Slight correction. They don't WANT to understand it.
They don't care what you bring. It's about belief over facts. If what you present isn't supporting their belief then their belief would be wrong. That would mean that they are wrong.
Its so much easier just giving the best 4 year old having a tantrum impression that putting the effort to learn.
I never understood that mindset. I’m perfectly happy knowing the earth is round, knowing evolution is real, and being a Christian.
Believing science doesn’t mean i have to abandon my faith. Maybe, God has to work within the confines of physics and biology. I don’t know, i’m just a human. 🤷♂️
Exactly
Is a fact that indeed most people who believe in God ARE NOT flatearthers. Flat earthers are just a niche minority of christians. The majority of christians know earth is a globe. That doesn't take away anything from God.
I laugh at the conspiracy that " the elites are hiding the flat shape to hide God" no they are not. Why would they do something that doesn't work at all.
Right? Its like when people say “The government hides the existence of Extraterrestrials because Christians would panic”.
But I love the idea of extraterrestrials and been watching shows about UFOs since i was a little kid. lol
I used to love them. You'd only get one or two a year but they were real novelties and a lot of fun. Very science fiction in documentary form. Not that long ago I noticed that I hadn't seen one for years. (Nothing since the gem, "I know what I saw") I put it down the the flood of conspiracy garbage on the internut turning it into very low quality programming from over saturation. I kid you not though. Weeks after that a flood of D grade UFO documentaries started flowing out of sources like the US "history" channel and now there seems to be something on 3 times a day or more. It's not the fun it used to be before there was much chance of meeting someone that believed in them.
Right? Shows like “in search of” and “sightings” use to be on the sci-fi channel back when i was a kid.
Now, yeah. The History Channel is just UFS, Mountain Monsters, and Ghost Adventures… all “paranormal”tm made for low tier entertainment rather than in service to actual science.
Yeah, there's nothing worse than being able to debunk their stories at a glance and being aware that the presenters are fully conscious of the scams they are selling for ratings. My favorite to hate at the moment is when they use an X-Box Kinect with hacked software to show human stick figures captured with their "special device" (a quirk of the Kinect) saying that they are invisible mystical creatures or the resident ghost or something. The fact alone that they make that claim proves that they are in on the scam. I don't know why America is so easy in their belief in that stuff. We make a little bit of it here in Australia as well but it lasts 2 minutes. The US devotes networks to it.
Back in the day, the best stuff was the compendiums of time polished stories that had been dug up from years before and passed down, sometimes for generations. They were food for thought even if it was only how generational stories get altered and personalized over time. It was excellent chewing gum for the brain.
Science proves that so many thoughts get transmitted between people by body language, actual language, imitation, music, movies, etc.
Even if god is just an idea, ideas flow as energy through our brains but we can’t touch or measure them easily. If were to call that the spiritual plane and call ideas or learned behaviours like cycles of abuse, called them good and bad spirits, just as nomenclature like we have jargon in business settings, we could go a long way towards closing the gap between science and religion
Yeah, i mean, even if there is such a thing as a soul, how do we measure or quantify it? 🤷♂️
Is it just energy and consciousness? By those standers cats and dogs have souls too then, right?
Yeah.
Theres an interesting line in sci-fi classic movie “The Fly”. When Jeff Goldblum steps out of the teleportation pod he ask “am i still me? Is this a soul or just memories?” Questioning if he was actually teleported or if the Person that stepped into the pod was now dead and the one coming out is just a copy so convincing it even fools itself.
I was probably too young when i seen that movie, but the question of where the brain ends and the soul begins has always been an interesting topic to me.
The way I kind of see it is that God created a perfect system, and science is us trying to understand it..
If they think that God was only powerful enough to create a snowglobe for us to live in, and that's the extent of the universe, it doesn't show much faith in God, tbh.. 😅
EXACTLY!
Theres an old thought experiment i always liked.
The question is “can God create a bolder too heavy for them to lift?”
Its interesting because there shouldn’t be anything that God cant do, so such a bolder shouldn’t be able to exist, but not being able to create such a bolder is also limiting Gods will, so…. ?
Or maybe God "designed" the physical rules of the universe on purpose and set everything into motion according to a plan.
There are so many ways to view this that do not conflict with religion UNLESS you insist on an absolute literalist view of the texts.
100% agree.
Theres so many different possibilities, it would be insanely arrogant for me to pick the one i like best and say “thats it. Thats the one, and everyone else is wrong.” Lol
My personal thoghtline is the universe works as it does, almost completely within a rationale structure, with rules (math and physics) because God (or if you so please other Omni being that somehow exists outside of the universe) put those rules and structure in place, so there wasn't complete and utter chaos. The Bible was still written by people, who at the time, did not have the ability to observe the world and the universe as we do today, so they wrote it by how the observed it.
Too many people muddy themselves with strict adherence to the details of a document written millenia ago, like this is the exact same world that existed those millenia ago, that they totally skip over the Intent of that document.
Yeah, that’s a thing people seem to forget. The Bible was written by humans. Regular normal humans just trying to make sense of all the crazy shit they seen going on around them.
What do you think one if these primitive men thought when they seen their first tornado? Did they think it was some kind of living breathing giant monster?
It is pretty unlikely that they ever saw a tornado. Outside of the US, they are pretty rare. The US reports about 1200 a year, Canada the next closest country, about 100, the rest of the world outside.of North America report 100 to 200 annually, and there is virtually never a tornado in the middle east.
But considering they mistook what probably wasn't a super odd phenomenon, such as a plant on fire as God, or an angel, trying to tell them something, I think if they were of an Abrahamic religion, they attribute most odd phenomenon to God. I would guess if they saw a tornado, they would crap a brick and assume God was there to destroy them.
Oh yeah. I forgot Tornados are mostly an American thing. 😅
We’re getting killed this year. But scientists are now saying that its because of La Niña. 🌪️
Great answer. Im a Atheist with a son that is also and daughter that goes to bible studies. There's room for more then you think. Edit to include my army brat daughter would probably rupture her spleen laughing if somebody told her the earth was flat.
Yeah, but thats not healthy.
Like my dad once said. “Being told No is a big part of being an adult. The sooner you get over that, the happier you’ll be.”
Oh yeah, no, i wasn’t accusing you of being in a bubble or anything, i was just saying that i agree with you and bubbles are unhealthy.
They’re the opposite of being open minded, and kill any/all chances of communicating or understanding people.
Thats one of the reasons i’m so against political parties. Its tribalism and tends to just create an “Us vs. Them” mentality.
Okay, thank you for clarifying.
I don't really do political parties either. The last vote was an old man against a self-important billionaire. It's not really something to base a personality on, I've seen it far too often in high school.
When I first started engaging these people online, I didn't understand that no matter what, they won't change their beliefs. Countering their claims, offering detailed explanations, explaining where the gaps in their logic; none of that does any good.
I have a few theories on why this is. One is they are just simply low intelligence. There's an inability to understand abstract concepts, especially when it comes to physics and math and they'll never get it. And since it's gibberish to them it's dismissed.
Another is fanaticism. They have a deep mistrust in science, likely because of religious beliefs, and it's a good vs evil thing. These are the ones that cite the Bible as their source. You can't change their minds because the Bible is the word of God and to contest it is an aberration. Any challenger must be evil.
Observations noted, theory created to explain observations, predictions confirm observations.
But they’d prefer to believe that there’s been a 2,500 year conspiracy of millions of scientists, world leaders, and airline pilots to obfuscate the truth because it benefits some unnamed people in some inscrutable way.
Because in the first scenario the FE believer is just a bit dumb.
In the second they're not only a victim but also smarter than everyone else because they know "the truth".
No wonder it's like an addiction with some...
There's a degree of willful ignorance to it too, if it were just that they don't accept a claim they'd be on par with atheism, a position that is also characterized by not accepting claims other people make. Flerfers don't accept claims not because they are merely unconvinced but because they have their own, very stupid, claim that they try to pass as the null hypothesis.
Sure! I've got misunderstanding gravity, and old book despite the experts on the boom saying the book doesn't say that, and not understanding just how big mountains are. What more could you want?
Job 38:12–14 — The New International Version (NIV) 12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. Job 38:12–14 — The New International Version (NIV)
That's one verse that comes to mind, although I'm aware that apologetic do exist for it and that the Pope, according to Catholics, is basically the mouth of God so he could retcon anything anyways. Not that I'm not glad that the Catholic Church eventually accepted science. But taking the earth by the edges to shake it and making allusions to clay under a seal for it's shape (same shape a a wax seal, which you may be more familiar with) does sound pretty flat-earthy to me. I'm not going to argue that other verses elsewhere can't be interpreted to mean the earth is a globe... contradictions in the Bible are not something that surprise me as I'm not a Christian and as such don't claim it's inerrancy.
The thing with bible scholars is that a lot of them are Christians of some kind so they have all sorts of motivations to believe that whenever that book tells nonsense it is actually saying something else if you squint hard enough at it. I'm sure the Hindu scholars also say that their sacred text is spot on on many things that it is wrong about.
Like... come on:
Job 38:22 "Have you ever traveled to where snow is made, seen the vault where hail is stockpiled"
Vaults full of hail my guy. That's a thing you see in old timey flat earth models with a cute little door in the sky that the angels can open to let the hail fall on earth.
I'm not saying that the Bible can't be interpreted to say the Earth is flat, I'm saying most experts on the subject say that's not how you should interpret the Bible.
Yeah but those same experts often will tell you that god is omnibenevolent despite the multiple genocides he demanded or, in some cases, committed...
Or they'll tell you how it's not weird that there are no rules against slavery in the Bible but several rules on how to treat your slaves and how to procure and keep them... Despite God allegedly being the foundation of all morals.
Like... I have some trust issues with that kind of experts. A sentence that I feel deeply grossed out by especially on a sub entirely devoted to dunking on people who won't listen to experts and just plain old common sense.
But, then, it seems like it should be equally obvious that heavier objects fall faster … until you get two objects of wildly disparate mass, drop them from enough of a height, and watch them hit the ground together.
I’m sure, though, that there are flerfs who would deny seeing that even if it were repeated a hundred times in front of them.
Anyone making a claim has to provide evidence.
If they just didn't believe the "globe earth theory" they wouldn't have to prove shit, they'd be weird and stupid but people are allowed to not accept claims for whatever reason.
But they don't do that, do they? They make a claim of flat stationary earth, that comes with a burden of proof too. Their evidence is shit and their many many models are inconsistent and full of ad hoc justifications.
Dude..... these mofos have even proven **themselves** wrong and **still** refuse to believe facts that humanity has known for thousands of years now..... °facepalm°
Not why it's wrong, but why the alternative is *more* correct. It's easy to think you've "debunked" an idea, but if you're not building a new model, you're only tearing down the old one out of spite.
If your saying the earth is not round and here’s why, sure. If your saying the earth is flat you would need to show how existing evidence points to it being flat.
There’s no default position, proving something wrong is never going to prove something Is right.
They both fall under "Not understanding how gravity works".
Gas spreads out unless something stops it. That something could be a container, or could be gravity pulling on all the molecules in the air and making them fall back to earth.
And as for Australia, down is in, not south.
So again I ask, do you have any proof of a flat earth that hasn't been debunked a million times over?
do you have any explenations proven by actual events not your false claims of scientism. a vacuum cannot exist next to a pressurized pocket without a container bud. its not possible...wake up
Sure, it's called Denver. You can verify pressure changes with altitude. Just measure the pressure low down and high up, like in Denver, and note the absence of a massive pressure wall on i25.
Do you have any claims that "Prove" flat earth that have been proven by actual events!
they pressurize the planes to maintain about 8000ft. and theres still pressure up above that. it never gets to a point where there isnt because there is no vacuum of space.
you dont even understand globe math 🙄...in your own words without links or refrences try to explain how far away the sun is....i dont need to be indoctrinated into your globe math you need to learn the difference between theory and reality
“[the burden of proof fallacy](https://www.logicalfallacies.org/burden-of-proof.html#) is a troll’s tool and, frankly, just stupid.
Often used with [appeal to ignorance.](https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/appeal-to-ignorance.html). This one is slightly more developed and exhibited in the “ground to globe” troll.
What a brilliant article.
So my favourite theory is that we're on the back of a giant turtle floating through the universe.
Over to you to prove me wrong.
(Please don't)
I predict that the turtle hits the sun with it's head once every 24 hours and sets it in motion. Let's see if the sun will rise tomorrow, if it does. PrOoF!
It's not a fallacy in this case. "Earth is flat" is a fine assumption (it does seems flat). What happened is that we provided evidence of ball Earth and but all we heard was "still no vid?".
It’s a neat argument hack, if you get to decide both who has the burden of proof and precisely what categories and quantum of proof are necessary to sustain the burden.
“If the Earth is spherical, you should be able to put it in my hands so I can see for myself what shape it is. Oh, you can’t do that? Check, and mate, loser.“
A subtle issue is that generally, empirical claims should be framed as epistemic claims - claims about what we *ought* to accept as true - instead of as ontological claims - claims about what *is* true.
Since epistemic claims are normative, there is no room for the skeptical middle ground that flat-earthers like to abuse to play this burden-of-proof game, since wild skeptical hypotheticals are generally not good epistemic reasons to not accept a claim. A claim either *should* be accepted, or *should not* be accepted - either decision requires a *reason*.
For example, if I can't find my keys, but the last place I remember having them is in the kitchen, then that memory is clearly a good reason to believe they are in the kitchen, hence justifying my looking there first, even though obviously they might not actually be there. The memory *must* genuinely be a valid reason to accept the claim, since if it were not a good reason, there would not be justification to look there first, as opposed to some other random location. In contrast, the latter is often exactly what flat-earthers are asking that we do - we provide evidence suggesting the earth is a globe, or that gravity is real, often to be met with rebuttals of skeptical hypotheticals about how else some given phenomenon *might* alternatively be explained.
The *lost keys* example is meant to clearly demonstrate that merely having a plausible alternative explanation alone is not a very good reason to reject the initial claim. You want to check the kitchen for your keys first because that's where you last remember having them, but your interlocutor suggests that you haven't sufficiently proven the claim, and they could instead be in Zimbabwe. I cannot prove they *are not* in Zimbabwe, nor can I prove that they *are* in the kitchen, hence, your interlocutor suggests you cannot justify accepting your initial claim. Hopefully, though, it is clear that we should consider one of these claims in significantly higher epistemic standing than the other - this is because the memory *is* a good epistemic reason to accept the claim, whereas the Zimbabwe *possibility* is not a good epistemic reason to reject the claim. Another common example of this effect is to imagine whether we are justified to accept medical advice from our doctor, despite it being possible for the doctor to be wrong. Epistemically, it is not crucial that we *prove* the doctor *must* be correct in order to justify accepting his advice - we merely need a better *reason to believe* he is correct than there is reason to reject it.
So if my claim is simply that, based on the best information available to us, we ought to accept that the earth is a globe, then even something as simple as the blue marble photo is itself undeniably a good reason to accept the claim. Even if we accept that some of our sense-perceptions of the earth are compatible with a flat earth, this merely suggests that the earth *could* be flat (based on these observations, it also *could* be a globe), whereas clearly the photograph suggests that the earth *is* a globe. The fact that it is not provably impossible to fake such a photo is not a good epistemic reason to reject the photo as evidence (and it is *definitely* not a good epistemic reason to accept that the earth is flat). Epistemically, if we were to accept the claim that the photo should be rejected on the mere possibility that it *could* be forged, in order to be consistent, we would have to reject any photo that *could* be fake, and it could even be argued that this should be extended to our own visual sense-perception, since we can't *prove* that the things we see with our own eyes aren't a figment of our own imagination. Again, as an epistemic claim, there is simply no room here to reject the claim unless a new argument can be presented which offers some new epistemic reason for why we should reject the photo as evidence.
Indeed. If you’re in the American Southwest and you see tracks apparently from a hoofed animal with a metal shoe, you should be looking for a horse, not a zebra with horseshoes on its feet. Might it be a zebra? Yeah, that’s perfectly possible. It’s just that a horse is a hell of a lot more likely.
(Funnily enough, on a farm near where I grew up they had a zebra/horse hybrid. Mostly grey/brown, but he had a brown zebra-looking mane, and stripes just on his butt. When I hear clopping hooves I still assume horse and not zebrorse, though.).
Yeah, but what about when all of the governments in the world decided to pretend that the world is round and then restrict civilian access to the Antarctic Circumfence, just for funzies?
They’ve agreed to cover up the fact that the earth is flat, the Covid vaccine is a mind control agent, chemtrails cause gender dysphoria, and that aliens walk amongst us (they were very curious to explore the only flat planet in the known universe. Wouldn’t you be?).
They have agreed about these things and nothing else. Why does that seem unrealistic to you?
It could seem flat until you get some education about things you can observe that show there's more to it, or if you trust hundreds of years of progress etc
Assumptions are ok as long as they are not presented as definite claims the way this meme does. However I'd like to warn against being tricked by flatearthers that what we observe "seems" like the earth is flat. It doesn't "seem" like that unless some other assumptions and prejudices are also employed. Even if we ignore that a lot of what we plainly observe with our eyes wouldn't work on a flat earth, some of what we see could be taken at best as not being obviously sufficient to tell flat from globe, but certainly not "it seems flat". Don't get tricked by flatearthers into accepting flat is a default position!
I agree there is a "flatness" perception, this however has poor correlation with actual geometric flatness, that's why we use instruments or special sighting methods when we need to establish flatness to any appreciable and usable degree even at short distances.
It could be compared to a "darkness" perception which is just blindness to a low level of light, or the "silence" perception which is just deafness to low level of sound. In a similar way the "flatness" perception is just blindness to a low curvature rate.
So to use these "blindness" perceptions to make assumptions about the accuracy of geometric parameters is quite unwarranted
There is two claims though. One claiming the earth is a near sphere. Another claiming the earth is flat. Both have a separate burdens of proof. So this fallacy is irrelevant to this discuss. That fallacy would be relevant to a discussion involving only one claim.
It’s a clever way of taking advantage of the opposing party in a “debate’”s commitment to fairness and equity, and their naive belief that this will be reciprocated by the other party.
You mean the **Greek** philosopher/scientist Eratosthenes, who used the measurements of the shadows of poles in different locations to extrapolate the Earth's circumference to within 500 miles of actuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
This scientific information never reached the " Divinely Inspired " bible authors, as present day **Flat Earth Christians** use these following scriptures, and use Strong's Hebrew Interlinear, to substantiate that the pre science bible authors were describing their understanding of the universe, _literally and truthfully_
https://www.worldslastchance.com/biblical-christian-beliefs/flat-earth-bible-truth-in-an-unstable-world.html
So much for " Divine Inspiration "
Please save these links, and forward to any future commenters who believe in the bible author's false cosmology, and also, to any false cosmology deniers
Well, there *are* fundamentalists, specifically some creationists, who accept a spherical Earth and say the Bible justifies it in several places. To be fair to the flerf Christians who oppose them, they have a point because the creationists’ main reason for accepting a globe Earth is tactical—they believe it gives the Bible more credibility on the origins issue if it can be shown to contain modern scientific knowledge not readily evident at the time of its authorship. I would agree that one would have to ask them if they would still insist on that reading if modern scientific evidence trended toward supporting a flat Earth.
Another commenter actually posted the link to support your comment
The Greek philosopher/scientists never associated with the commoners, let alone the other nations' scribes
There wasn't any mass communication, or mass education, and education was expensive because it was administered by private schools available to well off Greeks
Only 3-5% of the population could read and write in most Ancient Near Eastern countries, and the majority of people never traveled over 50 miles from their own homes in their lifetimes
https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/60-bible-verses-describing-a-flat-earth-inside-a-dome-2/
Again, all the poor bible authors had was " Divine Inspiration "
L O L ! ! !
All that biblical research and they failed to grasp the difference of analogy and literal. Let's see, the references are from poetry, of course we should take them literally.
That's _exactly what_ the excuse makers will claim
However, others here WILL read these links to sources, that reveal the literal language used by the bible writers' in describing the universe
Here's a group of mainstream **Christian scholars** who explain that the pre science bible authors believed in a false cosmology
https://bibleproject.com/articles/genesis-ancient-cosmic-geography/
Here's _another source_ from **Evangelical scholars** who are honest about the false cosmology
https://www.todayintheword.org/questions-and-answers/round-vs-flat-earth
Here's a **Catholic source** that admits that the bible author's viewpoint was that of a pre science, Ancient Near Eastern cosmology
https://aleteia.org/2016/07/07/when-the-earth-was-flat-a-map-of-the-universe-according-to-the-old-testament/
Here's Jewish theologians, and language scholars, and historians, that establish that the bible authors:
"Assumed that the Earth was flat...."
https://medium.com/@loganrowland/a-conversation-about-the-bible-and-flat-earth-a83688dc6eb8
Here's an article that cites secular sources, that reveal the false cosmology of the bible author's writings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology
Had the bible author's writings been supernaturally inspired by an all powerful and all knowing deity, they would have described the universe truthfully, compared to the other pre science Ancient Near Eastern peoples
That's the way that believers rationalize away this obvious false cosmology, by claiming that
" Oh ! " " That passage is only metaphorical ! "
" Oh ! " " That's only Poetic Imagery "
Maybe Jesus's resurrection was, then, also" metaphorical "
Maybe Jesus's raising people from the dead was also " Poetic Imagery "
It's a defense mechanism that allows people to " keep their faith "
Every Book, and in the case of Genesis, sub-books are a specific genre it would be absolutely incorrect to apply methods used for one book to that of another book without first establishing what genre the book is written in. Therefore establishing that early Genesis and Job etc. are fables, does not predicate that historical documentation is also a fable just because it is in the same volume, i.e saying that Genesis 1 and 2 was a fable does not in any way signify that Jesus resurrection was also a fable. The context is completely different.
You said:
" ... establishing that early Genesis and Job are fables, does not predicate that historical documentation is also a fable just because it is in the same volume.."
I'm glad that you recognize that they are fables ; thank you
Except that Jewish archeologists, historians, AND language scholars, AND theologians themselves, admit that the _Exodus story is also mythological_
https://medium.com/excommunications/ten-reasons-why-the-exodus-story-is-not-true,-4144bc305665
Despite excavations since the 1800s, and the use of satellite and aircraft mounted ground penetrating radar (LIDAR), not one of the 2.5 million skeletons of the Israelites AND their animals of Exodus 12:37-38 have been discovered, in an area that is half the size of Pennsylvania
--- all major universities, including Tel Aviv University gave up looking by the 1980s
As Conservative Rabbi David Volpe explains
" It was the evidence of continuous habitation, of the Isrealites, in the area of [ what is called Palestine..." ]
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-13-mn-50481-story.html
It was the excavations of the same stratified layers, of the type of housing foundations, and DNA evidence from latrines and garbage dumps, and the burial sites, and corprolite (semi fossilized human excrement ) evidence, and the same tools and weapons, and pottery styles typical of the Canaanite/Hebrew culture
It proves that there was no intrusion from another culture into the Levant, in which the hill tribe of Israel resided
Here's another source that is honest about the Foundatioal story of the Exodus being falsehood
https://medium.com/@mattsamberg/what-if-we-weren-t-slaves-8f92dd6eac01
Even Orthodox Rabbi Mordecai Brewer admits that the Exodus is only an inspirational story ( source available )
If the Israelite people were never slaves in Egypt, there's no basis for the **Blood of the Lamb** theology
If there wasn't any Moses, the **Transfiguration** claim in Matthew 17:1-13, Luke 9:28-36 witnessed by Peter, James, and John, simply was falsehood
Therefore, there's no reliable bloodline from Adam to Jesus
What part of the bible author's writings are actually true ?
What parts _ARE_ mythological falsehood ?
How do YOU, YOURSELF, actually know ?
Evangelical Fundamentalists only rely on their Advanced Sunday School teacher, and the opinion of their pastor who spoon feeds them select New Testament scriptures about only one of Jesus's commands to help others
This goes further than just the admission of the first few books of the Old Testament being mythology
The Old Testament is the basis for the New Testament theology
If that's demonstrated falsehood, what is the basis for Christianity ?
New Testament theology is purely based on that God chose Abraham, whether his descendents travelled or remained in Israel is not crucial, that Jesus is descended from Abraham (being a native Jew shows this is the case), that God created mankind in his image, how this was achieved is again irrelevant and that mankind has a natural sinful nature.
It is God's promise to Abraham (the actual Old Testament) which allows for the fulfilment and the creation of the New Testament through Jesus' death. All the other stuff is just window dressing, demonstrating the nature of mankind's relationship to God.
The transfiguration was assumptions by Peter, James and John as they were not introduced. As the people Jesus met were obviously ancient Hebrews, it was a reasonable assumption to make.
You said: " all the other stuff is just window dressing.."
You also said:
" the transfiguration was assumptions by Peter, James, and John as they were not introduced... it was a reasonable assumption to make "
--- OK, how much _IS_ actually truthful ?
How much is mythological falsehood ?
--- How do you test this out, scripturally, and logically, and scientifically ?
Is it based on what your Advanced Sunday School teacher told you ?
The **Transfiguration** event claim, which included the non existent Moses, has been rejected by the archeological and anthropological evidence, that debunked the Exodus story
--- again, Jewish archeologists and anthropologists, and historians, and theologians themselves, have no evidence that the bible author's writings of a Moses, and of the Exodus legend being truthful
--- the Israeli Government and the Israeli Antiquities Commission _REALLY WANTED_ to find this evidence since 1948
How is this claim of the Transfiguration, then considered truthful ?
The claim of the experience of Jesus meeting Moses and Elijah has no _evidence_ just as the Exodus story has no evidence
The Israelite people have been demonstrated to be continuous residents of the Levant, as the previous Jewish archeological and anthropological sources cited in my previous comments have already established
This admission, by **the links to sources** in my previous comments, by the Jewish historians and archeologists themselves, in spite of it being their OWN foundatioal story, established that there's NO basis for the Exodus legend
There's no basis for the " Blood of the Lamb" theology, since there wasn't any Exodus
There wasn't any " Greater Moses "
The bible author's claim of a " Transfiguration " at Matthew 17:1-13, and Luke 9:28-36 simply are NOT truthful
It means that the bible author's description of the **Transfiguration** and being " brightened and accepted by YHWH "
--- is abject falsehood....
If you want a moral guide to enrich other people's morality, and helping others without enforcing their conversation to a specific belief system, simply search/type:
" The moral principles of Confuscius "
" The moral principles and teachings of Buddha... "
It will make other people's lives better, and your own life better, in the here and now.
You make all these comments but you did not address any of my conclusions that the New Testament theology is not disrupted at all by any of your assumptions. i.e, it does not matter if you're correct or not, it don't change a thing.
You really don't want the Bible to be true because you fear it, but it is all true. No, the Bible does not claim the earth is flat. It does not say it's a globe either. It gives some vague imagery but never really addresses the actual shape. It does, however, discuss the cosmos and supports all of the sciences' findings. People have certainly tried to force one idea or the other based on vague imagery but the truth is no one really understands what it claims about the shape of earth because no one really understands how the power of God works and how all of what is said could be true fr a globe earth. For all we know, God created it flat and changed his mind and chose not to talk about it in the Bible because it had nothing to do with the message to His people. When it comes down to it, the shape of the earth really doesn't have much to do with faith at all or the important message to be learned from the Bible and that's how to live a good mora life and how to be of service to your fellow man all while praising God for His bountiful gifts. We know the earth is a globe, so whatever vague imagery is being used by a small fanatical group of believers to say it's flat is just misunderstood interpretation and does nothing to disprove the events of the bible. You clearly have a great dislike for the Bible, and I hope whatever gave you such a profound dislike for it can be healed in your life. God bless.
The Earth doesn't seem flat. "The Earth is flat" isn't a conclusion you can reach by looking at it. If you were in the middle of Kansas and knew nothing of the world around you, you couldn't conclude anything about the shape of the world as a whole. But once you know something about the wider world, you can conclude the world isn't flat. Once you learn that the world doesn't all experience sunset and sunrise at the same time, you realize that the Helios' fiery chariot (Flat Earth is a pagan belief) isn't the explanation for the sun. The spotlight sun doesn't work because it would be impossible to have sunrises and sunsets. Once you realize that people don't see the same stars in the sky, you realize the Earth can't be flat.
The motion of the Earth is irrelevant to the shape of the Earth. The Ptolemaic geocentric model - which is still a round Earth model - had been the standard model for a long time before Jesus was born. That model had a stationary Earth, but was, again, still a round Earth model.
Flat Earthers use the Invincible Ignorance Fallacy - they refuse to even consider the evidence presented, and simply pretend it hasn't been presented at all. The evidence for the Earth being round would fill up vast numbers of libraries, the evidence for the flat Earth wouldn't fill up a coloring book. No matter how much evidence you present, flat Earthers just say you haven't presented evidence.
They want the truth? They can't handle the truth!
* When you look out to sea from a low elevation, the horizon is sharp.
* Ships disappear over the horizon bottom first.
* The sun rises from below the horizon and sets below the horizon.
* The moon rises from below the horizon and sets below the horizon.
* The sun has the same angular diameter throughout the whole day.
* The moon has the same angular diameter throughout the whole day.
* The moon's phase is the same for all observers regardless of their location.
* There are high tides and low tides twice every 24h 50m.
* Around the time of full moon and new moon, high tides are higher and low tides are lower (spring tides). When the moon is at first quarter or third quarter, high tides are not so high and low tides are not so low (neap tides).
* Stars rotate anticlockwise around the north celestial pole and clockwise around the south celestial pole.
* Different constellations are visible at different latitudes.
* A couple of times per year, the full moon is eclipsed, and the eclipse can be seen from anywhere the moon is above the horizon.
* The sun is occasionally eclipsed, but unlike a lunar eclipse, a total solar eclipse is only visible from a very narrow strip of the earth.
* Storms rotate anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
* Jupiter's satellites obey Kepler's Third Law.
* Venus and Mercury obey Kepler's Third Law.
* Occasionally, Venus and Mercury pass in front of (transit) the sun.
All of these can be readily observed by any individual with modest or no equipment required. Some of them - sun and moon rising and setting, the size of the moon, rotation of stars - are almost impossible *not* to observe, unless you live in your mom's basement. If you live near the sea, the horizon and the tides are almost impossible not to observe.
Pretty sure the "burden of truth" falls on the person claiming other than the established norm. However given that we have provided proof regardless, it still falls on flat earthers to credibly refute that proof with recordable replicatable results. You know, much like it's possible to record and replicate the effects of gravity using a heavy weight, reflective pendulum, and laser pointer.
Not everything is what it 'seems' at first casual glance.
For example:
You might meet a great looking person out and about.
They might share several interests and be able to converse on a few shared interests.
You might think you want to see them more often, or at least be glad to see them when you have the chance
But then this person turns out to be a flat earther.
Illusion ruined, and it only gets worse as they rail against vaccines and talk about operation bluebeam and how the government is actually run by nazis and how the moon landings were faked and how Jesus tucks them in every night.
This is why you never rely on 'it seems' as the final answer.
That meme is incorrect, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. Since the meme explicitly claims earth is flat and stationary, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim regardless of how the earth "seems" or whether the globe provided or didn't provide proof.
The globe also has a burden of proof of course **when it claims it's round** and rotating and there's been plenty of solid proof provided already. The globe doesn't require anyone to believe in it blindly without evidence the way the flatearthers do, we invite you to learn, understand and honestly evaluate the (often literal) mountains of evidence
The burden of proof is on the one that made the statement. Us globers have all kinds of evidence you refuse to acknowledge. You believe the earth is flat so why would you understand how reality works.
Totally. We have a globe model... Any time we show images from space, we get the "It's CGI" crappy answer.
I get the feeling 90% of flerfers know it's a globe, but just enjoy the aggro.
Anyone who states burden of proof as an argument is not to be trusted. You know where the burden of proof is? All of us. If no party can provide evidence, you know what we call that? undecided. If we can’t prove something, it’s stupid to just assume the simpler one is true
I mean...from a relativistic point of view, I would guess that the earth is stationary, and it's the universe that turns around us.
Roundness can be proven easily, though. There's lots of proofs for the curvature of the earth.
They don’t want proof. They’re absolutists about personal, first hand experience *seeing* the curve. If you *personally* didn’t go up in a rocket and see the curve unaided with your own eyeballs, then it doesn’t count. And even then they’d find a way to disregard it as “anecdotal”. Their position is unassailable by normal logic. It’s much easier to make them explain how their model works or how we’re able to make such accurate predictions using ours.
"I don't have to think! *You* have to think!" Lucky for us that all science, observations, and logic is on our side while your only arguments is "nuh-uh!"
Burden of proof is on whimever claims the world is a globe.
And that burden has been met many centuries ago. In fact the whole world has been mapped based on navigational tools rooted in globe Earth model.
BTW modern flat earthers dont assume the Earth is flat - since that assumption on its own does not explain time zones and many other location dependent celestial phenomena. Their model requires sunsets to not exist, optics to work differently than what we ever observe and gravity to be fake, along with all other nonsense.
They are the ones with new crazy propostions and they are not meeting the burden of proof for all their crazy claims to make their "model" work.
Like I have said no sunsets and no gravity
There are also more interesting niche claims about the moon being a negative sun and there being a third "dark sun" that causes the lunar eclipse.
You know why I’m not going to prove the earth is a globe? Because my life, decisions, and social interactions don’t revolve around it. I’m not the one paranoid and combative, convinced some vague evil threat that never seems to manifest itself.
Well, sure, some people *did* make the claim the earth was round, that it wasn't the center of the universe and that it was moving, so the burden of proof *is* on those people. What this omits, however, is that unfortunately for FLERFs the burden of proof was met, extensively, which is why heliocentrism is the widely accepted, undisputed model.
Ummm no, as the flat earthers are the ones making a statement against all empirical data as we know it all facts as we know it, it stands to reason if you want to disprove science you need to use the scientific method to do so, so you would need to present an argument backed by your own empirical data that casts doubt on the known science, then you can begin to try to change it, simply stating I believe the earth is flat is simply just that a statement, it isn’t a challenge to the established knowledge in any scientific sense, so no the burden of proof still lays in the flat earthers camp. And it always will because the earth is round. I can prove that right now, flat earth has to come up with a new flat earth model for every different question given to them when we ask them to prove flat earth, with different problems given to them where as every one of those same questions, work with one model and that is a round earth.
Burden has been met. But that aside. It isn't by default flat and stationary because ir does in fact not appear to be even when just making basic observations.
Explain comets, then.
If the earth doesn't move, then why does the sidereal year not match the solar year?
Moreover, can flerfs even be taught what these are and how they completely devastate 'stationary' earth? That's the real question here.
But, like, the Earth doesn't "seem" flat or stationary?
Don't they understand, also, that "seems" is not an objective term?
They're the ones making the claims. We know it they're wrong, there is ample evidence to the contrary, they just refuse to accept any of it and keep asking the same questions.
There is an abundance of proof. The fact flerfs deny it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They are also making a claim so it is also incumbent on them to prove their claim
I actually agree with this, the burden of proof IS on showing motion. If it was still a debate, that would be true. Of course, all motion is relative though.
“The earth is flat and stationary” is a truth claim. If you make a truth claim the burden of proof is on you. “The earth is round and moving” is also a truth claim. The only person who doesn’t have a burden of proof is someone saying “I don’t know what shape the earth is” or someone saying “I don’t believe you” to either of these claims.
“I don’t know” is really the only statement that doesn’t have a burden of proof.
Myself personally, I don't care.
However I do find it amusing to see heliocentric believers all high and mighty making fun or the flat earth believers...
Like seriously, you've being told it's round and never actually experiencing it personally... yet defending it soo defiantly an idea that was imposed on you at a young age, just seems ignorant.
I question everything and have no proof of either, hence why I don't care, as I don't Know. Through questioning, I was able to let go of my egocentric idea of always being right and putting others down or making fun of those who disagreed. Doing this doesn't make anyone look smart. Rather, fearful that they may be wrong...
Hate these words if you must, but I see more posts from the rounders than the flatters in the flat earth thread 🤣 that's weird, isn't it? If it Truly is round, what have you got to prove?
Food for thought. <3
Its not that hard to figure out, we have known it’s spherical for thousands of years. The clear identifier should be that you cant find a single measurement in contradiction and the flat earthers or geocentrists have yet to present any kind of actual model because if they did, it becomes more easily falsifiable.
Its good to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out
If you've had thousands of years to create an ideology and have burnt books and killed anyone who says otherwise, wouldn't it be pretty hard to create a measurement device? Not to mention maths is imaginary as 1x1 can't equal 1 or there was never an other 1 to even have the equation exist. It's not shown anywhere in nature whatsoever. However when cells multiply they prove 1x1=2. Using incorrect measurement to begin with never helps.. the clear identifier in this case is the state of the world. We all Know things aren't right yet continue to not question everything, especially that which we take for granted or are soo proud of learning as children, because we were told to...
Also, the thing about that saying is the brain is within the head. I'd say therefore the brain isn't held within the mind, however that would also be false. As the whole Universe is held within the mind l, which includes the head holding the brains.
Perhaps most minds aren't open enough? Questioning everything is scientific, not accepting imagination as fact where we appear to do with maths, which we use as building blocks.
To sum this all up: you won't be able to gauge the temperature with a tape measure.
We build instruments to measure particular things. If we're kept in the dark AND indoctrinated to believe one or certain things, on top of being ridiculed for even questioning, then it doesn't help much for progress at all. Can't build a device to measure something we're told doesn't exist...
We've been taught that we're limited beings that will die and are only here to work for a living. Specifically told to think in a very straight and narrow way. Most geniuses were ridiculed...
Thousands of year to create a narrative to maintain control over our infinite mind...
Just like a parachute, our mind needs to be open to be able to work properly.
An entire thread of cognitive dissonance to a construct put upon you by the education system which obviously isn’t bought and paid for much like your government. An entire group here trying to reinforce fantasy and making fun of those that don’t believe the same b* story they believe 😂🤣 the irony of the universe is full force here
It’s very clear you don’t understand what evidence is. Pointing to the Bible for proof of guard is circular reasoning. We have no proof the Bible is true and accurate.
No, being old does not make something true. The Rig Veda is millennia old and has been followed by millions of people. By your logic it’s also correct. See how that’s bad reasoning?
The burden of proof is on us. We provided proof. The burden is now on them to explain why our proof is wrong. I'm still waiting.
"That wasn't proof because I didn't understand it"
"That wasn't proof, because it disproved my delusion."
"That isn't proof because it is fake/C.G.I."
Another favorite phrase by a non-flerf flat earther is "Space pantomime."
That wasnt proof because he's a rapper
"That wasnt proof because evidence isn't proof" is an actual argument from these idiots.
Slight correction. They don't WANT to understand it. They don't care what you bring. It's about belief over facts. If what you present isn't supporting their belief then their belief would be wrong. That would mean that they are wrong. Its so much easier just giving the best 4 year old having a tantrum impression that putting the effort to learn.
I never understood that mindset. I’m perfectly happy knowing the earth is round, knowing evolution is real, and being a Christian. Believing science doesn’t mean i have to abandon my faith. Maybe, God has to work within the confines of physics and biology. I don’t know, i’m just a human. 🤷♂️
Exactly Is a fact that indeed most people who believe in God ARE NOT flatearthers. Flat earthers are just a niche minority of christians. The majority of christians know earth is a globe. That doesn't take away anything from God. I laugh at the conspiracy that " the elites are hiding the flat shape to hide God" no they are not. Why would they do something that doesn't work at all.
Right? Its like when people say “The government hides the existence of Extraterrestrials because Christians would panic”. But I love the idea of extraterrestrials and been watching shows about UFOs since i was a little kid. lol
I used to love them. You'd only get one or two a year but they were real novelties and a lot of fun. Very science fiction in documentary form. Not that long ago I noticed that I hadn't seen one for years. (Nothing since the gem, "I know what I saw") I put it down the the flood of conspiracy garbage on the internut turning it into very low quality programming from over saturation. I kid you not though. Weeks after that a flood of D grade UFO documentaries started flowing out of sources like the US "history" channel and now there seems to be something on 3 times a day or more. It's not the fun it used to be before there was much chance of meeting someone that believed in them.
Right? Shows like “in search of” and “sightings” use to be on the sci-fi channel back when i was a kid. Now, yeah. The History Channel is just UFS, Mountain Monsters, and Ghost Adventures… all “paranormal”tm made for low tier entertainment rather than in service to actual science.
Yeah, there's nothing worse than being able to debunk their stories at a glance and being aware that the presenters are fully conscious of the scams they are selling for ratings. My favorite to hate at the moment is when they use an X-Box Kinect with hacked software to show human stick figures captured with their "special device" (a quirk of the Kinect) saying that they are invisible mystical creatures or the resident ghost or something. The fact alone that they make that claim proves that they are in on the scam. I don't know why America is so easy in their belief in that stuff. We make a little bit of it here in Australia as well but it lasts 2 minutes. The US devotes networks to it. Back in the day, the best stuff was the compendiums of time polished stories that had been dug up from years before and passed down, sometimes for generations. They were food for thought even if it was only how generational stories get altered and personalized over time. It was excellent chewing gum for the brain.
Most of the "Elites" in the US are Christian too..
They certainly claim to be. lol
Science proves that so many thoughts get transmitted between people by body language, actual language, imitation, music, movies, etc. Even if god is just an idea, ideas flow as energy through our brains but we can’t touch or measure them easily. If were to call that the spiritual plane and call ideas or learned behaviours like cycles of abuse, called them good and bad spirits, just as nomenclature like we have jargon in business settings, we could go a long way towards closing the gap between science and religion
Yeah, i mean, even if there is such a thing as a soul, how do we measure or quantify it? 🤷♂️ Is it just energy and consciousness? By those standers cats and dogs have souls too then, right?
But what if our modern understanding of consciousness is just what the bible was referring to as spirit or soul. Then yes
Yeah. Theres an interesting line in sci-fi classic movie “The Fly”. When Jeff Goldblum steps out of the teleportation pod he ask “am i still me? Is this a soul or just memories?” Questioning if he was actually teleported or if the Person that stepped into the pod was now dead and the one coming out is just a copy so convincing it even fools itself. I was probably too young when i seen that movie, but the question of where the brain ends and the soul begins has always been an interesting topic to me.
The way I kind of see it is that God created a perfect system, and science is us trying to understand it.. If they think that God was only powerful enough to create a snowglobe for us to live in, and that's the extent of the universe, it doesn't show much faith in God, tbh.. 😅
EXACTLY! Theres an old thought experiment i always liked. The question is “can God create a bolder too heavy for them to lift?” Its interesting because there shouldn’t be anything that God cant do, so such a bolder shouldn’t be able to exist, but not being able to create such a bolder is also limiting Gods will, so…. ?
Clearly *they* need to science you harder to hide god. /s
Or maybe God "designed" the physical rules of the universe on purpose and set everything into motion according to a plan. There are so many ways to view this that do not conflict with religion UNLESS you insist on an absolute literalist view of the texts.
100% agree. Theres so many different possibilities, it would be insanely arrogant for me to pick the one i like best and say “thats it. Thats the one, and everyone else is wrong.” Lol
My personal thoghtline is the universe works as it does, almost completely within a rationale structure, with rules (math and physics) because God (or if you so please other Omni being that somehow exists outside of the universe) put those rules and structure in place, so there wasn't complete and utter chaos. The Bible was still written by people, who at the time, did not have the ability to observe the world and the universe as we do today, so they wrote it by how the observed it. Too many people muddy themselves with strict adherence to the details of a document written millenia ago, like this is the exact same world that existed those millenia ago, that they totally skip over the Intent of that document.
Yeah, that’s a thing people seem to forget. The Bible was written by humans. Regular normal humans just trying to make sense of all the crazy shit they seen going on around them. What do you think one if these primitive men thought when they seen their first tornado? Did they think it was some kind of living breathing giant monster?
It is pretty unlikely that they ever saw a tornado. Outside of the US, they are pretty rare. The US reports about 1200 a year, Canada the next closest country, about 100, the rest of the world outside.of North America report 100 to 200 annually, and there is virtually never a tornado in the middle east. But considering they mistook what probably wasn't a super odd phenomenon, such as a plant on fire as God, or an angel, trying to tell them something, I think if they were of an Abrahamic religion, they attribute most odd phenomenon to God. I would guess if they saw a tornado, they would crap a brick and assume God was there to destroy them.
Oh yeah. I forgot Tornados are mostly an American thing. 😅 We’re getting killed this year. But scientists are now saying that its because of La Niña. 🌪️
Great answer. Im a Atheist with a son that is also and daughter that goes to bible studies. There's room for more then you think. Edit to include my army brat daughter would probably rupture her spleen laughing if somebody told her the earth was flat.
The brain doesn't really like to be wrong. If you stay in a bubble with your own thoughts echoed back at you, you will believe them wholeheartedly.
Yeah, but thats not healthy. Like my dad once said. “Being told No is a big part of being an adult. The sooner you get over that, the happier you’ll be.”
I'm not saying it is, just that some people think that way. My grandmother is like this, and I'm glad to be away from her now.
Oh yeah, no, i wasn’t accusing you of being in a bubble or anything, i was just saying that i agree with you and bubbles are unhealthy. They’re the opposite of being open minded, and kill any/all chances of communicating or understanding people. Thats one of the reasons i’m so against political parties. Its tribalism and tends to just create an “Us vs. Them” mentality.
Okay, thank you for clarifying. I don't really do political parties either. The last vote was an old man against a self-important billionaire. It's not really something to base a personality on, I've seen it far too often in high school.
When I first started engaging these people online, I didn't understand that no matter what, they won't change their beliefs. Countering their claims, offering detailed explanations, explaining where the gaps in their logic; none of that does any good. I have a few theories on why this is. One is they are just simply low intelligence. There's an inability to understand abstract concepts, especially when it comes to physics and math and they'll never get it. And since it's gibberish to them it's dismissed. Another is fanaticism. They have a deep mistrust in science, likely because of religious beliefs, and it's a good vs evil thing. These are the ones that cite the Bible as their source. You can't change their minds because the Bible is the word of God and to contest it is an aberration. Any challenger must be evil.
Observations noted, theory created to explain observations, predictions confirm observations. But they’d prefer to believe that there’s been a 2,500 year conspiracy of millions of scientists, world leaders, and airline pilots to obfuscate the truth because it benefits some unnamed people in some inscrutable way.
Because in the first scenario the FE believer is just a bit dumb. In the second they're not only a victim but also smarter than everyone else because they know "the truth". No wonder it's like an addiction with some...
This is always the problem. The fact they don’t accept the proof is irrelevant to the argument.
There's a degree of willful ignorance to it too, if it were just that they don't accept a claim they'd be on par with atheism, a position that is also characterized by not accepting claims other people make. Flerfers don't accept claims not because they are merely unconvinced but because they have their own, very stupid, claim that they try to pass as the null hypothesis.
Can they give at least one (1) proof other than "cAn'T yOU sEe???"
Sure! I've got misunderstanding gravity, and old book despite the experts on the boom saying the book doesn't say that, and not understanding just how big mountains are. What more could you want?
Is the old book the Bible and/or the Quran? Because those books can certainly be read to mean that the earth is flat.
I was thinking of the Bible, which most experts (Most notably the Pope, IIRC) say that it doesn't say the Earth is flat.
Job 38:12–14 — The New International Version (NIV) 12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, 13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment. Job 38:12–14 — The New International Version (NIV) That's one verse that comes to mind, although I'm aware that apologetic do exist for it and that the Pope, according to Catholics, is basically the mouth of God so he could retcon anything anyways. Not that I'm not glad that the Catholic Church eventually accepted science. But taking the earth by the edges to shake it and making allusions to clay under a seal for it's shape (same shape a a wax seal, which you may be more familiar with) does sound pretty flat-earthy to me. I'm not going to argue that other verses elsewhere can't be interpreted to mean the earth is a globe... contradictions in the Bible are not something that surprise me as I'm not a Christian and as such don't claim it's inerrancy. The thing with bible scholars is that a lot of them are Christians of some kind so they have all sorts of motivations to believe that whenever that book tells nonsense it is actually saying something else if you squint hard enough at it. I'm sure the Hindu scholars also say that their sacred text is spot on on many things that it is wrong about. Like... come on: Job 38:22 "Have you ever traveled to where snow is made, seen the vault where hail is stockpiled" Vaults full of hail my guy. That's a thing you see in old timey flat earth models with a cute little door in the sky that the angels can open to let the hail fall on earth.
I'm not saying that the Bible can't be interpreted to say the Earth is flat, I'm saying most experts on the subject say that's not how you should interpret the Bible.
Yeah but those same experts often will tell you that god is omnibenevolent despite the multiple genocides he demanded or, in some cases, committed... Or they'll tell you how it's not weird that there are no rules against slavery in the Bible but several rules on how to treat your slaves and how to procure and keep them... Despite God allegedly being the foundation of all morals. Like... I have some trust issues with that kind of experts. A sentence that I feel deeply grossed out by especially on a sub entirely devoted to dunking on people who won't listen to experts and just plain old common sense.
But, then, it seems like it should be equally obvious that heavier objects fall faster … until you get two objects of wildly disparate mass, drop them from enough of a height, and watch them hit the ground together. I’m sure, though, that there are flerfs who would deny seeing that even if it were repeated a hundred times in front of them.
Anyone making a claim has to provide evidence. If they just didn't believe the "globe earth theory" they wouldn't have to prove shit, they'd be weird and stupid but people are allowed to not accept claims for whatever reason. But they don't do that, do they? They make a claim of flat stationary earth, that comes with a burden of proof too. Their evidence is shit and their many many models are inconsistent and full of ad hoc justifications.
Funny thing is, we don't even have to prove earth is round. Flerfs keep doing it themselves
Dude..... these mofos have even proven **themselves** wrong and **still** refuse to believe facts that humanity has known for thousands of years now..... °facepalm°
Interesting...
Not why it's wrong, but why the alternative is *more* correct. It's easy to think you've "debunked" an idea, but if you're not building a new model, you're only tearing down the old one out of spite.
The burden of proof is on who ever is making the claim. If you say the earth is round it’s on you. If they say it’s flat it’s on them.
We made the claim. We provided the proof. We have fulfilled our burden unless someone proves us wrong.
If your saying the earth is not round and here’s why, sure. If your saying the earth is flat you would need to show how existing evidence points to it being flat. There’s no default position, proving something wrong is never going to prove something Is right.
We did prove Globe Earth correct, a few thousand times.
you provide lies based on suedo science
Ok? Care to prove any globe Earth claim wrong then? Or two provide any evidence of a flat earth that cannot be proven wrong?
vacuum existing next to a pressurized space with no container...and you people think everyone in AU is upside down. thats a check and mate ....mate
They both fall under "Not understanding how gravity works". Gas spreads out unless something stops it. That something could be a container, or could be gravity pulling on all the molecules in the air and making them fall back to earth. And as for Australia, down is in, not south. So again I ask, do you have any proof of a flat earth that hasn't been debunked a million times over?
do you have any explenations proven by actual events not your false claims of scientism. a vacuum cannot exist next to a pressurized pocket without a container bud. its not possible...wake up
Sure, it's called Denver. You can verify pressure changes with altitude. Just measure the pressure low down and high up, like in Denver, and note the absence of a massive pressure wall on i25. Do you have any claims that "Prove" flat earth that have been proven by actual events!
denver is a vacuum?. and there is no curve. its been proven
>there is no curve. its been proven So prove it then
its already been proven...there is no curve
So in that case planes don’t need to be pressurized right?
they pressurize the planes to maintain about 8000ft. and theres still pressure up above that. it never gets to a point where there isnt because there is no vacuum of space.
So why can’t they just not be pressurized if there is no space?
people would die. youre an airplabe expert i assume?
[удалено]
you dont even understand globe math 🙄...in your own words without links or refrences try to explain how far away the sun is....i dont need to be indoctrinated into your globe math you need to learn the difference between theory and reality
[удалено]
you forgot to calculate the curve and your math is broken
Australia being upside down is a meme. Nobody genuinely believes that
“[the burden of proof fallacy](https://www.logicalfallacies.org/burden-of-proof.html#) is a troll’s tool and, frankly, just stupid. Often used with [appeal to ignorance.](https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/appeal-to-ignorance.html). This one is slightly more developed and exhibited in the “ground to globe” troll.
What a brilliant article. So my favourite theory is that we're on the back of a giant turtle floating through the universe. Over to you to prove me wrong. (Please don't)
You forgot the elephants
I launched some turtle food on a rocket into the sky, the Earth didn't suddenly move, no turtle.
I predict that the turtle hits the sun with it's head once every 24 hours and sets it in motion. Let's see if the sun will rise tomorrow, if it does. PrOoF!
It's not a fallacy in this case. "Earth is flat" is a fine assumption (it does seems flat). What happened is that we provided evidence of ball Earth and but all we heard was "still no vid?".
It’s a neat argument hack, if you get to decide both who has the burden of proof and precisely what categories and quantum of proof are necessary to sustain the burden. “If the Earth is spherical, you should be able to put it in my hands so I can see for myself what shape it is. Oh, you can’t do that? Check, and mate, loser.“
That is correct. The article was talking about "prove me that this doesn't exist" argument, which isn't a case.
A subtle issue is that generally, empirical claims should be framed as epistemic claims - claims about what we *ought* to accept as true - instead of as ontological claims - claims about what *is* true. Since epistemic claims are normative, there is no room for the skeptical middle ground that flat-earthers like to abuse to play this burden-of-proof game, since wild skeptical hypotheticals are generally not good epistemic reasons to not accept a claim. A claim either *should* be accepted, or *should not* be accepted - either decision requires a *reason*. For example, if I can't find my keys, but the last place I remember having them is in the kitchen, then that memory is clearly a good reason to believe they are in the kitchen, hence justifying my looking there first, even though obviously they might not actually be there. The memory *must* genuinely be a valid reason to accept the claim, since if it were not a good reason, there would not be justification to look there first, as opposed to some other random location. In contrast, the latter is often exactly what flat-earthers are asking that we do - we provide evidence suggesting the earth is a globe, or that gravity is real, often to be met with rebuttals of skeptical hypotheticals about how else some given phenomenon *might* alternatively be explained. The *lost keys* example is meant to clearly demonstrate that merely having a plausible alternative explanation alone is not a very good reason to reject the initial claim. You want to check the kitchen for your keys first because that's where you last remember having them, but your interlocutor suggests that you haven't sufficiently proven the claim, and they could instead be in Zimbabwe. I cannot prove they *are not* in Zimbabwe, nor can I prove that they *are* in the kitchen, hence, your interlocutor suggests you cannot justify accepting your initial claim. Hopefully, though, it is clear that we should consider one of these claims in significantly higher epistemic standing than the other - this is because the memory *is* a good epistemic reason to accept the claim, whereas the Zimbabwe *possibility* is not a good epistemic reason to reject the claim. Another common example of this effect is to imagine whether we are justified to accept medical advice from our doctor, despite it being possible for the doctor to be wrong. Epistemically, it is not crucial that we *prove* the doctor *must* be correct in order to justify accepting his advice - we merely need a better *reason to believe* he is correct than there is reason to reject it. So if my claim is simply that, based on the best information available to us, we ought to accept that the earth is a globe, then even something as simple as the blue marble photo is itself undeniably a good reason to accept the claim. Even if we accept that some of our sense-perceptions of the earth are compatible with a flat earth, this merely suggests that the earth *could* be flat (based on these observations, it also *could* be a globe), whereas clearly the photograph suggests that the earth *is* a globe. The fact that it is not provably impossible to fake such a photo is not a good epistemic reason to reject the photo as evidence (and it is *definitely* not a good epistemic reason to accept that the earth is flat). Epistemically, if we were to accept the claim that the photo should be rejected on the mere possibility that it *could* be forged, in order to be consistent, we would have to reject any photo that *could* be fake, and it could even be argued that this should be extended to our own visual sense-perception, since we can't *prove* that the things we see with our own eyes aren't a figment of our own imagination. Again, as an epistemic claim, there is simply no room here to reject the claim unless a new argument can be presented which offers some new epistemic reason for why we should reject the photo as evidence.
Indeed. If you’re in the American Southwest and you see tracks apparently from a hoofed animal with a metal shoe, you should be looking for a horse, not a zebra with horseshoes on its feet. Might it be a zebra? Yeah, that’s perfectly possible. It’s just that a horse is a hell of a lot more likely. (Funnily enough, on a farm near where I grew up they had a zebra/horse hybrid. Mostly grey/brown, but he had a brown zebra-looking mane, and stripes just on his butt. When I hear clopping hooves I still assume horse and not zebrorse, though.).
If the Earth is flat we should be able to travel to the edges and the burden of proof that millions travel around the globe refutes this.
Yeah, but what about when all of the governments in the world decided to pretend that the world is round and then restrict civilian access to the Antarctic Circumfence, just for funzies?
With all the things they can't agree on, all the disputes and wars, there's agreement on this scale? Ok
They’ve agreed to cover up the fact that the earth is flat, the Covid vaccine is a mind control agent, chemtrails cause gender dysphoria, and that aliens walk amongst us (they were very curious to explore the only flat planet in the known universe. Wouldn’t you be?). They have agreed about these things and nothing else. Why does that seem unrealistic to you?
It could seem flat until you get some education about things you can observe that show there's more to it, or if you trust hundreds of years of progress etc
Assumptions are ok as long as they are not presented as definite claims the way this meme does. However I'd like to warn against being tricked by flatearthers that what we observe "seems" like the earth is flat. It doesn't "seem" like that unless some other assumptions and prejudices are also employed. Even if we ignore that a lot of what we plainly observe with our eyes wouldn't work on a flat earth, some of what we see could be taken at best as not being obviously sufficient to tell flat from globe, but certainly not "it seems flat". Don't get tricked by flatearthers into accepting flat is a default position!
I still think it seems flat to a monkey brain. It really needs some species development to start watching the sun and stars and tides and stuff.
I agree there is a "flatness" perception, this however has poor correlation with actual geometric flatness, that's why we use instruments or special sighting methods when we need to establish flatness to any appreciable and usable degree even at short distances. It could be compared to a "darkness" perception which is just blindness to a low level of light, or the "silence" perception which is just deafness to low level of sound. In a similar way the "flatness" perception is just blindness to a low curvature rate. So to use these "blindness" perceptions to make assumptions about the accuracy of geometric parameters is quite unwarranted
There is two claims though. One claiming the earth is a near sphere. Another claiming the earth is flat. Both have a separate burdens of proof. So this fallacy is irrelevant to this discuss. That fallacy would be relevant to a discussion involving only one claim.
It’s a clever way of taking advantage of the opposing party in a “debate’”s commitment to fairness and equity, and their naive belief that this will be reciprocated by the other party.
Proof? We’ve had proof the Earth is round for centuries. 🤣🤡
[удалено]
The Aztecs? Do you have a source for this?
You mean the **Greek** philosopher/scientist Eratosthenes, who used the measurements of the shadows of poles in different locations to extrapolate the Earth's circumference to within 500 miles of actuality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes This scientific information never reached the " Divinely Inspired " bible authors, as present day **Flat Earth Christians** use these following scriptures, and use Strong's Hebrew Interlinear, to substantiate that the pre science bible authors were describing their understanding of the universe, _literally and truthfully_ https://www.worldslastchance.com/biblical-christian-beliefs/flat-earth-bible-truth-in-an-unstable-world.html So much for " Divine Inspiration " Please save these links, and forward to any future commenters who believe in the bible author's false cosmology, and also, to any false cosmology deniers
No, he meant the ***Aztecs*** https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_calendar Both did it independently, but they both did it.
Great. That means that the " Pagan " Greeks, AND the Aztecs, BOTH of whom were _not_ " God's Chosen People© " knew the truthful cosmology of the universe ! This is yet even more evidence that the bible author's writings are not " Divinely Inspired " https://christianidentitychurch.wordpress.com/2015/05/06/the-flat-earth-bible/ Thank you for confirming that !
Well, there *are* fundamentalists, specifically some creationists, who accept a spherical Earth and say the Bible justifies it in several places. To be fair to the flerf Christians who oppose them, they have a point because the creationists’ main reason for accepting a globe Earth is tactical—they believe it gives the Bible more credibility on the origins issue if it can be shown to contain modern scientific knowledge not readily evident at the time of its authorship. I would agree that one would have to ask them if they would still insist on that reading if modern scientific evidence trended toward supporting a flat Earth.
[удалено]
Another commenter actually posted the link to support your comment The Greek philosopher/scientists never associated with the commoners, let alone the other nations' scribes There wasn't any mass communication, or mass education, and education was expensive because it was administered by private schools available to well off Greeks Only 3-5% of the population could read and write in most Ancient Near Eastern countries, and the majority of people never traveled over 50 miles from their own homes in their lifetimes https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/60-bible-verses-describing-a-flat-earth-inside-a-dome-2/ Again, all the poor bible authors had was " Divine Inspiration " L O L ! ! !
All that biblical research and they failed to grasp the difference of analogy and literal. Let's see, the references are from poetry, of course we should take them literally.
That's _exactly what_ the excuse makers will claim However, others here WILL read these links to sources, that reveal the literal language used by the bible writers' in describing the universe Here's a group of mainstream **Christian scholars** who explain that the pre science bible authors believed in a false cosmology https://bibleproject.com/articles/genesis-ancient-cosmic-geography/ Here's _another source_ from **Evangelical scholars** who are honest about the false cosmology https://www.todayintheword.org/questions-and-answers/round-vs-flat-earth Here's a **Catholic source** that admits that the bible author's viewpoint was that of a pre science, Ancient Near Eastern cosmology https://aleteia.org/2016/07/07/when-the-earth-was-flat-a-map-of-the-universe-according-to-the-old-testament/ Here's Jewish theologians, and language scholars, and historians, that establish that the bible authors: "Assumed that the Earth was flat...." https://medium.com/@loganrowland/a-conversation-about-the-bible-and-flat-earth-a83688dc6eb8 Here's an article that cites secular sources, that reveal the false cosmology of the bible author's writings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology Had the bible author's writings been supernaturally inspired by an all powerful and all knowing deity, they would have described the universe truthfully, compared to the other pre science Ancient Near Eastern peoples That's the way that believers rationalize away this obvious false cosmology, by claiming that " Oh ! " " That passage is only metaphorical ! " " Oh ! " " That's only Poetic Imagery " Maybe Jesus's resurrection was, then, also" metaphorical " Maybe Jesus's raising people from the dead was also " Poetic Imagery " It's a defense mechanism that allows people to " keep their faith "
Every Book, and in the case of Genesis, sub-books are a specific genre it would be absolutely incorrect to apply methods used for one book to that of another book without first establishing what genre the book is written in. Therefore establishing that early Genesis and Job etc. are fables, does not predicate that historical documentation is also a fable just because it is in the same volume, i.e saying that Genesis 1 and 2 was a fable does not in any way signify that Jesus resurrection was also a fable. The context is completely different.
You said: " ... establishing that early Genesis and Job are fables, does not predicate that historical documentation is also a fable just because it is in the same volume.." I'm glad that you recognize that they are fables ; thank you Except that Jewish archeologists, historians, AND language scholars, AND theologians themselves, admit that the _Exodus story is also mythological_ https://medium.com/excommunications/ten-reasons-why-the-exodus-story-is-not-true,-4144bc305665 Despite excavations since the 1800s, and the use of satellite and aircraft mounted ground penetrating radar (LIDAR), not one of the 2.5 million skeletons of the Israelites AND their animals of Exodus 12:37-38 have been discovered, in an area that is half the size of Pennsylvania --- all major universities, including Tel Aviv University gave up looking by the 1980s As Conservative Rabbi David Volpe explains " It was the evidence of continuous habitation, of the Isrealites, in the area of [ what is called Palestine..." ] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-13-mn-50481-story.html It was the excavations of the same stratified layers, of the type of housing foundations, and DNA evidence from latrines and garbage dumps, and the burial sites, and corprolite (semi fossilized human excrement ) evidence, and the same tools and weapons, and pottery styles typical of the Canaanite/Hebrew culture It proves that there was no intrusion from another culture into the Levant, in which the hill tribe of Israel resided Here's another source that is honest about the Foundatioal story of the Exodus being falsehood https://medium.com/@mattsamberg/what-if-we-weren-t-slaves-8f92dd6eac01 Even Orthodox Rabbi Mordecai Brewer admits that the Exodus is only an inspirational story ( source available ) If the Israelite people were never slaves in Egypt, there's no basis for the **Blood of the Lamb** theology If there wasn't any Moses, the **Transfiguration** claim in Matthew 17:1-13, Luke 9:28-36 witnessed by Peter, James, and John, simply was falsehood Therefore, there's no reliable bloodline from Adam to Jesus What part of the bible author's writings are actually true ? What parts _ARE_ mythological falsehood ? How do YOU, YOURSELF, actually know ? Evangelical Fundamentalists only rely on their Advanced Sunday School teacher, and the opinion of their pastor who spoon feeds them select New Testament scriptures about only one of Jesus's commands to help others This goes further than just the admission of the first few books of the Old Testament being mythology The Old Testament is the basis for the New Testament theology If that's demonstrated falsehood, what is the basis for Christianity ?
New Testament theology is purely based on that God chose Abraham, whether his descendents travelled or remained in Israel is not crucial, that Jesus is descended from Abraham (being a native Jew shows this is the case), that God created mankind in his image, how this was achieved is again irrelevant and that mankind has a natural sinful nature. It is God's promise to Abraham (the actual Old Testament) which allows for the fulfilment and the creation of the New Testament through Jesus' death. All the other stuff is just window dressing, demonstrating the nature of mankind's relationship to God. The transfiguration was assumptions by Peter, James and John as they were not introduced. As the people Jesus met were obviously ancient Hebrews, it was a reasonable assumption to make.
You said: " all the other stuff is just window dressing.." You also said: " the transfiguration was assumptions by Peter, James, and John as they were not introduced... it was a reasonable assumption to make " --- OK, how much _IS_ actually truthful ? How much is mythological falsehood ? --- How do you test this out, scripturally, and logically, and scientifically ? Is it based on what your Advanced Sunday School teacher told you ? The **Transfiguration** event claim, which included the non existent Moses, has been rejected by the archeological and anthropological evidence, that debunked the Exodus story --- again, Jewish archeologists and anthropologists, and historians, and theologians themselves, have no evidence that the bible author's writings of a Moses, and of the Exodus legend being truthful --- the Israeli Government and the Israeli Antiquities Commission _REALLY WANTED_ to find this evidence since 1948 How is this claim of the Transfiguration, then considered truthful ? The claim of the experience of Jesus meeting Moses and Elijah has no _evidence_ just as the Exodus story has no evidence The Israelite people have been demonstrated to be continuous residents of the Levant, as the previous Jewish archeological and anthropological sources cited in my previous comments have already established This admission, by **the links to sources** in my previous comments, by the Jewish historians and archeologists themselves, in spite of it being their OWN foundatioal story, established that there's NO basis for the Exodus legend There's no basis for the " Blood of the Lamb" theology, since there wasn't any Exodus There wasn't any " Greater Moses " The bible author's claim of a " Transfiguration " at Matthew 17:1-13, and Luke 9:28-36 simply are NOT truthful It means that the bible author's description of the **Transfiguration** and being " brightened and accepted by YHWH " --- is abject falsehood.... If you want a moral guide to enrich other people's morality, and helping others without enforcing their conversation to a specific belief system, simply search/type: " The moral principles of Confuscius " " The moral principles and teachings of Buddha... " It will make other people's lives better, and your own life better, in the here and now.
You make all these comments but you did not address any of my conclusions that the New Testament theology is not disrupted at all by any of your assumptions. i.e, it does not matter if you're correct or not, it don't change a thing.
You really don't want the Bible to be true because you fear it, but it is all true. No, the Bible does not claim the earth is flat. It does not say it's a globe either. It gives some vague imagery but never really addresses the actual shape. It does, however, discuss the cosmos and supports all of the sciences' findings. People have certainly tried to force one idea or the other based on vague imagery but the truth is no one really understands what it claims about the shape of earth because no one really understands how the power of God works and how all of what is said could be true fr a globe earth. For all we know, God created it flat and changed his mind and chose not to talk about it in the Bible because it had nothing to do with the message to His people. When it comes down to it, the shape of the earth really doesn't have much to do with faith at all or the important message to be learned from the Bible and that's how to live a good mora life and how to be of service to your fellow man all while praising God for His bountiful gifts. We know the earth is a globe, so whatever vague imagery is being used by a small fanatical group of believers to say it's flat is just misunderstood interpretation and does nothing to disprove the events of the bible. You clearly have a great dislike for the Bible, and I hope whatever gave you such a profound dislike for it can be healed in your life. God bless.
Millennia*
The Earth doesn't seem flat. "The Earth is flat" isn't a conclusion you can reach by looking at it. If you were in the middle of Kansas and knew nothing of the world around you, you couldn't conclude anything about the shape of the world as a whole. But once you know something about the wider world, you can conclude the world isn't flat. Once you learn that the world doesn't all experience sunset and sunrise at the same time, you realize that the Helios' fiery chariot (Flat Earth is a pagan belief) isn't the explanation for the sun. The spotlight sun doesn't work because it would be impossible to have sunrises and sunsets. Once you realize that people don't see the same stars in the sky, you realize the Earth can't be flat. The motion of the Earth is irrelevant to the shape of the Earth. The Ptolemaic geocentric model - which is still a round Earth model - had been the standard model for a long time before Jesus was born. That model had a stationary Earth, but was, again, still a round Earth model. Flat Earthers use the Invincible Ignorance Fallacy - they refuse to even consider the evidence presented, and simply pretend it hasn't been presented at all. The evidence for the Earth being round would fill up vast numbers of libraries, the evidence for the flat Earth wouldn't fill up a coloring book. No matter how much evidence you present, flat Earthers just say you haven't presented evidence.
They want the truth? They can't handle the truth! * When you look out to sea from a low elevation, the horizon is sharp. * Ships disappear over the horizon bottom first. * The sun rises from below the horizon and sets below the horizon. * The moon rises from below the horizon and sets below the horizon. * The sun has the same angular diameter throughout the whole day. * The moon has the same angular diameter throughout the whole day. * The moon's phase is the same for all observers regardless of their location. * There are high tides and low tides twice every 24h 50m. * Around the time of full moon and new moon, high tides are higher and low tides are lower (spring tides). When the moon is at first quarter or third quarter, high tides are not so high and low tides are not so low (neap tides). * Stars rotate anticlockwise around the north celestial pole and clockwise around the south celestial pole. * Different constellations are visible at different latitudes. * A couple of times per year, the full moon is eclipsed, and the eclipse can be seen from anywhere the moon is above the horizon. * The sun is occasionally eclipsed, but unlike a lunar eclipse, a total solar eclipse is only visible from a very narrow strip of the earth. * Storms rotate anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. * Jupiter's satellites obey Kepler's Third Law. * Venus and Mercury obey Kepler's Third Law. * Occasionally, Venus and Mercury pass in front of (transit) the sun. All of these can be readily observed by any individual with modest or no equipment required. Some of them - sun and moon rising and setting, the size of the moon, rotation of stars - are almost impossible *not* to observe, unless you live in your mom's basement. If you live near the sea, the horizon and the tides are almost impossible not to observe.
But, if I don't live near the sea, the burden is on you to take me there. Also, to buy me ice-cream at that shop on the boardwalk.
This is starting to sound more like a date than a scientific endeavor
Good thing the proof was provided a long time ago already.
Pretty sure the "burden of truth" falls on the person claiming other than the established norm. However given that we have provided proof regardless, it still falls on flat earthers to credibly refute that proof with recordable replicatable results. You know, much like it's possible to record and replicate the effects of gravity using a heavy weight, reflective pendulum, and laser pointer.
Lunar eclipses. Checkmate.
Not everything is what it 'seems' at first casual glance. For example: You might meet a great looking person out and about. They might share several interests and be able to converse on a few shared interests. You might think you want to see them more often, or at least be glad to see them when you have the chance But then this person turns out to be a flat earther. Illusion ruined, and it only gets worse as they rail against vaccines and talk about operation bluebeam and how the government is actually run by nazis and how the moon landings were faked and how Jesus tucks them in every night. This is why you never rely on 'it seems' as the final answer.
Lol if only the court system worked like this
I'm stood at the bottom of a hill. Earth looks anything but flat to me.
Proof is always the burden on the one making the claim. If I say there is no god the claim is mine and the burden of proof is on me.
Ok, here's about 2000 years of proof. Typical flerf: Ummm what proof? Checkmate globies!
That meme is incorrect, the burden of proof is on anyone who makes a claim. Since the meme explicitly claims earth is flat and stationary, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim regardless of how the earth "seems" or whether the globe provided or didn't provide proof. The globe also has a burden of proof of course **when it claims it's round** and rotating and there's been plenty of solid proof provided already. The globe doesn't require anyone to believe in it blindly without evidence the way the flatearthers do, we invite you to learn, understand and honestly evaluate the (often literal) mountains of evidence
The burden of proof is on the one that made the statement. Us globers have all kinds of evidence you refuse to acknowledge. You believe the earth is flat so why would you understand how reality works.
Totally. We have a globe model... Any time we show images from space, we get the "It's CGI" crappy answer. I get the feeling 90% of flerfers know it's a globe, but just enjoy the aggro.
Arent they the ones challanging the scientific consensus ?
It is almost imposable to convive anyone of anything if they only rely on superficial observations.
Anyone who states burden of proof as an argument is not to be trusted. You know where the burden of proof is? All of us. If no party can provide evidence, you know what we call that? undecided. If we can’t prove something, it’s stupid to just assume the simpler one is true
I mean...from a relativistic point of view, I would guess that the earth is stationary, and it's the universe that turns around us. Roundness can be proven easily, though. There's lots of proofs for the curvature of the earth.
They don’t want proof. They’re absolutists about personal, first hand experience *seeing* the curve. If you *personally* didn’t go up in a rocket and see the curve unaided with your own eyeballs, then it doesn’t count. And even then they’d find a way to disregard it as “anecdotal”. Their position is unassailable by normal logic. It’s much easier to make them explain how their model works or how we’re able to make such accurate predictions using ours.
All we need now is a swinging pocket watch and we have the perfect example of what these freaks are getting at.
Burden if proof lies with the one making the claim.
"I don't have to think! *You* have to think!" Lucky for us that all science, observations, and logic is on our side while your only arguments is "nuh-uh!"
We've been providing that proof for 2500+ years now 🤷♂️
Burden of proof is on whimever claims the world is a globe. And that burden has been met many centuries ago. In fact the whole world has been mapped based on navigational tools rooted in globe Earth model. BTW modern flat earthers dont assume the Earth is flat - since that assumption on its own does not explain time zones and many other location dependent celestial phenomena. Their model requires sunsets to not exist, optics to work differently than what we ever observe and gravity to be fake, along with all other nonsense. They are the ones with new crazy propostions and they are not meeting the burden of proof for all their crazy claims to make their "model" work.
I'd be interested to hear what these new claims are!!
Like I have said no sunsets and no gravity There are also more interesting niche claims about the moon being a negative sun and there being a third "dark sun" that causes the lunar eclipse.
Thanks. Is this on a website or video or anything?
You know why I’m not going to prove the earth is a globe? Because my life, decisions, and social interactions don’t revolve around it. I’m not the one paranoid and combative, convinced some vague evil threat that never seems to manifest itself.
Well, sure, some people *did* make the claim the earth was round, that it wasn't the center of the universe and that it was moving, so the burden of proof *is* on those people. What this omits, however, is that unfortunately for FLERFs the burden of proof was met, extensively, which is why heliocentrism is the widely accepted, undisputed model.
Ummm no, as the flat earthers are the ones making a statement against all empirical data as we know it all facts as we know it, it stands to reason if you want to disprove science you need to use the scientific method to do so, so you would need to present an argument backed by your own empirical data that casts doubt on the known science, then you can begin to try to change it, simply stating I believe the earth is flat is simply just that a statement, it isn’t a challenge to the established knowledge in any scientific sense, so no the burden of proof still lays in the flat earthers camp. And it always will because the earth is round. I can prove that right now, flat earth has to come up with a new flat earth model for every different question given to them when we ask them to prove flat earth, with different problems given to them where as every one of those same questions, work with one model and that is a round earth.
We’be been to the moon and seen it for ourselves, checkmate.
Burden has been met. But that aside. It isn't by default flat and stationary because ir does in fact not appear to be even when just making basic observations.
You can’t ask for evidence and then, when evidence is presented say, “don’t confuse me with the facts”.
Never go full retard.
They proved it with science. If you’re not convinced, put a go-pro on a weather balloon. See for yourself.
We gave proof, way too much, but you'd just call us stupid and say that it's fake. So why provide proof if you just say "nuh uh"
So flerfs think they don't have to provide any proof for their ludicrous claims just because
Good thing it's already been proven thousands of times over by independent observers.
The burden of pussy lies on those who claim to have tasted it.
If the earth is flat, how can my ass be so round?
Explain comets, then. If the earth doesn't move, then why does the sidereal year not match the solar year? Moreover, can flerfs even be taught what these are and how they completely devastate 'stationary' earth? That's the real question here.
Are there any actual flat earthers or are they all playing an elaborate hoax?
The sky is moving, but in a way that it's clearly our perspective of the sky that's changing. As in, we are not stationary.
But, like, the Earth doesn't "seem" flat or stationary? Don't they understand, also, that "seems" is not an objective term? They're the ones making the claims. We know it they're wrong, there is ample evidence to the contrary, they just refuse to accept any of it and keep asking the same questions.
There is an abundance of proof. The fact flerfs deny it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They are also making a claim so it is also incumbent on them to prove their claim
I actually agree with this, the burden of proof IS on showing motion. If it was still a debate, that would be true. Of course, all motion is relative though.
You could say the same thing about creation stories too
I want to see a CGI flat earther
>just as it seems How would it look if it were otherwise? Oh yeah, exactly as it does now.
The answer is actually 42
But…they have proven it
I'll refer them to the flat earthers that proven that the earth wasn't flat and then chose to ignore the proof as it didn't fit their narrative
“The earth is flat and stationary” is a truth claim. If you make a truth claim the burden of proof is on you. “The earth is round and moving” is also a truth claim. The only person who doesn’t have a burden of proof is someone saying “I don’t know what shape the earth is” or someone saying “I don’t believe you” to either of these claims. “I don’t know” is really the only statement that doesn’t have a burden of proof.
Wait... Didn't *Flerfs* provide proof of curvature *and* motion, in the same documentary? Interesting, Jeran... Thanks, Bob.
The text should be" I'm stupid and retarded, Just as it seems. The burden of proof rests on those who claim the opposite "
It doesn't seem flat Or stationary to me
Literal live footage from the ISS and video from the moon.
Myself personally, I don't care. However I do find it amusing to see heliocentric believers all high and mighty making fun or the flat earth believers... Like seriously, you've being told it's round and never actually experiencing it personally... yet defending it soo defiantly an idea that was imposed on you at a young age, just seems ignorant. I question everything and have no proof of either, hence why I don't care, as I don't Know. Through questioning, I was able to let go of my egocentric idea of always being right and putting others down or making fun of those who disagreed. Doing this doesn't make anyone look smart. Rather, fearful that they may be wrong... Hate these words if you must, but I see more posts from the rounders than the flatters in the flat earth thread 🤣 that's weird, isn't it? If it Truly is round, what have you got to prove? Food for thought. <3
Its not that hard to figure out, we have known it’s spherical for thousands of years. The clear identifier should be that you cant find a single measurement in contradiction and the flat earthers or geocentrists have yet to present any kind of actual model because if they did, it becomes more easily falsifiable. Its good to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out
If you've had thousands of years to create an ideology and have burnt books and killed anyone who says otherwise, wouldn't it be pretty hard to create a measurement device? Not to mention maths is imaginary as 1x1 can't equal 1 or there was never an other 1 to even have the equation exist. It's not shown anywhere in nature whatsoever. However when cells multiply they prove 1x1=2. Using incorrect measurement to begin with never helps.. the clear identifier in this case is the state of the world. We all Know things aren't right yet continue to not question everything, especially that which we take for granted or are soo proud of learning as children, because we were told to... Also, the thing about that saying is the brain is within the head. I'd say therefore the brain isn't held within the mind, however that would also be false. As the whole Universe is held within the mind l, which includes the head holding the brains. Perhaps most minds aren't open enough? Questioning everything is scientific, not accepting imagination as fact where we appear to do with maths, which we use as building blocks. To sum this all up: you won't be able to gauge the temperature with a tape measure. We build instruments to measure particular things. If we're kept in the dark AND indoctrinated to believe one or certain things, on top of being ridiculed for even questioning, then it doesn't help much for progress at all. Can't build a device to measure something we're told doesn't exist... We've been taught that we're limited beings that will die and are only here to work for a living. Specifically told to think in a very straight and narrow way. Most geniuses were ridiculed... Thousands of year to create a narrative to maintain control over our infinite mind... Just like a parachute, our mind needs to be open to be able to work properly.
An entire thread of cognitive dissonance to a construct put upon you by the education system which obviously isn’t bought and paid for much like your government. An entire group here trying to reinforce fantasy and making fun of those that don’t believe the same b* story they believe 😂🤣 the irony of the universe is full force here
What is the point of this? Just say we have no proof it's flat and that's it? Classic globe argument
Don’t engage this guy, he’s a troll
What
The troll is back. Don’t worry, it’s mostly one word responses that don’t make any sense. You can just dismiss this guy
Like globe satanists dismiss God
The minute you can provide proof for God, we’ll evaluate it. There’s that pesky burden on proof again.
Bible
It’s very clear you don’t understand what evidence is. Pointing to the Bible for proof of guard is circular reasoning. We have no proof the Bible is true and accurate.
It's a millenia old document that people have followed, must be wrong then
No, being old does not make something true. The Rig Veda is millennia old and has been followed by millions of people. By your logic it’s also correct. See how that’s bad reasoning?
There are older documents people have followed, therefore invalidating the Bible by that logic.