[supaluminus]

Or: Why There Are No Atheists In Flat Foxholes

[totallackey]

Or: Why There Are No Atheists In Flat Foxholes

I do not know where you are obtaining your numbers, but I do not readily accept the OP as being accurate or truthful.

[supaluminus]

Or: Why There Are No Atheists In Flat Foxholes

I do not know where you are obtaining your numbers, but I do not readily accept the OP as being accurate or truthful.

Okay, that's fair. Let me qualify my question.

This is just based on my personal experience. My only evidence in this PARTICULAR subject is anecdotal. I neither have any empirical polling data to corroborate this observation nor have I suggested that I do; again, it's just my opinion based on my experience. Take that for what it is.

If it has been YOUR experience that there are as many atheists and other non-believers in the supernatural among supporters of the flat earth model, or maybe just more than I'VE seen, I'll assume that's YOUR anecdotal experience. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being honest, and I'll take your observations with the same grain of salt you would presumably accept mine, for the sake of the conversation.

Either way, I'm not stating this as a matter of truth. I'm asking a question based on what I've observed. You can challenge that and say you haven't observed the same thing, but if that's the case, I'd like to speak to some atheist flat earthers.

[AATW]

Some people think the earth is flat because of their (mis) interpretation of Scripture.
I think that accounts for a lot of this.
Not all do although ironically some do treat this as a religion.

[supaluminus]

Some people think the earth is flat because of their (mis) interpretation of Scripture.
I think that accounts for a lot of this.
Not all do although ironically some do treat this as a religion.

Part of the reason I say what I do is because, when I try to drill down to the finer details and things don't pan out, it inevitably leads back to the global conspiracy to pull the wool over our eyes about the nature of reality. Sometimes this involves Biblical scripture exclusively, sometimes they draw from all kinds of holy and ancient texts, but there's almost always some element of the supernatural.

I don't think it's a coincidence that there's a lot of overlap between religious faith and susceptibility to conspiracy theory. A lot of people take offense to having that pointed out, but I don't think it's a coincidence. I think they're both informed by the same kind of thinking.

[Pete Svarrior]

If it has been YOUR experience that there are as many atheists and other non-believers in the supernatural among supporters of the flat earth model, or maybe just more than I'VE seen, I'll assume that's YOUR anecdotal experience. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being honest, and I'll take your observations with the same grain of salt you would presumably accept mine, for the sake of the conversation.

Virtually every proponent of FET on this forum is atheist or agnostic (though, of course, there are a few exceptions). As such, regardless of the validity of your experience,  you will struggle to find anyone here with the answer to your question.

In other words, asking an overwhelmingly atheist community about why there are so many religious people among them is unlikely to yield much.

I'd like to speak to some atheist flat earthers.

Hi!

[supaluminus]

If it has been YOUR experience that there are as many atheists and other non-believers in the supernatural among supporters of the flat earth model, or maybe just more than I'VE seen, I'll assume that's YOUR anecdotal experience. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being honest, and I'll take your observations with the same grain of salt you would presumably accept mine, for the sake of the conversation.

Virtually every proponent of FET on this forum is atheist or agnostic (though, of course, there are a few exceptions). As such, regardless of the validity of your experience,  you will struggle to find anyone here with the answer to your question.

In other words, asking an overwhelmingly atheist community about why there are so many religious people among them is unlikely to yield much.

I'd like to speak to some atheist flat earthers.

Hi!

First point is totally fair. I've only been at this for a short period of time, and mostly on Facebook. This website and its forums are definitely new to me, and if you're saying it's the polar opposite to what I've been experiencing so far with respect to the supernatural, I'll take your word for it.

As for the second part, hey yourself, stranger! I just had a conversation with a flat earther last night. We met on Omegle of all places, and that led to a phone call.

We didn't really get to talk about his belief system with respect to the supernatural, but neither did we get to really hash out the details of the flat earth model and why it is or isn't consistent with reality. Perhaps you can do a better job.

Do you mind if I ask the first question, and we just start with a subject under the umbrella of flat earth, picked at random from out of a hat, or would you prefer to ask something first about the globe model?

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't mind. I'll forewarn you though, this site operates under a number of assumptions.

Most of us are unwilling to answer questions we find too simple (ones you can easily find answers to on our website or in related literature, mostly) or too leading.

Now, some of our more cynical detractors will surely say that this is because we want to avoid criticism, and if you choose to believe so, hey-ho. But to offer my own take on things: we've seen quite a few questions, and we see the same questions every day. It becomes very tiresome eventually.

We also generally don't follow the format of 1-on-1 discussions. The general idea is that you'd start a thread on a fairly well-defined subject, and people can chip in as and when they find it appropriate. Dividing conversion  into subject threads (at least theoretically) allows future visitors to easily find past discussions on a given topic. Regardless of the outcome of any given conversation, making them easily indexable is desirable.

[supaluminus]

I don't mind. I'll forewarn you though, this site operates under a number of assumptions.

Most of us are unwilling to answer questions we find too simple (ones you can easily find answers to on our website or in related literature, mostly) or too leading.

Now, some of our more cynical detractors will surely say that this is because we want to avoid criticism, and if you choose to believe so, hey-ho. But to offer my own take on things: we've seen quite a few questions, and we see the same questions every day. It becomes very tiresome eventually.

We also generally don't follow the format of 1-on-1 discussions. The general idea is that you'd start a thread on a fairly well-defined subject, and people can chip in as and when they find it appropriate. Dividing conversion  into subject threads (at least theoretically) allows future visitors to easily find past discussions on a given topic. Regardless of the outcome of any given conversation, making them easily indexable is desirable.

No, I would get tired of answering the same questions as well. That being said...

Before I can pose ANY kind of question about flat earth, I need to know what those assumptions are. I need to understand, so we're both on the same page, what exactly the model is "supposed" to look like. I can't make predictions or point out what is and isn't consistent if I don't first know how the model is supposed to work.

If this doesn't make sense to you, consider the globe model. We have very specific detiails to how the globe model is "supposed" to work. Even if we assume those details are all complete fabrications, just like dubious testimony from an unreliable witness, we need those details in order to point out inconsistencies and contradictions.

For example, the globe model says that we're on a round, oblate spheroid. With this in mind, a common objection raised by flat earthers is the fact that the horizon appears flat from our perspective. That isn't really what I want to talk about, and I'm not trying to foist anything on you, I'm just giving you an example and trying to show you why it's necessary that we both have the same understanding about how the model in question, whether flat or globe, is supposed to work in theory, before we can make observations about contradictions and inconsistencies. Otherwise, we'll just wind up talking past each other, which is something I presume neither of us want.

So is there a main page that tells me what the assumptions are with respect to flat earth, and we can start with that as a baseline, or are we operating under the assumption that every flat earther has a different interpretation?

If it's the former, I'll read the assumptions before I pose my question. If it's the latter, I need YOU to tell ME what YOUR interpretation is. Otherwise we're just going to be speaking past each other.

I hope this isn't anything like my last attempt. The last time I tried to get a flat earther to describe the model for me, it was like pulling teeth.

[supaluminus]

Sorry for all the edits! Just wanna be 100% understood and not taken the wrong way! If I need to clarify anything before we move on, let me know.

[Curious Squirrel]

I don't mind. I'll forewarn you though, this site operates under a number of assumptions.

Most of us are unwilling to answer questions we find too simple (ones you can easily find answers to on our website or in related literature, mostly) or too leading.

Now, some of our more cynical detractors will surely say that this is because we want to avoid criticism, and if you choose to believe so, hey-ho. But to offer my own take on things: we've seen quite a few questions, and we see the same questions every day. It becomes very tiresome eventually.

We also generally don't follow the format of 1-on-1 discussions. The general idea is that you'd start a thread on a fairly well-defined subject, and people can chip in as and when they find it appropriate. Dividing conversion  into subject threads (at least theoretically) allows future visitors to easily find past discussions on a given topic. Regardless of the outcome of any given conversation, making them easily indexable is desirable.

No, I would get tired of answering the same questions as well. That being said...

Before I can pose ANY kind of question about flat earth, I need to know what those assumptions are. I need to understand, so we're both on the same page, what exactly the model is "supposed" to look like. I can't make predictions or point out what is and isn't consistent if I don't first know how the model is supposed to work.

If this doesn't make sense to you, consider the globe model. We have very specific detiails to how the globe model is "supposed" to work. Even if we assume those details are all complete fabrications, just like dubious testimony from an unreliable witness, we need those details in order to point out inconsistencies and contradictions.

For example, the globe model says that we're on a round, oblate spheroid. With this in mind, a common objection raised by flat earthers is the fact that the horizon appears flat from our perspective. That isn't really what I want to talk about, and I'm not trying to foist anything on you, I'm just giving you an example and trying to show you why it's necessary that we both have the same understanding about how the model in question, whether flat or globe, is supposed to work in theory, before we can make observations about contradictions and inconsistencies.

So is there a main page that tells me what the assumptions are with respect to flat earth, and we can start with that as a baseline, or are we operating under the assumption that every flat earther has a different interpretation?

If it's the former, I'll read the assumptions before I pose my question. If it's the latter, I need YOU to tell ME what YOUR interpretation is. Otherwise we're just going to be speaking past each other.

I hope this isn't anything like my last attempt. The last time I tried to get a flat earther to describe the model for me, it was like pulling teeth.

In my experience the wiki and FAQ are good starting points. Most will differ somewhere from what's presented there, but having a firm grasp on the information within is a good starting point. I think Tom is the closest here to agreeing with everything on the wiki. But ideas/beliefs do vary person to person.

[supaluminus]

I don't mind. I'll forewarn you though, this site operates under a number of assumptions.

Most of us are unwilling to answer questions we find too simple (ones you can easily find answers to on our website or in related literature, mostly) or too leading.

Now, some of our more cynical detractors will surely say that this is because we want to avoid criticism, and if you choose to believe so, hey-ho. But to offer my own take on things: we've seen quite a few questions, and we see the same questions every day. It becomes very tiresome eventually.

We also generally don't follow the format of 1-on-1 discussions. The general idea is that you'd start a thread on a fairly well-defined subject, and people can chip in as and when they find it appropriate. Dividing conversion  into subject threads (at least theoretically) allows future visitors to easily find past discussions on a given topic. Regardless of the outcome of any given conversation, making them easily indexable is desirable.

No, I would get tired of answering the same questions as well. That being said...

Before I can pose ANY kind of question about flat earth, I need to know what those assumptions are. I need to understand, so we're both on the same page, what exactly the model is "supposed" to look like. I can't make predictions or point out what is and isn't consistent if I don't first know how the model is supposed to work.

If this doesn't make sense to you, consider the globe model. We have very specific detiails to how the globe model is "supposed" to work. Even if we assume those details are all complete fabrications, just like dubious testimony from an unreliable witness, we need those details in order to point out inconsistencies and contradictions.

For example, the globe model says that we're on a round, oblate spheroid. With this in mind, a common objection raised by flat earthers is the fact that the horizon appears flat from our perspective. That isn't really what I want to talk about, and I'm not trying to foist anything on you, I'm just giving you an example and trying to show you why it's necessary that we both have the same understanding about how the model in question, whether flat or globe, is supposed to work in theory, before we can make observations about contradictions and inconsistencies.

So is there a main page that tells me what the assumptions are with respect to flat earth, and we can start with that as a baseline, or are we operating under the assumption that every flat earther has a different interpretation?

If it's the former, I'll read the assumptions before I pose my question. If it's the latter, I need YOU to tell ME what YOUR interpretation is. Otherwise we're just going to be speaking past each other.

I hope this isn't anything like my last attempt. The last time I tried to get a flat earther to describe the model for me, it was like pulling teeth.

In my experience the wiki and FAQ are good starting points. Most will differ somewhere from what's presented there, but having a firm grasp on the information within is a good starting point. I think Tom is the closest here to agreeing with everything on the wiki. But ideas/beliefs do vary person to person.

That's why I generally prefer to ask each individual.

To make this easier, I'll narrow down the parts of the model that matter.

My question has to do with the movement of the sun as it rises, appears to move through the sky, and sets. I need to understand the relationship between the flat plane of the earth, the distance/size of the sun, its motion, etc. We could make a lot of progress very quickly with just those two or three things outlined clearly.

[supaluminus]

I don't mind.

Just a friendly reminder. Still looking forward to having this discussion. Hope to hear from you soon.

[Pete Svarrior]

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

• Read the basics before asking questions.
• Don't expect for any single person in particular to respond. People will respond as and when they find appropriate.
• If you want to discuss a new topic, start a thread for it.
• A reasonable response time on an Internet forum is a few days. Prodding people after 2 hours is poor netiquette

[supaluminus]

Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

• Read the basics before asking questions.
• Don't expect for any single person in particular to respond. People will respond as and when they find appropriate.
• If you want to discuss a new topic, start a thread for it.
• A reasonable response time on an Internet forum is a few days. Prodding people after 2 hours is poor netiquette

• I'm familiar with the basics. The problem isn't familiarity, it's that there's little consensus with respect to the flat earth model - everyone has their own interpretation. There are a few things that seem to be common, but everyone I've come across has their own caveats and exceptions to add. The reason I asked you to give me your take before proceeding is because I don't want to assume anything about what you think. I would rather have you tell me how you see it so that I know we're on the same page. That was why I narrowed down my question to more specific details in a more recent reply.
• No, for sure. Anyone else can chime in. I was just responding to you directly, since it seemed like you were answering my call for an atheist flat earther.
• I may just have to in this case, seeing as we're deviating from the OP.
• Please forgive my eagerness. You're the first openly atheist flat earther I've met, and I'm just eager to hear your take on things.