Whats on the other side of the earth?

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 05, 2013, 11:52:19 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on October 05, 2013, 11:47:48 PM

I am familiar with the 4 author theory. According to that, there was a Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomist (D) source that was responsible for the Torah. In a word, EXCREMENT! The theory was cooked up in the 19th century by German scholars, many of whom had little faith in the document they were supposed to be studying. If they had read Ezra, they would have found that he speaks of reading the Torah of Moses to the entire House of Israel. Our German scholar friends tell us the Torah was composed at about Ezra's time. But Ezra himself says that the Torah was located in the Temple, and then read to the people, to get them back to following it. So, either our German friends are wrong, or Ezra was a liar about finding the Torah. I choose, along with all the Sages and Rabbis of Israel from then to now, to believe Ezra over men of little or no faith seeking to tear down the edifice of Biblical truth by which my people has lived for 5000 years.

So the proof is that someone in the book said it was real so it must be? Circular argument much?

Dude, I am atheist.  However, please do not disrespect other member's beliefs.  It is not the thing to do.

Having a contrary opinion is not disrespect.

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 05, 2013, 11:52:19 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on October 05, 2013, 11:47:48 PM

I am familiar with the 4 author theory. According to that, there was a Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomist (D) source that was responsible for the Torah. In a word, EXCREMENT! The theory was cooked up in the 19th century by German scholars, many of whom had little faith in the document they were supposed to be studying. If they had read Ezra, they would have found that he speaks of reading the Torah of Moses to the entire House of Israel. Our German scholar friends tell us the Torah was composed at about Ezra's time. But Ezra himself says that the Torah was located in the Temple, and then read to the people, to get them back to following it. So, either our German friends are wrong, or Ezra was a liar about finding the Torah. I choose, along with all the Sages and Rabbis of Israel from then to now, to believe Ezra over men of little or no faith seeking to tear down the edifice of Biblical truth by which my people has lived for 5000 years.

So the proof is that someone in the book said it was real so it must be? Circular argument much?

Dude, I am atheist.  However, please do not disrespect other member's beliefs.  It is not the thing to do.

Err.  Pointing out logical flaws in someone's reason for belief in something is disrespectful?  Because it seems like that's all he did.

Actually, no, it is not circular. Ezra was written about 2000 years after the Torah of Moses. The entire Hebrew Scriptures were assembled even later. So when Ezra wrote, he did not know that his book would one day be in the same volume as the Torah. The two cannot be classified together in that sense. Hey, Buddy, you need to watch yourself. I've been reading other threads. Don't piss off the mods, man! I don't want you banned.

Actually, no, it is not circular. Ezra was written about 2000 years after the Torah of Moses. The entire Hebrew Scriptures were assembled even later. So when Ezra wrote, he did not know that his book would one day be in the same volume as the Torah. The two cannot be classified together in that sense. Hey, Buddy, you need to watch yourself. I've been reading other threads. Don't piss off the mods, man! I don't want you banned.

Why on earth should I watch myself - I'm just giving my opinions on things.

My point is that from my perspective the book of Ezra is no more reliable than any of the other parts of the scriptures, or any holy book for that matter

Well, you've just hit the thing. Either the Hebrew Scripture is inspired, divinely revealed, or not. Either Judaism is divinely inspired, or it is not. Because we Jews have lived by the Torah for 4000 years, I believe the onus is on the non-believer to prove his case. But, I give you credit for at least recognising (unlike many liberals) that its either the Bible and Judaism being inspired or not. You can't have it both ways.

Well, you've just hit the thing. Either the Hebrew Scripture is inspired, divinely revealed, or not. Either Judaism is divinely inspired, or it is not. Because we Jews have lived by the Torah for 4000 years, I believe the onus is on the non-believer to prove his case. But, I give you credit for at least recognising (unlike many liberals) that its either the Bible and Judaism being inspired or not. You can't have it both ways.

Have it both ways? As in, it's divine and it's not divine. Who's trying to have that little literal impossibility?

I think as the person claiming to have a book written by God is the one who has to do the proving actually, i'm quite confident that my scepticism is appropriate in this situation.

You'd be surprised at what some liberal minds can come up with. Moses didn't write the Torah, but it conveys his thoughts (even though it was supposedly written by 4 dudes 2000 years after Moses). And that is only one illogical idea the liberal mind has cooked up. I respect an atheist more than liberal Jews. At least the atheist is honest intellectually.

You'd be surprised at what some liberal minds can come up with. Moses didn't write the Torah, but it conveys his thoughts (even though it was supposedly written by 4 dudes 2000 years after Moses). And that is only one illogical idea the liberal mind has cooked up. I respect an atheist more than liberal Jews. At least the atheist is honest intellectually.

Raising the spectre of logic is interesting, seeing as to me none of it really stands up to it

And ultimately, my atheist friend, that is what it comes down to. I can, given some time, conduct a logical argument that 'God exists' is an inductively strong statement. But ultimately I cannot deductively prove 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' (to use legal terminology) that God exists. No matter how pursuasive my arguments, at best, they are inductive. Then again, the atheist has the same problem trying to deductively prove that God does NOT exist. There will always be that question, whichever side you're on. But at least you are indeed attempting to apply logic. Most atheists simply start whining, and resort to ad hominem attacks. It's rather refreshing to find one that acts like an adult.

Hi, Im new to the forums but have been reading posts for a good month or two.
Definately belive the earth is round however would like to know more about the theory.

To start what is on the other side of the earth in a flat earth model and how thick is the disk?

Both of these things are rather unknown to FES. However I do have speculations: I beleive the other side is posibley made of earth itself being an FE conversion of the layer thoery where Earth is made of difrent layers. I myself beleive Earth is a disc enclosed by four corners and I imagine them as solid rock enclosing the entire (including bottom) of earth. The bible also posibley shows the flat earth as floating on water but that MAY BE imposible in modern scientific terms. And as Yaakov I think pointed out I beleive in the posibilitey that Sheol is underground on the earth (but would be imposible to get to). How thick? Well acording to rounders the earth from the surfece to the core is 4000 miles so I beleive it may be that many miles thick
Once again I wish you luck with your FE studies!

Excelsior's answer is close. In the Biblical model, the sky is held up by the pillars of the sky. The Earth is held up by the pillars of the  Earth. It is rather hard to explain without a diagram. Check Garwood, C. 'Flat Earth: the History of an Infamous Idea', copyright 2007 by Thomas Dunne Books, p. 139 of the Nook e-reader edition. See also the New American Bible, p. 5. There is also a picture that someone posted here, but I forget what thread it's in. A little lurking will probably turn it up.

Excelsior's answer is close. In the Biblical model, the sky is held up by the pillars of the sky. The Earth is held up by the pillars of the  Earth. It is rather hard to explain without a diagram. Check Garwood, C. 'Flat Earth: the History of an Infamous Idea', copyright 2007 by Thomas Dunne Books, p. 139 of the Nook e-reader edition. See also the New American Bible, p. 5. There is also a picture that someone posted here, but I forget what thread it's in. A little lurking will probably turn it up.

I beleive this should help a little bit

The first one is from my Bible. The second one I just thought looked kinda new and cool. My view on the earth is pretty much a mix of the above images and the one below (with a bipolar map instead of corse. Antartica is a continent and not an icewall (though an icewall beyond Antartica may exist))

Quote from: jroa on October 05, 2013, 11:57:07 PM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 05, 2013, 11:52:19 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on October 05, 2013, 11:47:48 PM

I am familiar with the 4 author theory. According to that, there was a Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomist (D) source that was responsible for the Torah. In a word, EXCREMENT! The theory was cooked up in the 19th century by German scholars, many of whom had little faith in the document they were supposed to be studying. If they had read Ezra, they would have found that he speaks of reading the Torah of Moses to the entire House of Israel. Our German scholar friends tell us the Torah was composed at about Ezra's time. But Ezra himself says that the Torah was located in the Temple, and then read to the people, to get them back to following it. So, either our German friends are wrong, or Ezra was a liar about finding the Torah. I choose, along with all the Sages and Rabbis of Israel from then to now, to believe Ezra over men of little or no faith seeking to tear down the edifice of Biblical truth by which my people has lived for 5000 years.

So the proof is that someone in the book said it was real so it must be? Circular argument much?

Dude, I am atheist.  However, please do not disrespect other member's beliefs.  It is not the thing to do.

Err.  Pointing out logical flaws in someone's reason for belief in something is disrespectful?  Because it seems like that's all he did.

I meant religious beliefs.  You can point out any flaws you see in his Earth beliefs.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 06, 2013, 12:01:48 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 05, 2013, 11:57:07 PM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 05, 2013, 11:52:19 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on October 05, 2013, 11:47:48 PM

I am familiar with the 4 author theory. According to that, there was a Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomist (D) source that was responsible for the Torah. In a word, EXCREMENT! The theory was cooked up in the 19th century by German scholars, many of whom had little faith in the document they were supposed to be studying. If they had read Ezra, they would have found that he speaks of reading the Torah of Moses to the entire House of Israel. Our German scholar friends tell us the Torah was composed at about Ezra's time. But Ezra himself says that the Torah was located in the Temple, and then read to the people, to get them back to following it. So, either our German friends are wrong, or Ezra was a liar about finding the Torah. I choose, along with all the Sages and Rabbis of Israel from then to now, to believe Ezra over men of little or no faith seeking to tear down the edifice of Biblical truth by which my people has lived for 5000 years.

So the proof is that someone in the book said it was real so it must be? Circular argument much?

Dude, I am atheist.  However, please do not disrespect other member's beliefs.  It is not the thing to do.

Err.  Pointing out logical flaws in someone's reason for belief in something is disrespectful?  Because it seems like that's all he did.

I meant religious beliefs.  You can point out any flaws you see in his Earth beliefs.

The fact that the discussion about religion is happening in this board says that you think it's relevant to why he believes the Earth's shape is flat.  And if his reason for religious belief is logically flawed, and it's part of the reason for his belief that the Earth is flat, then shouldn't it warrant scrutiny?

Jroa, greeting, and thank you for defending my religious beliefs. Pyro, you do have a point. If one is going to use a Biblical worldview to argue for the shape of the Earth (or anything else), one has to expect that that view may be challenged. Provided the challenge is courteous and not abusive, I don't mind, and JT has been respectful. I think I've done a pretty good job of manfully defending Judaism. I think JT has observed that, just as I have observed that his questions are interesting. He is clearly not an ass, and I know I'm not either. So I can respect his right to disagree with me.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 06, 2013, 12:01:48 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 05, 2013, 11:57:07 PM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 05, 2013, 11:52:19 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on October 05, 2013, 11:47:48 PM

I am familiar with the 4 author theory. According to that, there was a Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomist (D) source that was responsible for the Torah. In a word, EXCREMENT! The theory was cooked up in the 19th century by German scholars, many of whom had little faith in the document they were supposed to be studying. If they had read Ezra, they would have found that he speaks of reading the Torah of Moses to the entire House of Israel. Our German scholar friends tell us the Torah was composed at about Ezra's time. But Ezra himself says that the Torah was located in the Temple, and then read to the people, to get them back to following it. So, either our German friends are wrong, or Ezra was a liar about finding the Torah. I choose, along with all the Sages and Rabbis of Israel from then to now, to believe Ezra over men of little or no faith seeking to tear down the edifice of Biblical truth by which my people has lived for 5000 years.

So the proof is that someone in the book said it was real so it must be? Circular argument much?

Dude, I am atheist.  However, please do not disrespect other member's beliefs.  It is not the thing to do.

Err.  Pointing out logical flaws in someone's reason for belief in something is disrespectful?  Because it seems like that's all he did.

I meant religious beliefs.  You can point out any flaws you see in his Earth beliefs.

Indeed. Jt is being rude and why are we discusing religion itself so much? We can talk about religion relating to FET but lets not get this moved to Philosophey & Religion

Quote from: jroa on October 06, 2013, 11:36:57 AM

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 06, 2013, 12:01:48 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 05, 2013, 11:57:07 PM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 05, 2013, 11:52:19 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on October 05, 2013, 11:47:48 PM

I am familiar with the 4 author theory. According to that, there was a Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomist (D) source that was responsible for the Torah. In a word, EXCREMENT! The theory was cooked up in the 19th century by German scholars, many of whom had little faith in the document they were supposed to be studying. If they had read Ezra, they would have found that he speaks of reading the Torah of Moses to the entire House of Israel. Our German scholar friends tell us the Torah was composed at about Ezra's time. But Ezra himself says that the Torah was located in the Temple, and then read to the people, to get them back to following it. So, either our German friends are wrong, or Ezra was a liar about finding the Torah. I choose, along with all the Sages and Rabbis of Israel from then to now, to believe Ezra over men of little or no faith seeking to tear down the edifice of Biblical truth by which my people has lived for 5000 years.

So the proof is that someone in the book said it was real so it must be? Circular argument much?

Dude, I am atheist.  However, please do not disrespect other member's beliefs.  It is not the thing to do.

Err.  Pointing out logical flaws in someone's reason for belief in something is disrespectful?  Because it seems like that's all he did.

I meant religious beliefs.  You can point out any flaws you see in his Earth beliefs.

The fact that the discussion about religion is happening in this board says that you think it's relevant to why he believes the Earth's shape is flat.  And if his reason for religious belief is logically flawed, and it's part of the reason for his belief that the Earth is flat, then shouldn't it warrant scrutiny?

You must know that people have difrent beleifs. Besides that BS about being logicley flawed is probaley the biggest argument used by athiests (not saying you are one unless you are) to justify not respecting religous peoples beleifs. But I actuley agree with you because if it is concerning FET it shall surley be put to chalenge

Quote from: Pyrolizard on October 06, 2013, 12:01:48 AM

Quote from: jroa on October 05, 2013, 11:57:07 PM

Quote from: jtlondon83 on October 05, 2013, 11:52:19 PM

Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham on October 05, 2013, 11:47:48 PM

I am familiar with the 4 author theory. According to that, there was a Yahwist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P), and Deuteronomist (D) source that was responsible for the Torah. In a word, EXCREMENT! The theory was cooked up in the 19th century by German scholars, many of whom had little faith in the document they were supposed to be studying. If they had read Ezra, they would have found that he speaks of reading the Torah of Moses to the entire House of Israel. Our German scholar friends tell us the Torah was composed at about Ezra's time. But Ezra himself says that the Torah was located in the Temple, and then read to the people, to get them back to following it. So, either our German friends are wrong, or Ezra was a liar about finding the Torah. I choose, along with all the Sages and Rabbis of Israel from then to now, to believe Ezra over men of little or no faith seeking to tear down the edifice of Biblical truth by which my people has lived for 5000 years.

So the proof is that someone in the book said it was real so it must be? Circular argument much?

Dude, I am atheist.  However, please do not disrespect other member's beliefs.  It is not the thing to do.

Err.  Pointing out logical flaws in someone's reason for belief in something is disrespectful?  Because it seems like that's all he did.

I meant religious beliefs.  You can point out any flaws you see in his Earth beliefs.

And when his Earth belief is heavily swayed by his religious beliefs?  Then what? 

Religion as a whole is (unjustly) unique in it's shelter from criticism.  It's wrong - and a belief supported by a religion should not be immune from criticism.  Had he said he partly believed the earth was flat because it said so in Harry Potter (it doesn't), he'd be swatted down and rightly so.

If he is prepared to refer to scripture as a reasoning for his flat earth inclination then he should be prepared to accept criticism on that front.

Nice one - you've now just sent a message out to the entire forum that a religious belief cannot be 'disrespected' even if it is used as an answer for someone believing in something unrelated to religion.

I believe the earth is round because Zeus visited me last night and told me to my face.   Don't criticize me for that though, it's my religious belief after all.

I think that the fundamental point of the discussion here is that religious beliefs fall into a category that cannot be directly criticised. You can state your disagreement with said beliefs. But all the arguing in the world that there is no God is not going to convince the theist, and all the argument in the world that there IS a God will not convince the atheist.

One cannot argue with another person's belief in the Bible (in my case, the Jewish Bible; the NT is not my book). It is beyond argumentation. A person either believes in it, or he doesn't, and if he does believe in it, he has an interpretation of it. A non-Jew cannot criticise a Jew for his belief in the Bible, as he simply has no ground to stand on. By the same token, a Jew cannot criticise the atheism of a non-Jew. We know, as Jews, what God has revealed to us. We do not know what, if anything, God has revealed to the non-Jew. So we are not in a place to criticise the beliefs or lack thereof of anyone outside our own ethno-religious community.

If I have a reading of the Bible that tells me the Earth is flat, that is my belief. It cannot be criticised, though it can be disagreed with. But to criticise it and find fault with it you would have to start from the perspective of a religious Jew, which you can't do, since you are not one. I don't know if you all get the hang of what I am saying. And perhaps I am not saying it well. But, my fundamental point, is that there can be no argument between the Jew and the Gentile (whatever the latter's religious beliefs or lack thereof) because they start from a different premise.

You can't in one breath say the reason you believe the earth to be flat is because the bible told you so and then in another say no one can challenge your religious beliefs.

If you don't want them challenged come up with a better reason than god told me so.

The REers, for the most part, on this forum try to stay fact based in their argument from what I can tell. So anyone defending a FE theory should do the same.

Well, you can argue that FEers should rely on non-religious, scientific arguments as REers claim to do. That is a different argument, and does not criticise my religious beliefs. This is an argument you are allowed to make. Whether it is a valid argument or no is not something I choose to debate with you. But, I SHALL grant you that, in the threads I have been reading, FEers have NOT done a good job with arguing scientifically. I believe that one can indeed accept the truth of something based on Faith, provided that nothing proves it wrong. If science proved to my satisfaction that the Earth is round (which it hasn't yet; yet being the key word), then I would be called on to reconsider my interpretation of Scripture.

I'm allowed to make any argument I want. If it criticizes your religious beliefs or not.

I'm not calling names or putting you down. I'm questioning the validity of religion. Nothing wrong with that.

But, I SHALL grant you that

Gee, thanks. Let me know when it's okay for me to go the bathroom too.

If science proved to my satisfaction that the Earth is round (which it hasn't yet;

Science HAS proven the earth is an oblate spheroid.

You refuse to accept the evidence.

See the difference?

You are free to argue anything you like, but since you and I are starting from a different premise, our arguments will have no value to each other.  You are free, also, if you do not value your life, to load a 6 shooter with one bullet, spin it, and fire at your head. I value my life, so I would never do such a thing. But to the person who doesn't value life, that may be an afternoon's entertainment. I think the illustration makes my point.

I think the illustration makes my point.

Not at all, actually.

Well, the illustration was clear. If it DIDN'T make my point, then I suspect you are far more dense than I realised.

How is an atheist and a religious persons arguing anything like a person who values life not shooting themself versus a person who doesn't putting a bullet in their brain?

Are you trying to compare an atheist to a person who doesn't value life? Because I am an atheist very much value my life as well as the life of others.

So no..........your illustration was not only unclear.......it was slightly idiotic.

Oh, do try and think. I never said you didn't value your life. I merely said the the theist and the atheist cannot argue any more than the person who values his life can argue with the one who doesn't.

Theist and atheist argue all the time.

So do those who value life versus those that are suicidal.

They are not easy arguments. But they aren't impossible either.

Not to interupt but: as long as we all stick to provable facts and don't start saying "The earth is (insert shape here) because (insert religion here) says so" we should be able to have a proper argument.

To be honest, I am damn sure not going to argue non-religious proofs for the shape of the Earth. I am not equipped to do so. I was not kidding when I said that my scientific knowledge is weak. And this lot (the FEers) have not provided any evidence! All I get is vague references to conspiracies that make no logical sense. I'll cheerfully grant that, scientifically, the REers here are doing a better job by far. I'm not saying there ISN'T evidence to prov FET. Just saying I don't know any, and the FEers are not doing a good joa at demonstrating any.

"What's on the other side" is the make or break question for me. I'm almost a hundred percent confident in the flat earth theory is the correct one simply because it makes more sense to me. The other side baffles me. My thoughts are this....what if we live under a dome (oftenly called the ozone layer which has an ever expanding hole causing global issues) and Antarctica's huge ice walls are what keeps this dome from our reach? Instead of a vast area of water or unused lands,  maybe there are other civilizations within other domes across these lands? For all I know the moon and sun are fake and the sky is one big projection of sorts. They cant prove the moon landing without showing us pictures they took,   they can't give us photos that will make us believe they are from space (all I have seen look perfectly circular and one level).  I still have a difficult time believing that even though the sun is so far away with so much cold space between us and it,  we stay so warm from the heat of it. There are a lot of common sense attributes to the FET whereas  (IMO) with the scientific studies you have to have faith in their speculations. A lot of the science stuff just doesn't add up. (Watching flat earth documentaries from YouTube)