Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Cassiterides

Pages: [1]
1
PROOF Every Atheist on the Internet is a Fake/Troll



Suppose you REALLY BELIEVE that there is no God...
and you REALLY BELIEVE that there's no intelligent purpose or design to the universe...
So, therefore, you believe that nothing REALLY MATTERS. (belief, actions, etc...)
Then, why would you go through the trouble arguing about it?UNLESS...
you REALLY DON'T BELIEVE what you claim?

Every Atheist who argues therefore has to be a fake.

If you don't get the video, or what's written above then think a little bit more about it.

Atheists believe there is no meaning or purpose to anything.

Why then do they debate over the net? Why all the trouble? Why do they waste their lives on the net attacking the Bible or Christians?

2
Flat Earth General / Real Zetetics have to reject electricity?
« on: December 13, 2010, 07:46:55 AM »
Real zetetics or flat earthers have to reject electricity.

Charles. K. Johnson the earlier president of the FES, opposed using electricity on the grounds it can't be directly observed. His home (which he lived in up to 2001) had no electricity on running water. He rejected the electricity on the basis, since it can't be observed by the naked eye - it can't be trusted.

Of course the basis of flat earthism is the same - we observe the earth to be flat on the earth. Modern technology is rejected though which has proven it is round.

Since zetetics base their science on direct observation only, then genuine Zetetics like Johson should refuse to use electricity.

Johnson, Rowbotham etc rejected everything that could not be directly observed.

3
Interesting development recently in atheism (post from another user on another forum, pasted here with permission, note i don't hold any of the following views but this recent development is very interesting).

Its interesting that creationism/ID has been rejected from being taught in classrooms since it is considered ''religious''. Yet, a handful of atheists have come out in recent years and given support for intelligent design.



Atheists are now supporting intelligent design (and creationism)

You can be an atheist and be a supporter of intelligent design. Some atheists and agnostics can support and are supporting intelligent design. So what exactly do atheistic intelligent designers believe? Well most of them seem to believe the atheist intelligent design theories of John Gribbin “the multiverse theory” also known as the “designer multiverse theory”. Many scientists are currently supporting this theory including Martin Rees and Bernard Carr.

I have posted many links on the multiverse theory at the end of this article if you want to research this theory deeper.
One reviewer says very honestly “It seems to me that what Gribbin has done is undercut the entire case against teaching ID in public schools. If it's possible that the designer could be a being other than God then objections to ID based on its allegedly religious nature evaporate.”

Another type of atheistic intelligent design is the belief that humans have created life themselves. This theory has been supported by idealist philosophers for 1000s of years. If every object in the universe is created by human minds then this is indeed is a type of atheistic intelligent design. The philosophies of idealism and phenomenalism have both supported this theory. Physicists are now starting to embrace this theory.
Physicist John Wheeler once offered a suggestion: maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation. It’s an idea that Stephen Hawking has been thinking about, too. Hawking advocates what he calls top-down cosmology, in which observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.”
If you want to learn about the cosmic fine tuning theory have a look here:
http://www.discovery.org/a/91
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleol...#CosFinTun
You can be an atheist or a theist and support the cosmic fine tuning theory of intelligent design.
In the last couple of years a number of atheists have started to support intelligent design. Sorry to the militant atheists but it is true some atheists are supporting intelligent design. The one that will probably interest atheists the most is the work of John Gribbin with his atheistic multiverse theory which has already been mentioned and which we will discuss more on, Fred Hoyle and his panspermia theory, the Omega Point favored by Frank Tipler and Seth Lloyd also fit a similar role as does the fined turned universe of Paul Davies but these lead towards theism so probably would not, but the already mentioned Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis is supported by atheists. There are a couple of other theories mentioned in this article.
John Gribbin is an atheist who supports intelligent design. He supports the multitverse theory.
“This might sound far-fetched, but the startling thing about this theory is how likely it is to happen – and to have happened already. All that is required is that evolution occurs naturally in the multiverse until, in at least one universe, intelligence reaches roughly our level. From that seed point, intelligent designers create enough universes suitable for evolution, which bud off their own universes, that universes like our own (in other words, suitable for intelligent life) proliferate rapidly, with "unintelligent" universes coming to represent a tiny fraction of the whole multiverse. It therefore becomes overwhelmingly likely that any given universe, our own included, would be designed rather than "natural". – John Gribbin
“The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today. “John Gribbin
http://telicthoughts.com/intelligent-des...-friendly/
A couple of books by atheists have been published supporting intelligent design.
Read the book
Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design" by Bradley Monton.
Bradley Monton is a strong atheist who has no intention of converting to any religion. He has written an atheistic intelligent design book. In his book he explains Intelligent Design is a valid form of philosophical and scientific inquiry that should be undertaken rather than dismissed.
So what are some of the other theories of atheistic intelligent design? How many are there? What are they exactly? This article explains some of them.
There is only one fact in the ID/evolution debate which has been proven. This fact is that both ID and evolution cannot be observed. Honest philosophers and scientists from both sides admit this, honest atheists even admit this. Only militant dogmatic fundamentalists from each side deny this. For every human being on earth evolution and ID cannot be directly observed the human (yes like you reading this) then has a choice does he/she believe a creation story from a holy book, does he/she follow some type of intelligent design (can be atheistic) or does he/she believe that evolution is true or does he try and mix them together?. All four of these choices are based on faith because they are not based on empirical observation. This thread explains the third out of the 4 which are types of intelligent design which as explained are atheistic. Theistic Intelligent Design will not be mentioned in this thread, there are already 1000s of articles, books and internet forum posts about this. Some types of atheistic intelligent design support evolution some do not. We will be looking at some of these theories but we will only discuss them briefly, you the reader he or she will have to make up your mind if you support any of these theories and if you wish to further research them, if you are an atheist you may feel shocked reading this, let’s hope you are blown out of your chair, the next time chap comes up to you and asks you do you believe in intelligent design you can say “yes I do and you know what I am an atheist aswell”.
On a sidenote:
Most atheistic evolutionists call themselves “sceptics”. If you are a sceptic then you will only believe in what you can observe yourself, the contradiction with a lot of atheists thesedays is that they put all their faith into a few textbooks on evolution when they themselves have never observed any of it so really this is no different than someone believing in what is in a holy book. It comes down to personal choice you either buy books supporting Intelligent Design and believe in it or you buy books on evolution and believe in it. The problem with some gullible and non sceptical (oooo the irony I thought evolutionists were meant to be skeptics) evolutionists would then say “but evolution has been observed on a small scale in a lab” ahhh but dear Mr. Evolutionist believer you were there were you? Nope. So what’s the difference between believing in the bible creation story, the hindu or Islamic creation stories or some type of ID or believing that some evolutionist chap in a bedroom laboratory has witnessed evolution? Nothing. There all elements of faith. You were not there to observe it. Besides Fact is no experiment in the world can prove macroevolution. Macroevolution can never be present. NOBODY CAN OBSERVE MACROEVOLUTION. It is a theory of the past, it cannot be directly observed in the present. Now you see there really is no difference between ID and evolution. Both of them are based on belief on faith, none of these theories can be directly observed especially not evolution with its belief that species take millions of years to evolve nobody has been around a million years to observe this. Nobody on this forum has observed evolution or intelligent design. They cannot be observed. If I walk outside my house now what do I see? Trees, grass, plants, soil, a river, the sun, animals, insects and a few houses. Where is the evolution? Where is the intelligent design? There is neither. All there is what IS. None of these things are evolving and none of these things can can be proven to of been intelligently designed because we were not there to observe the designing. The question is not present, the question has to go back in the past, you then have a choice, did any of these things evolve over long periods of time like evolutionists claim or were they intelligently designed? Remember Science is knowledge from observation. We cannot observe evolution or something being intelligently designed so we are now into philosophical theories of existence. You are now down to a choice, a belief, so were all these things that you see in everyday life intelligent designed or did they evolve over long periods of time? Which one is right and which one is wrong? Most views of reality are variations of these two basic views. There is no conclusive way to decide between them. There is no experiment that can be performed to decide whether reality is formed by intelligent design or by evolution. Ultimately the test is in the explanatory power of either view: whichever one best explains the empirical phenomena of reality is the one more likely to be true. The individual has to think his way to the truth. There are supporters on both sides.
But what is very rarely mentioned is atheistic intelligent design.
To sum it up in short yes you can be an atheist or an agnostic and believe in intelligent design look at the examples already listed.
Fred Hoyle was a very strong atheist who embraced intelligent design he has been labelled “an atheist for ID”. He rejected the Big Bang theory and supported the steady state theory. Hoyle was an atheist but disbelieved in Darwinism. He was a supporter of panspermia that life was seeded from elsewhere in the universe. His work was continued by one of his students Chandra Wickramasinghe who was also an atheist. Both of these chaps do not believe in anything “supernatural” they were two atheists who supported intelligent design. I suggest buying some of their books if you wish to understand some of their theories.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...st-for-id/
Charles Bernard Renouvier was a french philosopher influenced by Immanuel Kant. He was a creationist but he leaned towards atheism. So we have an atheistic creationist? Yes it is possible.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel the idealist philosopher rejected evolution.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellige...f-species/
What is there latest book out?
Intelligent Design - Message from the Designers
In “Message from the Designers”, Rael presents us with the vast amount of information that he received during his UFO encounters in 1973 - a third option: all life on earth having been created.”
Talking about aliens why is it that nearly all ufologists have been atheists? Why is it mainly atheists who read books about aliens? Why were nearly all of the ancient astronaut theorist’s atheists? Yes that’s right writers like Erich von Däniken, Peter Kolosimo who believed life on earth was seeded by aliens were atheists and wait who else? Carl Sagan? What? Isn’t Carl Sagan the chap who went round calling paranormal believers crackpots? But he publishes a book in 1966 with Iosif Shklovsky called “intelligent life in the universe” where he says aliens could have seeded life on earth?
Why does Giordano Bruno’s name now get associated with evolution when he supported intelligent design? He was one of the very early on ufologists. Yes that is right. He believed in an infinite universe and believed in aliens. Not only that but he believed in the Adam and eve story as literally true but he was an atheistic/pantheist. He believed there was an infinite amount of Adams and Eves.
What did he say?
“"I can imagine an infinite number of worlds like the earth, with a Garden of Eden on each one. In all these Gardens of Eden, half the Adams and Eves will not eat the fruit of knowledge, but half will. But half of infinity is infinity, so an infinite number of worlds will fall from grace and there will be an infinite number of crucifixions. Therefore, either there is one unique Jesus who goes from one world to another, or there are an infinite number of Jesuses. Since a single Jesus visiting an infinite number of earths one at a time would take an infinite amount of time, there must be an infinite number of Jesuses. Therefore, God must create an infinite number of Christs."

Notice the words on the end “God must create”(Please note Bruno had a very different view on what God was go and read some of his works if you wish to understand this). Giordano Bruno who has been described as an “atheistic pantheist” but he supported intelligent design very much like Spinoza another atheistic pantheist who modern day atheists mistakenly claim supported evolution.

4
Suggestions & Concerns / You have fake mods here
« on: November 01, 2010, 06:52:54 PM »
A year ago the user 'Raist' (who is apparently a mod or has mod powers) was a flat earth believer, or atleast pretended to be one.

A year later i see he is all over the place now attacking flat earthers with threads like these:

The earth is round idiots
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42259.0

So why is FES giving mod powers to clear fake accounts. Unless of course Raist converted from a flat earther to a round earther in less than a year - which is highly unlikely.

5
The fairytale of evolution just gets now even more laughable.

In his introduction to evolution and ecology class, Dr. Stephen C. Stearns of Yale has said:

"I think it is possible for redwood trees to evolve into squid – I just think it takes them a very long time."


6
Flat Earth General / Flat Earth Expedition
« on: October 18, 2010, 03:48:51 PM »
Hollow earth believers organised themselves in 2009/10 and did a Hollow Earth expedition. They investigated several sites, and traveled very far in the Arctic - looking for a polar opening inside the earth. You can read about this on the net.

Are Flat Earther's on this forum ever going to fund an expedition to try and prove their theories?

7
Suggestions & Concerns / This is the worst moderated forum in existence
« on: October 14, 2010, 02:55:19 PM »
I've only been here for a few weeks and created three or four thread (two on science). But in most of my thread all i got (and still am) recieving is personal attacks or trolls who join the thread to just leave one-liners calling you a troll. Truelly bizarre.

You can't debate on this forum without being called a troll (by trolls), or secondly without recieving personal abuse.

In one of my threads i recieved a comment ''The OP is a faggot'', followed by ''you are a troll'' (three or four times).

Note: I don't believe the earth is flat, however it is a topic i've researched for several years and i even pasted a small part of a research paper i wrote here. So even round earth believers and just casual neutral visitors who join this forum are personally attacked or called trolls.

I don't know why people are obsessed with the t word on this forum, but it's overusage just destroys every thread, even legitimate threads.


8
Flat Earth General / Flat Earthism = Atheism
« on: October 13, 2010, 02:17:13 PM »
''In 1828, American writer Washington Irving (author of Rip Van Winkle) published a book entitled The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. It was a mixture of fact and fiction, with Irving himself admitting he was “apt to indulge in the imagination.”

Then later authors repeated this error:

 In 1834, the anti-Christian Letronne falsely claimed that most of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth. His work has been repeatedly cited as “reputable” ever since.
In the late nineteenth century, the writings of John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White were responsible for promoting the myth that the church taught a flat Earth. Both had Christian backgrounds, but rejected these early in life.

Englishman Draper convinced himself that with the downfall of the Roman Empire the 'affairs of men fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics, parasites, eunuchs and slaves' these were the 'Dark Ages'. Draper's work, History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874), was directed particularly against the Roman Church, and was a best seller.

Meanwhile White (who founded Cornell University as the first explicitly secular university in the United States), published the two-volume scholarly work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, in 1896.

Both men incorrectly portrayed a continuing battle through the Christian era between the defenders of ignorance and the enlightened rationalists.

Encyclopedias Erase the Myth:

 While many will have lost their faith through the writing of such men as Irving, Draper and White, it is gratifying to know that the following encyclopedias now present the correct account of the Columbus affair: The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopaedia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989).

There is still a long way to go before the average student will know that Christianity did not invent or promote the myth of the flat Earth.

The idea that the earth is flat is a modern concoction that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, an American history professor says.

Jeffrey Burton Russell is a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He says in his book Inventing the Flat Earth (written for the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's journey to America in 1492) that through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical.”''

From:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/flat_earth.html

9
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Galactocentrism
« on: October 12, 2010, 03:30:10 PM »
Galactocentricity is the proposition that the galaxy in which we live is at the center of the universe. A number of observations suggest a galactocentric universe, among them:

1.All objects in the universe beyond our galaxy have a red shift in their spectrum. None have a blue shift, which would imply an approaching object.
2.The degree of redshift varies directly as the distance of the object from our galaxy (Hubble's Law).
3.Quantized redshift, or the organization of extragalactic objects into distinct bands, is the strongest single observation that suggests
galactocentricity.

More info:
 http://creation.com/in-the-middle-of-the-action
http://creationwiki.org/Galactocentricity

It should not be confused with geocentrism (saw a thread below about that), geocentrism has obviously been debunked by astronomical observation. Galactocentrism however is a very interesting valid theory.

10
Flat Earth General / Ancient Belief in Flat Earth
« on: October 10, 2010, 05:52:06 PM »
Hi, thought i would share this. This was part of a research paper for my classics course i wrote on flat earth amongst the ancient Greeks (and Norse). This is just a small segment, i also covered the ancient Hindus, Egyptians and Mesoamericans (if i can sort those out for copying i might add them later).

Note: I don't believe the earth is flat, however i just enjoy researching ancient belief in flat earth.

Ancient Greeks

Detailing the belief of flat earth among the ancient Greeks.

Intro (Hesiod and Homer)

The two earliest Greek poets , Hesiod and Homer, both were flat earth believers, and their cosmology models both were based on a flat disc, surrounded by a world encompassing ocean called ‘‘Oceanus’’. This is expressed no more clearly then by Hesiod himself, in a passage of his lesser known ascribed work The Shield of Heracles, 314-316:

''And round the rim Ocean was flowing, with a full stream as it seemed, and enclosed all the cunning work of the shield. Over it swans were soaring and calling loudly, and many others were swimming upon the surface of the water; and near them were shoals of fish.''

Hesiod thus believed the earth was like a flat shield, with an ocean fully surrounding the shield’s rim. In his Theogony (700BC), a detailed flat earth cosmography is also present; starting with the creation account from verses 116-138:

''Verily at the first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth, the ever-sure foundations of all the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus, and dim Tartarus in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth, and Eros (Love), fairest among the deathless gods, who unnerves the limbs and overcomes the mind and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them. From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether and Day, whom she conceived and bare from union in love with Erebus. And Earth first bare starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every side, and to be an ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods. And she brought forth long Hills, graceful haunts of the goddess-Nymphs who dwell amongst the glens of the hills. She bare also the fruitless deep with his raging swell, Pontus, without sweet union of love. But afterwards she lay with Heaven and bare deep-swirling Oceanus...''

Hesiod in this passage from the Theogony described the earth (Gaia) as eurusternos meaning ‘‘wide-bosomed’’ or ‘‘broad-breasted’’, and the etymology of this word derives from sternon (???????) meaning simply chest or breastbone. A chest or breastbone is of course considerably flat, Hesiod in this passages also noted that Heaven was the ‘‘equal’’ to earth, and this only makes sense on a flat earth model, since if the earth was flat it would be diametric to the above Heaven, therefore it’s ‘‘equal’’.  Like Hesiod, Homer in his works the Odyssey and Iliad (800BC) also wrote that the earth was the shape of a flat shield or disc. In one verse of the Iliad, Achilles’ flat shield is described as having the river Oceanus around its rim, XVIII. 606 :

‘’Therein he set also the great might of the river Oceanus, around the uttermost rim of the strong-wrought shield.’’

It is therefore simply evident that both Hesiod and Homer, the two earliest poets of Greece believed in a flat earth cosmography, specifically that of a disc or circular shield shape, with a world encircling Ocean called ‘‘Oceanus’’. We also find references to this in Strabo (Geo, 1. 1. 3: 7), Aeschylus (Prometheus Bound, 157) and Plato (Phaedo, 112e).

Quintus Smyrnaeus’ infamous Posthomerica also contains flat earth based Oceanus quotes, and also verifies that Homer was indeed a flat earth believer. Since the Posthomerica was an attempted continuation of Homeric literature, Quintus Smyrnaeus borrowed scenes from the Iliad, and in Posthomerica (V. 14) it is repeated that Achilles had a flat earth cosmography printed on his shield :

‘‘Here [on the shield of Achilles] Tethys' all-embracing arms were wrought, and Okeanos fathomless flow. The outrushing flood of Rivers crying to the echoing hills all round, to right, to left, rolled o'er the land.’’

Philosophers

The earliest Greek philosopher, Thales (624-546BC) was a flat earth believer (Aristotle, De Caelo, II. 13. 3; 294a 28). Thales founded the Milesian school of thought in the early 6th century BC, and Anaximander who as noted created the first world map was his student. The Milesians were material monists who believed all of the world’s objects were composed of the same substance. Thales believed this primal substance was water, and that the earth was a flat landmass that floated on it. Anaximines, another Milesian believed the primal substance was air, and that the earth was therefore flat, so it could float. He is reported by a later classical source to have said that the earth was the shape of flat leaf, resting on a cylinder.( Pseudo-Plutarch, Epitome, II. 14. 3 quoting Aetius). Hippolytus in the early 3rd century AD wrote that Anaximines believed the following (Refutation, I. 7. 4):

''The earth is flat, being borne upon air, and similarly the sun, moon and the other heavenly bodies, which are all fiery, ride upon the air through their flatness.''

Another early pre-Socratic group of philosophers were the Atomists. Like the Milesians, the Atomists were also materialists and all were flat earth believers, including most notably the founder Leucippus and his student Democritus. According to the ancient Greek biographer Diogenes Laertius, Leucippus believed the earth was shaped like a drum, flat in the centre and only elevated at the surrounding rim (Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, IX. 2) and Aristotle noted that Democritus was a flat earth believer (De Caelo, II. 13. 3 ff).

Other pre-Socratic philosophers, who believed a flat earth model, included: Xenophanes (Doxographists, Epiph. adv. Haer. iii. 9) notes that Xenophanes believed the earth did not move or rotate and was a stationary flat, though infinite object),Heraclitus and Anaxagoras (De Caelo, II. 13. 3 ff).

Many philosophers after Socrates (469-399BC) maintained belief in flat earth. Socrates himself may also have been a flat earth believer, though scholars still dispute his belief on the shape of the earth from Plato’s dialogue Phaedo (97e; 108e; 11d). Plato (427-347BC) may also have believed the earth was flat, though this is also disputed by scholars (Critias 113b; 121c; Republic, 427c, Timaeus 33b; Axiochus, 371b are also all disputed passages). Most modern scholars now actually believe Plato was a spherical earth believer.

Parmenides, Pythagoras and Empedocles all believed the earth was spherical and non-flat.

Aristotle (writing around 330BC) continued this anti-flat earthism and was a firm believer in a spherical earth (De Caelo, II. 14 ff).

Sun and Stars

Homer wrote that the Sun moved around the earth and ‘‘bathed’’ or ‘‘sank’’ in Oceanus (Iliad, VIII. 485; XVIII. 239) after having risen and reached mid-Heaven (Odyssey, IV. 400). This is a clear reference what is known today as sunset, the disappearance of the sun below the horizon. However this scientific observance has nothing to do with refuting a non-flat earth model, as will be explained later. The ancient Greeks simply believed that the sun was small sized, which could fit inside, or ‘‘sink’’ into Oceanus; and this fits perfectly with Homer’s flat disc cosmography. Stars were also believed to move around the earth, though they were generally believed to have done so at a higher level than the Sun. According to Homer, most Stars moved around the earth and ‘‘bathed in Oceanus’’ (Odyssey, V. 275; Iliad, XVIII. 485), though not Arctus (the North Star) because of its stationary position.

The Stars were therefore also believed to be small in size which sat in Heaven, as explained by Homer’s flat earth model (Iliad, VI. 108; XV. 371).

Moon

According to Homer and Hesiod, the Moon (Selene) like the Sun moved around the flat earth, and like the Sun was also considered small in size. Homer also wrote that the Moon ‘‘bathed’’ in Oceanus (Homeric Hymn XXXII to Selene). It was related in close proximity to the far north by Diodorus, ‘‘the moon appears but a little distance’’ (II. 47. 4-6).

A fragment from Sappho, also relates Selene, or the Moon to the flat earth (Frg. 34)

Vault of Heaven

 Homer wrote that the Heavens, or sky (Ouranus) was the shape of a ‘‘vault’’ or ‘‘dome’’. Its appearance was metallic, and called chalceus or chalcus, meaning copperish, bronze or ‘‘brazen’’ (Iliad, V. 504; XVII. 424). The ancient Greek poet Theognis of Megara in the 6th century BC wrote (frg. I. 869 ff):

‘‘May the great wide bronze sky fall upon me from above.’’

 Similar statements are also found in other ancient texts, which refer to the sky vault. (Statius, Thebaid, X. 827; Hyginus, Fabulae, 150).

 The structure of a vault or dome is only compatible with a flat earth model.

Geographers

The earliest ancient Greek geographers were most certainly flat earth believers. Homer was considered to be the earliest source of geography and believed the earth was flat. The second earliest geographer Scylax of Caryanda (6th century BC) who sailed to India was also most definitely a flat earth believer. His voyage was preserved by Herodotus (IV. 44). Of surviving ancient Greek Periplus, only one is known to have been flat earth based (Massaliote Periplus).

Two of the most prominent ancient geographers - Diodorus Siculus and Strabo were believers in a spherical earth and ridiculed flat earth beliefs (Geographica, I. 1. 20; Bibliotheca Historica, III. 60 ff). By the time of Pliny the Elder (77AD), there were certainly no ancient Greek or Roman flat earth geographers left, and Pliny himself recorded exactly this. (N. H, II. 64).

Historians

The earliest Greek historian was Herodotus, the ‘father of history’ (450BC). Other authors (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, On Thucydides, V) however referenced a small list of logographers who predated Herodotus, and so the earliest chroniclers were considered to be Hecataeus of Miletus and Hellanicus of Lesbos. Of these, Hecataeus was the oldest, having been born in 550BC. Hecataeus was a flat earth believer, and even produced a very early map of the classic Homeric model (with Oceanus surrounding the earth). Fragments from Hellanicus’ writings also seem to prove he was a flat earth believer (Oxyrhynchus Papyri 11, 1359).  However as for Herodotus, it is known he was skeptical of the idea of Homer’s flat earth model. Writing on Oceanus he mocked the belief in a world-encircling ocean (Histories, II. 21; IV. 8; IV. 36).

Old Norse

Detailing the flat earth belief among the Old Norse.

Intro (Modern scholarly opinion)

  The belief that the Old Norse and Germanic pagan tribes believed in a flat earth cosmology has been the most prevalent view since the 19th century amongst historians and scholars. As the Norwegian historian James Rudolf Keyser summarized in 1854:

‘‘The earth as the Norse imagined was a lying flat disc.’’

Jormungandr

 The Norse believed that the earth was surrounded by a stream of impassable water on a flat disc. In this stream lived a huge snake or serpent called Jormungandr. One of the earliest literary references comes from Bragi Boddason (the skaldic poet) who lived in the 9th century, in his Ragnarsdrápa (XIV) he wrote:

‘‘...the son of Aldaföðr wanted to try his strength against the sea-lashed snake of the earth.’’

    Jormungandr was so large in size he was able to surround the earth and grasp his own tale, earning himself the name ‘‘Midgard Serpent’’. The name Midgard itself was a name applied to the home of ordinary men on earth. In the creation account preserved in Gylfaginning (VIII) it is stated that during the creation of the earth, an impassable sea was placed around the earth like a ring:

And Jafnhárr said: "Of the blood, which ran and welled forth freely out of his wounds, they made the sea, when they had formed and made firm the earth together, and laid the sea in a ring round. about her; and it may well seem a hard thing to most men to cross over it.

    This is also found briefly noted in Snorri’s Ynglinga Saga (I):

It is said that the earth's circle which the human race inhabits is torn across into many bights, so that great seas run into the land from the out-ocean.

Sun, Moon and Stars

    It is clear the Norse had a flat earth geocentric cosmology, therefore not much need to be wasted on their belief regarding celestial objects. As Jacob Grimm summarized on the Norse belief in stars, moon and the sun (Deutsche Mythologie, XXII):

All the heavenly bodies have particular spots, seats, chairs assigned them, which they make their abode and resting-place; they have their lodges and stages.
Yggdrasil and Irminsul

 The Norse Axis Mundi is found as a tree called Yggdrasil. The Prose Edda states it stood in the centre of the earth. Its Germanic counterpart was Irminsul. According to the German monk Rudolf of Fulda in 860AD (De Miraculis Sancti Alexandri, III):

''They also worship a tree of great size, it stands under the open sky, in their language they call it
Irminsul, which in Latin is a world pillar since it is holding up everything.''

The 11th century German chronicler Adam of Bremen also noted:

''They worshiped, too, a stock of wood, of no small size, set up in the open. In native language, it was called Irminsul, which in Latin means 'universal column,' as it sustained everything.''

 From these old sources it is clear Irminsul was the Germanic Axis Mundi; it was a venerated ‘‘world-pillar’’ or ‘‘world-column’’ which was believed to hold up the Heavens of the flat world.

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Creationism
« on: September 21, 2010, 12:50:59 PM »
Are there any other creationists here?

I've been a creationist for quite a few number of years, but i've looked at both sides of the debate. I don't see any evidence for evolution scientifically, and scripturally it is not supported and goes against the word of God.

I have a small document which lists the main scientific flaws in the theory of evolution, if i find it i will post it up.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / The Bible does not teach the world is flat
« on: September 21, 2010, 11:37:03 AM »
My Introduction

I'm currently working on a research paper for my B.A degree (Classics) on ancient belief in a flat world, especially the Bible. However this is also a personal interest of mine, since i'm a creationist interested in alternative astronomy/cosmography.

I don't hate 'flat earthers', in fact you can read my positive reviews for the main key flat earth texts (i.e Samuel Rowbotham) on Amazon.co.uk. Now there are some positive things which came from the Zetetic school of Astronomers, my only criticisim is that unfortuantly the Zetetics believed the Bible teaches the world is flat. It doesn't.

Flat Earth vs. Flat World

Now i use the term 'world' instead of 'earth' because in ancient usage earth (translated from ancient languages) did not mean the entire world or Earth (capitalized) as we know it today, but only specific localities, territories or zones. For example ancient Assyrian and Roman stele inscriptions describe certain rulers as having conquered the 'earth', but the context here was not the entire world, but only parts of it which were known to be inhabited, or certain regions. The Roman Empire for example was sometimes known as 'terra' (Latin) meaning 'earth', of course the Roman Empire was not the entire world. This might appear confusing, but hopefully you get what i’m saying.
So to summarise: the word 'Earth' (capitalized) and concept behind it, actually only came into existence from the 13th or 14th century AD. Prior to this, the earth (note non-capitalized) was a general term for certain areas of land.

So that clears that up. Why is the distinction between earth and Earth important to understand? The answer is the fact that this is a crucial element behind the cosmography of the Bible.

Ends of the earth

We have many references in the scripture of ''ends'' or ''edges of the earth'', but if you understand the actual context (re-read above) you will see that you can read this literally, while at the same time be a globe believer (as I do – as i'm a creationist). So how can a globe have edges or ends? It doesn’t, but the point is the earth (Hebrew: eretz) throughout the Old Testament (and also NT) is not the entire world. The earth of the Bible is only the dry land (Genesis 1: 9-10), surrounded by the waters (Proverbs 8: 29; 1 Kings 7: 23, Job 26:10). Is land surrounded by water? Yes. In oceanography it is well known there is a ‘‘World Ocean’’ as all Oceans connect to each other and encircle the earth. This works on a round, spherical globe etc model, not only a flat disc or circle. The edges or ends of the earth are simply the places or points (of extremity) the land meets the seas or oceans.

Christianity and the shape of the World

There are other pieces of scripture, flat earther’s use to try and prove the Bible teaches the world is flat. I’ve reviewed all these and debunked them. I’ll post them up some time later. However I compiled a table, see below.  The table shows what notable early Christians, including numerous Church Fathers believed the shape of the world was. From what i know, no one else has done a table like this on the web, and it took me quite a while to make, but i won’t copyright it, so anyone feel free to use it (note: there is a minor error with the table I have not yet corrected that is where Clement of Alexandria should atcually read Basil of Caesarea, sorry for that).



As you can see from the above table, very few Christians believed the world was flat. The majority believed the world was a sphere/globe.

It is interesting to note that most of the minority flat world believing Christians were converts to Christianity from paganism (i.e Theophilis of Antioch, Lactantius). Their views on cosmology therefore were distinct to the majority of Church Fathers and early Christians. Diodorus of Tarsus is listed as a flat world believer, but this only stems from a commentary written by Photius on him - long after his death, so there could have been an error. Severian was a another minority flat world believer, but it is known he may have only believed so to oppose John Chrysostom, his enemy.

The last flat world believer of this period was Cosmas Indicopleustes (550AD). His work was not popular amongst Christians of his period, and most of it was just taken from Severian. Flat world beliefs after Cosmas, were virtually non-existant and only became again popular in the 19th century by Zezetic astronomers under Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884) who published Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe .

In conclusion, i think it is fairly obvious that Christianity has little to do with flat world cosmography, while there have and still are flat world believers, within Christianity they have always been the minority. The earliest Christians, including most of the Church Fathers believed the world was a sphere (as do i).

Pages: [1]