of science. I leave the subject as unknown. Mr. Samual wrote his book roundabouts 1860.

Trees, maybe you are right, but i do not see Flat Earth processes being to “Experiment, observe and experience!” When experiments are proposed which are repeatable, and would leave the observer in little doubt as to the shape of the earth the response is that there is no buget, no money, and no will to do experiments, as well as no interest, or time to do so.

No wonder there is a lot of scepticism when the arguments from observations more than 150 years ago are used as proof, when there are simple, as well as cheap (or free) experiments that can be carried out simply today.

[Parallax]

I read Dr Rowbothams work after hearing about flat earth. ... I found it made perfect sense.

Mr. Samual made respectable observations. But then not real Flat Earthism. Mr. Samual was using rationalization - speculation and conjecture to arrive at the conclusion. Not following proper flat earth process, which is observe and experience, make direct conclusion from that or otherwise leave subject as unknown.

For example perspective at sea. Would be better saying: I see perspective I cannot explain. Maybe earth is round, maybe not, maybe other phenomena that I don't understand, but maybe found out about in the next 100 years of science. I leave the subject as unknown. Mr. Samual wrote his book roundabouts 1860.

Maybe perspective maybe not, but simple mathematics cannot be used to be argued against round earth. Better to leave subject unknown.

Dr Rowbotham made proper experiments and observations to come to the conclusion the earth is flat, instead of pure speculation like you are suggesting.

The book may have been written in the 1800s, but it has yet to be proved incorrect, despite round earthers desperately trying to prove otherwise.

[Tontogary]

I read Dr Rowbothams work after hearing about flat earth. ... I found it made perfect sense.

Mr. Samual made respectable observations. But then not real Flat Earthism. Mr. Samual was using rationalization - speculation and conjecture to arrive at the conclusion. Not following proper flat earth process, which is observe and experience, make direct conclusion from that or otherwise leave subject as unknown.

For example perspective at sea. Would be better saying: I see perspective I cannot explain. Maybe earth is round, maybe not, maybe other phenomena that I don't understand, but maybe found out about in the next 100 years of science. I leave the subject as unknown. Mr. Samual wrote his book roundabouts 1860.

Maybe perspective maybe not, but simple mathematics cannot be used to be argued against round earth. Better to leave subject unknown.

Dr Rowbotham made proper experiments and observations to come to the conclusion the earth is flat, instead of pure speculation like you are suggesting.

The book may have been written in the 1800s, but it has yet to be proved incorrect, despite round earthers desperately trying to prove otherwise.

I have proved it, to myself, and my crewmwembers, and ships officers. All of my officers have passed navigational exams from different countries, that have no interest in collusion such as Russia, UK, India, Philippines, and Poland.

We have sailed around the world and ended up where we started, using navigational calculations, formulae, and distances that that rely upon a round earth model, and can assure the forum that my experiences match the theory. The distances around the world in the Southern Hemisphere are pretty accurate to what is tabulated for a round earth. No FE model can tell me why our experience (experiment if you will) returns the results that bear out the RE theory.

[Parallax]

You can sail round the flat earth and still come back. You are only sailing round it.

[inquisitive]

You can sail round the flat earth and still come back. You are only sailing round it.

Please explain 'round' and show on a map.