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.
The Cavendish Experiment and the Sinking Ship effect is perfectly in tune with FE. These observations have been brought up countless times. The mechanisms were accurately described in Samuel Birley Robotham's book over one hundred years ago.Care to respond to the last section of what I said?
It's not about making a comeback, it's about scientific advances. Scientific experiments (such as the Cavendish experiment), as well as easily observable phenomena (ships hull, curvature of the horizon, et cetera), confirms the earth as a sphere, so long as the earth is not an anomaly of almost every pattern that can be observed in our universe. The FE theory relies on this.Why is Earth an anomaly to the rest of the universe?
Then, you must admit that there is considerable profit incentive to perpetuating the Round Earth Conspiracy.I don't see how you interpreted what I said the way you did. I simply mean I have my opinion and you have yours, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind because there's no real proof either of us can provide; this argument is based on pure speculation. But continue twisting my words around however you please. I'm getting used to it.
Maybe not war, but there have been lawsuits over the shape of the world.Reference? (So long as it's from the past century)
Charles Johnson describes his reasons for believing in a Round Earth in his quarterly newsletter entitled Flat Earth News. There is a Newsletter archive in the Information Repository. Some of his theological arguments may be a bit iffy, but his scientific arguments are certainly sound.Care to point me directly to one of his "sound" scientific arguments?
I'm just saying that the evidence in favor of the Coriolis Effect isn't exactly solid nor credible. It could be simply the result of a coincidence.
~D-Draw
Another small-scale experiment anyone can do is stand with his/her back against the wind, lower air pressure will be to the left in the Northern hemisphere. For example, if you hold a barometer with your back to the wind which is coming at you from the west, and your friend is around 50-100 miles north of you, you will see that your friend has a lower pressure reading. This is due to the fact that air moves counter-clockwise around a low pressure center(Coriolis Effect). This experiment is easier to observe with both of you on the same side of a frontal system.
I am happy to explain anything further.
I don't understand what you mean by "believing in God because of Pascal's Wager" as I don't see how this is even possible. One can want to believe because of Pascal's wager, but belief in a proposition means that you actually think the proposition is true. Pascal's wager does not in any way help decide the question of whether the proposition "god exists" is true, it only suggests that we have a motive to try to believe it. That does not, in any way, make us think the proposition is any more likely than it was before we considered the wager.
Pictures don't prove anything. Here's an picture of the flat earth taken by Space Shuttle Endeavor from it's maiden flight on May 7th 1992, at an altitude of 195 nautical miles. It is an untouched photograph taken from a 35mm camera with a diagonal of 43 mm. It uses a normal lens of 50mm focal length. No zoom is applied.(Bold emphasis mine) Umm... The EXIF data would suggest otherwise...
http://i17.tinypic.com/2rwn4i1.jpg
To MooBs,
Do you understand that this forum is for serious debate and discussion.? Take your silliness to General Discussion.
No its not, tom bishop wouldn't have been able to eat his whole body, people struggle to eat a full meal let alone a fully grown adult
And to answer yer first question bacardi, picture yerself the Artic circle, that's the south Pole, the north pole dosent exist cus the world is flat. If ye think that the pole that dosent exist is the opposite off the pole that did exist, that would make the north pole that do exist the other south pole. And there is no such things as poles. Just as it would be on the opposit end to the cross section off the middle off the earth. If ye divides the cosinus off the cross section with pi, ye get an idea off how hard it would be to make an magnetic field that stretches across a globe that dosent go counter clockwise. And that leads me to something i have wondered about.1) Yes, the earth has a magnetic field. Geographic north is magnetic south, and geographic south is magnetic north.
Does the earth have an magnetic field?
WHERE ARE THE STATISTICS
Sometimes it's spotlight disk, sometimes it's a radiant sphere, other times it's a sphere that behaves like a spotlight. It all depends what suits the particular argument at the time.
I get that, but I thought what you were trying to get across was that, why doesn't everyone accept that there is a God? I was displaying my opinion on the subject. I wasn't debating the reason for religion here.I must have misinterpreted what you said. The question I'm asking now, though, is regarding this hypothetical situation:
A person, who was previously unsure, decided to believe in God (in ADDITION to following church laws) because of Pascal's Wager. His belief is sincere, he just decided to believe in it (possibly instead of being agnostic) due to logic.Is his belief any less valid, just because he agreed with the logic of Pascal's Wager? He still believes in God out of faith. His decision to believe (since he was previously unsure), however, was rooted in both faith and reason.
The problem is that religion was introduced to humanity, it was not something innate in the human being, so not everyone will accept it as the truth.
But if they're believing because of Pascal's wager, are they actually believing, or are they just pretending to believe in case it turns out that the form of Christianity they're following is correct? If they actually believe, I don't see how it could be because of Pascal's wager.Like I said in the hypothetical situation described above, the person decided to believe for a different reason, but he still sincerely believes. He was previously unsure about whether or not to believe in God, and after seeing Pascal's wager he decided to believe. His belief in God is just as sincere, he just came to believe it in a different way.
One of the problems I have with Pascal's Wager is that it's based in the pre-supposition of the Christian god. There are how many deities (or representations of deities or however you want to word it) out there? 100s? 1000s?
What if Pascal's Wager applies more to Zeus?
You're right, though, this wager only truly works for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity). Any religion that claims the existence of positive and negative consequences to your actions fits this rationale though.
IMO, it's a pathetic attempt on the part of Christianity to convert through subterfuge.If it was created with this purpose in mind, I might agree with you.
I'd say yes, it is a lesser form of faith.Only if those people have no mental strength
Just thinking "I'd be shot to hell if he was true and I didn't believe him, so I better go to mass now" is wrong.
Unfortunately, knowing about Pascal's Wager makes you think like that, so if you have read about Pascal's Wager and believe in god, your reasons will always be tainted by Pascal's Wager.
Therefore, you have doomed all god-fearing people who have read this thread.
Pascal's Wager is useless, since god is supposedly an omnipotent and omniscient being. Being omniscient, he knows if your reasons for praising and believing him are pure and true (purer faith), and could act accordingly (to hell with you, muhuhuhahahah!).
Another significant problem with the wager is the fact that bible clearly states that you have to believe in Jesus/God in your heart. Simply following the teachings of the bible is not enough, according to the bible, to get into heaven. So if you follow Christianity based on Pascal's wager, you're still going to hell.
I agree that believing something due to logic or believing something due to faith are two completely different experiences. What if a person was unsure what to believe, though? Could a person use reason to justify his or her accepting a belief on blind faith, and would THIS be the same experience as believing something solely on faith?
The substance it conveys is subject to constant change as nutrients are absorbed. Unlike the oil pipe which delivers all of it's substance, the intestines only deliver a fraction of it's substance.
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
The Pipe IS a controlled environment, regardless of the environment the pipe exists in.I would argue that the intestine IS a pipe, though. It's just a pipe that functions in a more complex manner.
Example A: The oil pipe that runs through Alaska. It pipes a substance through a hostile environment.
Example B: An intestinal track. Because the environment is not controlled (the intestines digest and absorb neutriants all along the way, thereby gradually reducing what is being "piped" through) it is not a pipe.
A pipe is a tubular object used to convey a physical substance from one location to another in a controlled environment. This substance can be a solid, a liquid, a gas, or a plasma.So a pipe outside of a controlled environment would cease to be a pipe?
To make a serious comment pertaining to the real discussion at hand, I see where you are going with this discussion but I believe you displayed it with the wrong example. A pipe is something that is taken for what it is and nothing else.A pipe can also be interpreted differently by everyone. I'm sure some people would be unwilling to stop calling a cat a cat even if it was hollowed out with the intent to smoke out of it (or transport liquid).
Language itself as abstract as it can be interpreted differently by anyone. One person my interpret it one way, and another may another. This is displayed in a Rorschach Inkblot test, as people interpret the same blobs as different figures.
Consider, for example, the sentence, "If this sentence is true, then Yetis live in Alaska." If the sentence is true, then it's true that "If this sentence is true, then Yetis live in Alaska", and the sentence is true, so Yetis must live in Alaska. But since it's true that Yetis live in Alaska if the sentence is true, and that's exactly the content of the sentence, the sentence is true. Therefore, Yetis live in Alaska.
You can take a pipe off, and then smoke from it though. So it is feasible to smoke from a pipe.
What about black pipe and copper pipe. Those arent used for smoking. Theyre used for PIPING!
Hypothetically, you could smoke from them...
I must note here that most Flat Earth proponents are non-theists. Samuel Birley Robotham himself was an athiest. None of his work in Earth Not a Globe was inspired by a religion. The four cornered earth described in the Bible may be flat, but it is vastly different than the current FE model. Most Flat Earth Proponents you will meet on these forums do not base their flat earth beliefs from religious texts.1) I don't think "The Conspiracy" knew anything... or is it now a sentient being?
If the Conspiracy were to have gone the religious angle, its books might have garnered some attention, but ultimately it wouldn't have been a hit. By the 1800's the world's media was already immersed in religion. Publishing a book supporting a religious topic would have hardly batted an eye.
The Conspiracy knew exactly what it was doing in fabricating its lies. Its theories were calculated to be intriguing, yet sensible enough that a common man might take a second look at the publication in the book store. As you can see, the idea of a Round Earth caught on. Today children are brainwashed with Round Earth propaganda at the age of three. The entire world is so obsessed with the idea of a Round Earth that is is much too late for the Flat Earth to make a comeback.
Round Earthers are so adamant about the shape of the earth, yet they cannot show one iota of proof to support their claims. The earth is round just because. It's an inherent belief stronger than any religion. A religion so strong that a Round Earther never questions the shape of the earth even once in their life. At least the idea of God is questioned.1) Support above. How 'bout yours? I heard you say in one thread that one of Rowbotham's experiments could not be explained by the RE model. Im interested to hear what he did and the conclusions he drew.
"Wherever you find people with a great reservoir of common sense," he says, "they don't believe idiotic things such as the earth spinning around the sun. Reasonable, intelligent people have always recognized that the earth is flat."
He pauses for a sip of coffee, his eyes sparkling with animation.
