Better lie

Hi

I'm wondering if the people that are pulling up that conspiracy (aka hiding the truth) do it for the good of humanity ? Because they obviously rule the world and just a little number of people is enough to make the world a better place. Do they really dream of making us slaves? That sounds a little bit too much for me.
Could they be doing this for a greater good?

I mean if humanity would learn that we are trapped inside a "fish bowl", people would go crazy and try to break the dome, or even reach the firmament like they did with the Babel tower, it would be complete chaos ! But it would also prove God's hand...

On the other hand, thinking we are just a infinite small group of molecules inside a forever expanding universe, makes is totally replaceable and globally nothing, a small speck of dust into the great empitness. We could die any second by a meteor hitting the earth, etc...

In summary, are "they" hiding God ? Or doing it for the few saved ?

Jeff

Hi

I'm wondering if the people that are pulling up that conspiracy (aka hiding the truth) do it for the good of humanity ? Because they obviously rule the world and just a little number of people is enough to make the world a better place. Do they really dream of making us slaves? That sounds a little bit too much for me.
Could they be doing this for a greater good?

I mean if humanity would learn that we are trapped inside a "fish bowl", people would go crazy and try to break the dome, or even reach the firmament like they did with the Babel tower, it would be complete chaos ! But it would also prove God's hand...

On the other hand, thinking we are just a infinite small group of molecules inside a forever expanding universe, makes is totally replaceable and globally nothing, a small speck of dust into the great empitness. We could die any second by a meteor hitting the earth, etc...

In summary, are "they" hiding God ? Or doing it for the few saved ?

Jeff

Firstly :

"A globe" is a masonic most important symbol which represents an ultimate lie according which the earth is a globe, but it is not. Watch all my videos and you will find the truth.

High ranking masons are aware of a true form of the earth, but :

1) Superior Masons deliberately lie to their fellow Masons, as those Masons "deserve to be mislead"; 2) Explanations given to 95% of all Masons are wrong. Listen to this quote from a Masonic author, Carl Claudy: "Cut through the outer shell and find a meaning; cut through that meaning and find another; under it, if you dig deep enough, you may find a third, a fourth -- who shall say how many teachings?" You have been lied to, as we demonstrate in our many articles.  Finally, remember Albert Pike's bold assertion in Morals & Dogma, that "Masonry is identical to  the ancient Mysteries ", which means that all their teachings in all their books are precisely the same as the Ancient, Pagan, Satanic Mysteries! "A globe" is a product of the Ancient, Pagan, Satanic Mysteries!!!

I would like to share with you one comment which i received below one of my older videos :

Betsy Boop
I was told by two different occultist years apart that the earth is flat...the first one told me point blank that man did not go to the moon because the earth is flat, years later the other told me twice in the same conversation that the world was flat....I thought they were both stupid everyone knows the earth is round..I totally disregarded it until I into came across Flat Earth info on YouTube. Now I know they were telling the truth...Yes the Earth is flat....This is part of a greater world wide conspiracy this conspiracy is by all the world leaders and the elite please go to the two links below for additional information regarding this conspiracy. Please share these links ISIS, and world turmoil will all make sense. All religions and world governments are part of this conspiracy, we don't need any religion to have a relationship with the maker of the flat earth, our God is real and wants a relationship with all of his children.

Secondly :

Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Flat Earth Theory are the "conspiracy theories" . . . There is a real conspiracy for sure but the sad thing is it is mostly a "conspiracy of willful and apathetic ignorance" (for numerous reasons). The very people who would call Flat Earthers "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.

Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.

What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it, know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice). Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other...LOL... but they won't dare to address that too openly with the dumb, ignorant masses... best not to confuse the common folk with unnecessary information and facts.

Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves. If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.
READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.0#.VaAHZfKLWXU

Thirdly :

All major encyclopedias and histrorical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.

That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.

It is now time to recognize how Darwinism, in turn supplied the basis for conquest of the social and behavioral "sciences," the Arts, Mathematics, and Religion. It is time to understand that Communism and Humanism are equally dependent upon that other foundational "scientific" principle that goes hand in glove with evolutionism. That pre-evolutionary principle was and is Bible-bashing Copernicanism.

Does someone say they aren't convinced that the very heartbeat of Communist and Humanist ideology is the anti-Bible moving Earth concept we call Copernicanism? Let such a one lend an ear to what a gathering of Communist scientists in London in 1931 were saying.

They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over!

READ MORE : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1678413#msg1678413

Fourthly :

"There is a great force in renunciation of power that those who are blinded by the LUST for domination cannot understand because those who truly love do not desire power."

Chief among the forces affecting political folly is LUST for power, named by Tacitus as "the most flagrant of all passions."

Here is the biblical principle: Live to get what you want, and you will serve the god of self, but you will not be able to control your desires. “God gave them up in the LUSTS of their hearts to impurity . . . (Rom. 1:24). Paul repeats the point two more times, “God gave them up” (vs. 26, 28). God giving them up to sin, to no longer control their sinful desires, is a result of idolatry. LUST is neither a sexual addiction, nor a disease or merely brain functioning. LUST is a sinful rebellion that refuses to make God the center of all existence. The lack of self-control is brought by the refusal to honor the Creator as God.

"A fascist is one whose LUST for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends." Henry A. Wallace

"It is not power itself, but the legitimation of the LUST for power, which corrupts absolutely!" Bertrand Russell

"The State acquires power... and because of its insatiable LUST for power it is incapable of giving up any of it. The State never abdicates."

They are not hiding any God , it is just what is called the advancement of science using our evolved brains. It is just a pity that there is such a small bunch of conspiracy theorists and people out to make a quick buck who are stirring up the pot with false claims and the internet is such an easy way to spread propaganda.

They are not hiding any God , it is just what is called the advancement of science using our evolved brains. It is just a pity that there is such a small bunch of conspiracy theorists and people out to make a quick buck who are stirring up the pot with false claims and the internet is such an easy way to spread propaganda.

ROFL...ROFL...ROFL... The only problem is that if you are brainless, then the evolution (of something that you don't possess in the first place) is pointless! Don't you think so?

ABOUT EVOLUTION :


1. What i do find, is that philosophers and other intellectuals, all Copernicans from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, had established the heliocentric cosmology so solidly over a 300 year period in the universities and publication circles that even the famous scientist von Humboldt was cowed into silence. Just before Darwin's book came out in 1859, Humboldt said: "I have known too far a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system..." Still, fear of "scorn of a thoughtless multitude" prevented him from saying anything. (C. Schoeppfer, The Earth Stands Fast. (Charles Ludwig, Printer, N.Y., 1900), p. 59.)

2. Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God :
"What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together." —Antony Flew
READ MORE : http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

3. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63727.msg1692897#msg1692897

4. READ WITH ME (I CAN KEEP QUOTING FOLLOWING TEXT AT YOUR REQUEST):

In Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe reprints a Far Side cartoon depicting several men wearing safari hats and
proceeding through a jungle single-file. They are gazing upward at their leader, who is dangling by one foot from
a rope trap with a spear through his abdomen. The second man turns to the third and says, "That's why I never
walk in front!" Behe offers the cartoon in order to demonstrate that when we come to the conclusion that a
particular structure resulted not from an accident of nature but from design, it is not a religious conclusion. We
can tell from one look at the situation that the death of the impaled explorer was planned - that is to say, that it
was intended by a conscious being who designed and executed a plan for the purpose of bringing it about.

It is perhaps superfluous to detail how we know this; but suffice it to say that the death of an intruder is
understood from common experience to be a purpose often sought by one defending his territory, and a rope
trap and a spear are also known to be effective means for bringing such a purpose about. Anything we know
from "common experience" is based on evidence. As we shall see later in this Chapter, when facts are
established by evidence, their truth is only a matter of probability - though in an instance such as this, the degree
of probability is quite high. Essentially, the design inference results from signs that physical material has been
shaped for a purpose. Why does purpose justify the design inference? It is because purpose is, in the parlance
of the philosophers, a mental event: it is an activity of mind.

According to Behe, the indicia of design are just as apparent in biochemical systems as they are in rope traps;
but we saw in Chapter 8 that when it comes to natural objects, naturalists can look straight at obvious instances
of design, call it design, and still not see it. So can we all; but then, we are all naturalists, are we not? The
astonishing frequency with which the (pardon the expression) miraculous purpose so evident everywhere in
nature is mistaken for mindless, purposeless randomness, is indicative of the extent to which the modern mind is
under the spell of naturalism. In this Chapter we shall see how the even-handed application of scientific,
metaphysically neutral information theory, already employed by scientists in many fields, leads compellingly to
the revelation of design in both manmade and natural systems alike.

"A globe" is a masonic most important symbol

No it's not. It's a square or compass / triangle or pyramid.

High ranking masons are aware of a true form of the earth

Names? Source? Proof?

1) Superior Masons deliberately lie to their fellow Masons, as those Masons "deserve to be mislead"

Source? Proof?

2) Explanations given to 95% of all Masons are wrong. Listen to this quote from a Masonic author, Carl Claudy: "Cut through the outer shell and find a meaning; cut through that meaning and find another; under it, if you dig deep enough, you may find a third, a fourth -- who shall say how many teachings?"

And this proves a flat Earth? Or somehow this refers to lying about Globe?

You have been lied to, as we demonstrate in our many articles.

Yes they lie and lie and lie but the globe has nothing to do with their obsessions. They're too busy working on the new world order and complete domination control. Still no proof on hiding anything about a plate earth.

Finally, remember Albert Pike's bold assertion in Morals & Dogma, that "Masonry is identical to  the ancient Mysteries ", which means that all their teachings in all their books are precisely the same as the Ancient, Pagan, Satanic Mysteries!

  and somehow from this you conclude:

"A globe" is a product of the Ancient, Pagan, Satanic Mysteries!!!

Pathetic

the first one told me point blank that man did not go to the moon because the earth is flat

Man didn't go to the moon because the Earth is flat. How is that a hindrance? If anything, going to the moon should be easier with a flat Earth since it's a direct flight.

until I into came across Flat Earth info on YouTube

Ohhhh YouTube... I guess it's checkmate.. Such an authentic source of information. I guess pigs fly as well

we don't need any religion to have a relationship with the maker of the flat earth, our God is real and wants a relationship with all of his children.

It amazes me how one sentence can cancel itself so easily yet it's used as an intellectual foolproof statement.

Ignorant folk think that such minority opinions as Flat Earth Theory are the "conspiracy theories"

By very basic definition they are conspiracy theories. However, conspiracy theories have some backbone. Flat Earth has NOTHING at all as fantasy is not valid information.

There is a real conspiracy for sure

For sure? Proof? (do you know the meaning of proof?)

The very people who would call Flat Earthers "quack conspiracy theorists" are either themselves completely ignorant of even modern cosmological axioms and principles of gravitation and mechanics or they are just "playing stupid", hoping that no one will notice or call their bluff.

Yet every single claim is backed up with evidences ranging from working 3D models, manual observations, experiments, physics, photos and videos (which you all seem to dismiss regardless of the source). Whereas your proof is......erm?

Most of those who pretend to be intelligent and/or knowledgeable about physics are just plain stupid, and a few are just ignorant but once you show them, if they are honest and will continue the dialogue, they say something to the effect of, "Wow! I even got a PhD in physics X number of years ago and even taught it for X number of years... I did not think about it that way... but you can't ignore those facts". You can go to any mental hospital and the population of wackos and inmates will outnumber the doctors and the sane folk, and moreover call them crazies.

Again, and these assumptions prove a Flat Earth how?

What’s even more hilarious is the fact that even folk like Steven Hawking and a few intellectually honest physicists and cosmologists who would read what we are saying and are capable of understanding it

Nonsense cannot be understood by definition as it's NON-"sense" - meaning it does not make sense. Understanding nonsense is like killing someone to save their life.

...know that what we have been saying is absolutely true ( it is a philosophical not a logic and observational choice)

Proof that they know?

Not only do they admit that but even "snicker" about it to each other.

Evidence? Pulling stories out of your arse is not evidence. I mean any actual video evidence or first hand accounts with names, audio... ANYTHING?

Even more sad are all the others like out there who don’t have a clue what I’m saying here and shake their heads thinking they know something about physics that tells them that the Earth moves.

You don't need to know physics to observe the universe. We observe by looking at the sky. You observe it by looking in an ancient book that's been modified so much that even priests cannot unanimously answer basic questions from it when posed.

If only they studied the text books and peer reviewed papers a little closer, they would realize just how absolutely ignorant with a capital "I" that argument really is.

A capital "I" would make the sentence improper.

Thirdly and Forthly

I refuse to ridicule your holy book as I believe in God



Well... that was fun

People thousands of years ago didn't believe the earth was a globe for no reason.

The actual lie is religion. It's sole purpose is to control the masses.

Quote from: southern hemispherer on December 01, 2016, 10:24:43 AM

They are not hiding any God , it is just what is called the advancement of science using our evolved brains. It is just a pity that there is such a small bunch of conspiracy theorists and people out to make a quick buck who are stirring up the pot with false claims and the internet is such an easy way to spread propaganda.

ROFL...ROFL...ROFL... The only problem is that if you are brainless, then the evolution (of something that you don't possess in the first place) is pointless! Don't you think so?

ABOUT EVOLUTION :


1. What i do find, is that philosophers and other intellectuals, all Copernicans from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, had established the heliocentric cosmology so solidly over a 300 year period in the universities and publication circles that even the famous scientist von Humboldt was cowed into silence. Just before Darwin's book came out in 1859, Humboldt said: "I have known too far a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system..." Still, fear of "scorn of a thoughtless multitude" prevented him from saying anything. (C. Schoeppfer, The Earth Stands Fast. (Charles Ludwig, Printer, N.Y., 1900), p. 59.)

2. Former leading atheist argues for the existence of God :
"What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together." —Antony Flew
READ MORE : http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

3. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63727.msg1692897#msg1692897

4. READ WITH ME (I CAN KEEP QUOTING FOLLOWING TEXT AT YOUR REQUEST):

In Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe reprints a Far Side cartoon depicting several men wearing safari hats and
proceeding through a jungle single-file. They are gazing upward at their leader, who is dangling by one foot from
a rope trap with a spear through his abdomen. The second man turns to the third and says, "That's why I never
walk in front!" Behe offers the cartoon in order to demonstrate that when we come to the conclusion that a
particular structure resulted not from an accident of nature but from design, it is not a religious conclusion. We
can tell from one look at the situation that the death of the impaled explorer was planned - that is to say, that it
was intended by a conscious being who designed and executed a plan for the purpose of bringing it about.

It is perhaps superfluous to detail how we know this; but suffice it to say that the death of an intruder is
understood from common experience to be a purpose often sought by one defending his territory, and a rope
trap and a spear are also known to be effective means for bringing such a purpose about. Anything we know
from "common experience" is based on evidence. As we shall see later in this Chapter, when facts are
established by evidence, their truth is only a matter of probability - though in an instance such as this, the degree
of probability is quite high. Essentially, the design inference results from signs that physical material has been
shaped for a purpose. Why does purpose justify the design inference? It is because purpose is, in the parlance
of the philosophers, a mental event: it is an activity of mind.

According to Behe, the indicia of design are just as apparent in biochemical systems as they are in rope traps;
but we saw in Chapter 8 that when it comes to natural objects, naturalists can look straight at obvious instances
of design, call it design, and still not see it. So can we all; but then, we are all naturalists, are we not? The
astonishing frequency with which the (pardon the expression) miraculous purpose so evident everywhere in
nature is mistaken for mindless, purposeless randomness, is indicative of the extent to which the modern mind is
under the spell of naturalism. In this Chapter we shall see how the even-handed application of scientific,
metaphysically neutral information theory, already employed by scientists in many fields, leads compellingly to
the revelation of design in both manmade and natural systems alike.

"1. What i do find, is that philosophers and other intellectuals, all Copernicans from Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, had established the heliocentric cosmology so solidly over a 300 year period in the universities and publication circles that even the famous scientist von Humboldt was cowed into silence. Just before Darwin's book came out in 1859, Humboldt said: "I have known too far a long time, that we have no arguments for the Copernican system..." Still, fear of "scorn of a thoughtless multitude" prevented him from saying anything. (C. Schoeppfer, The Earth Stands Fast. (Charles Ludwig, Printer, N.Y., 1900), p. 59.)"

Good job. That's irrelevant.

""What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together." —Antony Flew"


Why is it that you assholes always find someone, baptize him a "leading atheist" (whatever that means), and then pretend that what he said proves something about the existence of God? An 80-something year old philosopher who didn't quite understand modern biology thought that abiogenesis is impossible, so he became a deist. Wow. So what?

"3. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63727.msg1692897#msg1692897"


Ok... That's part incohesive drivel, part quotes from either scientists and philosophers who lived in a different era where it was considered absurd and it was possible to be persecuted to be an atheist, christian scientists being christian, scientists arguing for agnosticism and deism, and part complete misunderstanding of randomness and a failure to grasp why some unimportant coincidences seem important to people... Nothing to see here, moving on...

"4. READ WITH ME"

Can't you read on your own?

"(I CAN KEEP QUOTING FOLLOWING TEXT AT YOUR REQUEST):"

Please no.

[idiotic text]

Wow that was idiotic. It's the dumb "all paintings have a painter, all buildings a builder" argument again. And it still is fallacious. It's funny how when you tell a creationist that animals pretty unintelligent such as termites also build "buildings", they usually resort to something like "oh, but they are a bit intelligent", or "oh, but they were designed to design buildings" or "but they're not nice buildings" or something like that. I especially love it when even after being shown all the evidence that points to evolution they still run around screaming "BUT I CAN'T SEE THE EVIDENCE!!! WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE??". Well if you got the Bible out of your face maybe you could see it.

DISCLAIMER: I am an agnostic, don't make a fool of yourself calling me a "satanic atheist" or something dumb like that.

The people stating that Earth is a globe aren't hiding anything. They are merely accepting the results of scientific research.
People have reached space. No God came to stop them.

However, that is one of the reasons some people lie and claim Earth is flat.
Their religion, which was invented by ignorant people that didn't know Earth was curved (even though some simple thinking would have let them realise), says that Earth is flat (or portrays it as such).
If they admit Earth isn't flat, to be honest and rational, they need to admit that their religion is wrong.
But they are too heavily indoctrinated to do that, so when reality and their religion contradict one another, they discard reality as wrong.

Also, that's a great, often overlooked, story in the Bible. God didn't want people working together to achieve something wonderful. So he confounded them by making them all speak different languages so they couldn't work together. Remember, every time you learn a new language (or try) you are going against God.

That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.

So you have been indoctrinated into a childish, nonsensical fantasy and that is why you refuse to accept reality and instead continually pedal dishonest bullshit.

It looks like this tl;dr disease is contagious!

Quote from: 1on0ne on December 01, 2016, 10:01:02 AM

Hi
In summary, are "they" hiding God ? Or doing it for the few saved ?
Jeff

All major encyclopedias and histrorical references recognize the ineffably great impact the Copernican Revolution had on the course of history, the status of the Bible, and the direction of science.

That revolution against Copernicanism will turn all knowledge "up-side down" again, back right-side up! The main change caused by the Copernican Revolution was the acceptance of the belief that "science" had disproven the Bible.

And, if the Bible could be wrong about the Earth not moving, it could be wrong on other aspects of the creation, on Noah's Flood, the virgin birth, Heaven...anything!

Thus, the Copernican Revolution began a process of replacing the Bible with "science" as the new source of Absolute Truth. Religion, business, politics, science, art, indeed everything, had to get a new philosophical basis as "science" dethroned the Bible with Copernican heliocentrism.

It is now time to recognize how Darwinism, in turn supplied the basis for conquest of the social and behavioral "sciences," the Arts, Mathematics, and Religion. It is time to understand that Communism and Humanism are equally dependent upon that other foundational "scientific" principle that goes hand in glove with evolutionism. That pre-evolutionary principle was and is Bible-bashing Copernicanism.

Does someone say they aren't convinced that the very heartbeat of Communist and Humanist ideology is the anti-Bible moving Earth concept we call Copernicanism? Let such a one lend an ear to what a gathering of Communist scientists in London in 1931 were saying.

They knew that they system absolutely depended on a conviction that nothing in the universe can be motionless. If anything could be motionless, then the Earth could be as the Bible says, and the game would be over!

You do your best to make out that all those who honestly believe in God must believe in the flat stationary earth. I am afraid you are in a tiny minority with that view.

You claim "if the Bible could be wrong . . . . . . " when to be honest what you are really saying is "if one interpretation of the Bible could be wrong . . . . . . . ".
Are you claiming to be the foremost authority in biblical interpretation on earth?

In this post, I am not attempting to justify either a Globe or Flat Earth or to interpret anything. All I am attempting to point out is that from all I know and can find out, there is no uniformity in thinking on this matter within Western religions (predominantly Christianity in various "flavours"), nor as far as I can find out within Islam.

Now undoubtedly some within either will disagree with me, but I guess that is what a debate is about.

====== The Western World ======
Christians do differ on whether the earth is a Globe or Flat, but I am sure the big majority accept that the earth is a Globe.
But, it could also be true that most have not given a great deal of thought to the matter. As far as I know it is not "an article of faith" in any branch of Christianity, not even in the Roman Catholic Church of the "Dark Ages".

There are hundreds of millions of Christians who do not believe in the Flat Earth and have no trouble with scripture.

The Christian Ministries International is a very fundamentallist young earth creationist group, but they are quite opposed to the idea of a Flat Earth:

The flat-earth myth and creationism
The idea that Christians once commonly believed in a flat earth for theological reasons is a myth. The story was invented to promote the claim that Christians have widely resisted scientific advancement due to doctrinal constraints. A major motivating factor behind propagating this myth has been to bolster the Darwinian worldview and to further the goal of displacing the biblical worldview. No evidence exists to support the common claim that scientists were once persecuted for opposing the flat-earth belief or advocating the spherical earth view, which has been commonly accepted for millennia.

See more at The flat Earth Myth and Creationism.
and

The flat earth myth
For the last 200 years or so, many anti-Christians have resorted to a scurrilous lie (acting consistently with their worldview): that the early and medieval Christian Church taught that the earth is flat.

One of the best-known proponents of a globe-shaped earth was the early English monk, theologian and historian, the Venerable Bede (673–735), who popularized the common BC/AD dating system. Less well known was that he was also a leading astronomer of his day.

In his book On the Reckoning of Time (De temporum ratione), among other things he calculated the creation of the world to be in 3952 BC, showed how to calculate the date of Easter, and explicitly taught that the earth was round. From this, he showed why the length of days and nights changed with the seasons, and how tides were dragged by the moon. Bede was the first with this insight, while Galileo explained the tides wrongly centuries later.

Here is what Bede said about the shape of the earth—round “like a ball” not “like a shield”:

“We call the earth a globe, not as if the shape of a sphere were expressed in the diversity of plains and mountains, but because, if all things are included in the outline, the earth’s circumference will represent the figure of a perfect globe. … For truly it is an orb placed in the centre of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its centre with perfect roundness on all sides.”

Again more in The flat earth myth and What did the early church really teach?

Now, I will grant you that until sometime after Copernicus the geocentric view prevailed, but even in the Roman Catholic that changed

====== The Islamic World ======
Now, of course I am no expert on Islamic beliefs and all I can do is go by what I see on the internet, though from Islamic sources where I can. I am not arguing either side here, just pointing out that even among Muslims there seems to be a difference of opinion. I will not pretend to have any idea on how deeply these views are held within the Islamic community. Someone else might be able to enlighten us.

Some seem to insist that the earth is a Globe:

Flat Earth and the Qur'an
Taken from Zekeriya Kazvinî's "Acaib-ül Mahlûkat" (The Wonders of Creation). Translated into Turkish from Arabic. Istanbul: ca. 1553.
This map depicts "a traditional Islamic projection of the world as a flat disk surrounded by the sundering seas which are restrained by the encircling mountains of Qaf".
This article takes a closer look at some of the Qur'anic verses that imply its author assumed the earth is flat.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The fact that the earth is not flat has been known for thousands of years. The Ancient Greeks Pythagoras (570 - 495 BC), Aristotle (384 - 322 BC) and Hipparchus (190 - 120 BC) all knew this. The Indian astronomer and mathematician, Aryabhata (476 - 550 AD) knew this.

From: Flat Earth and the Quran

And some seem definitely to insist that the earth is Flat:

Proof that the Quran thinks the Earth is Flat 29 Jan, 2008
I have read many articles over the last year where different people have tried to explain that the Quran is describing a flat earth. Countering this, many Muslims like Dr Naik have tried to prove that the Quran is describing a spherical model as we know it today. What I find with Dr Naik’s arguments is that he makes too many assumptions and tries to manufacture Quran verses to fit his model. This is both dangerous from religious and scientific viewpoints.

From Proof Quran thinks Earth is Flat

And I will not attempt to classify the next one. I'll let you read it:

Fri 8 Raj 1437 - 15 April 2016 - Islamic history and biography » The beginning of creation and wonders of creation.
Consensus that the Earth is round
Is there consensus that the Earth is round? If there is, then what is the evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah that the Earth is round or egg shaped.

From: Islam Q&A
I will not even try to quote the content of this one, as it seems to me to need a knowledge of the Qur’an that I certainly do not have.

Another important is that quite a number of Islamic countries by their actions, prove their belief in the Globe by launching their own satellites. These nations include Iran (which has launched its own),  Algeria, Azerbaijan (97% Muslim), Egypt, Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country), Saudi Arabia, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.


So to me, it seems that there is certainly a difference of opinion within each of these major religious groups. Though, to be honest, there seems very little support for a flat earth outside societies like this. The Heliocentric/Geocentric question is a different matter, with very many (probably the big majority) favouring a stationary earth, but that is another story.

I have tried to present what I have seen on these matters and have done my best not to offend anyone. I do hope I have succeeded in that if nothing else.


Now, you are free to believe how you will,
What you seem be trying to do, Mr cikljamas is to drive a wedge between various sections of Christianity and sections of Islam.

And some seem definitely to insist that the earth is Flat:

Quote from: Logical Thinker

Proof that the Quran thinks the Earth is Flat 29 Jan, 2008
I have read many articles over the last year where different people have tried to explain that the Quran is describing a flat earth. Countering this, many Muslims like Dr Naik have tried to prove that the Quran is describing a spherical model as we know it today. What I find with Dr Naik’s arguments is that he makes too many assumptions and tries to manufacture Quran verses to fit his model. This is both dangerous from religious and scientific viewpoints.

From Proof Quran thinks Earth is Flat

Actually, he typically uses the word which can be used to describe how an Ostrish flattens the ground to make its nest to claim that Earth it states Earth is egg-shaped, and claims that Earth is egg-shaped, ignoring the fact that eggs are stretched instead of squashed.
Often this argument is accompanied by a picture of an egg (on its side) along with either a distorted or carefully chosen "picture" of Earth.

All he seems to care about is bringing people to Islam, regardless of what he has to say to do so.

@Rabinoz, let me split my answer into two parts :

"The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be." Carl Sagan

According to above logic we should assume that one of next two options must be true:

1. The cosmos is eternal
2. The cosmos is not eternal, but still is "all that is, or ever was, or ever will be"

If 1 then the cosmos is just another word for God! - What is wrong with such ludicrous identification? This is what is wrong: - The true meaning of a word "God" is: A being which cannot not to be!!! Such Being can't be created since God has no need to have been created, He exists outside time, but the cosmos HAS NEED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED and IS submitted to the second law of thermodynamics!

If 2 then the cosmos popped into existence out of nothing, and one of the most basic philosophical principles is EX NIHILO NIHIL FIT which means that there is no such thing as "creation caused by nothing", or as "created entity that comes out of nothing."
Of course, there is one necessary "exception": God himself! God is Absolute, Uncontingent Being, Essence of Existence, Actus Purus, First - Necessary Cause, Unmoved Mover, God exists forever and ever, He is a Giver of all contingent existences, but He Himself is Unlimited! God had introduced Himself to Moses using perfectly consistent philosophical definition: "I AM THAT I AM"! (IHWH).

In Ex. 3:13-14, Moses asks God, “Whom should I say has sent me?” and God responds by saying, “I AM that I AM… You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” However, it could be awkward for Moses to go to the Israelites and Pharaoh and say, “I am has sent me.” So, in Ex. 3:15 God revises this phrase and changes it to the third person by saying, “Tell them that ‘He is’ has sent you.”

The word “He is” comes from the Hebrew root word haya, which means, “to be.” It is the third person form of this word, “He is,” that becomes the name Yahweh.

It was not God's intention to be Hidden from us, to be Hidden God, He revealed Himself to us:

- In the philosophy
- In "the book of nature" (creation)
- In the Bible (in history)

God even became one of us, and took our sins away! It is hard to understand such a great love, but it is possible for us to believe that such a perfect love can exist! Creation itself is a token of God's perfect love towards us!

What we think about the world - our Weltanschauung - cannot legitimately be excluded from the domain of religion. As St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Contra Gentiles (Bk. II, ch. 3): "It is absolutely false to maintain, with reference to the truths of our faith, that what we believe regarding the creation is of no consequence, so long as one has an exact conception concerning God; because an error regarding the nature of creation always gives rise to a false idea about God." I would add that I perceive the contemporary penchant for accommodating the teachings of Christianity to the so-called truths of science as a striking confirmation of this Thomistic principle: a case, almost invariably, of scientistic errors begetting flawed theological ideas. I will go so far as to contend that religion goes astray the moment it relinquishes its just rights in the so-called natural domain nowadays occupied by science.

I believe that the contemporary crisis of faith and the ongoing de-Christianization of Western society have much to do with the fact that for centuries the material world has been left to the mercy of the scientists. This has of course been said many times before (YET NOT NEARLY OFTEN ENOUGH!)

Theodore Roszak, for one, has put it exceptionally well: "SCIENCE IS OUR RELIGION, BECAUSE WE CANNOT, MOST OF US, WITH ANY LIVING CONVICTION SEE AROUND IT!

Oskar Milosz (1877-1939), a European writer said: "UNLESS A MAN'S CONCEPT OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE ACCORDS WITH REALITY, HIS SPIRITUAL LIFE WILL BE CRIPPLED AT ITS ROOTS, WITH DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES FOR EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF HIS LIFE." It could not have been better said!

Nowadays there are some who say that the method of St. Thomas is too scholastic and artificial, that it is not sufficiently historical and real. It is, so they say, too much an a priori method, almost always a process of deduction and analysis, or else in the analysis itself there is too much abstraction. It even seems at times to confound logical abstractions with the objectivity of things.

For them, the abstract object not only is not concrete, but it is not real. Thus the essence of man, of virtue, of society, and such things, would not be anything real, and the whole of metaphysics, not excepting the principle of contradiction, would be reduced to logic, logical abstractions, logical being, or, as they say, to extreme intellectualism that is without reality and lifeless. They would not dare to say explicitly that the abstract principle of contradiction (that some thing cannot at the same time be and not be) is not a law of real being but only a logical law governing the operations of the mind, as the laws of syllogism are. To such extreme admission, however, is one brought by this silly and at the present day common enough objection.

- It was not by any accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls. - Max Planck
Read more : http://todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm

In a speech to University College (1903), Kelvin said: “Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.” (Kelvin, as cited in Yahya 2002).

 “The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” (Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p. 267, as cited in Bowden 1982, 218).

 “To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” (Millikan, as cited in Grounds 1945, 22). “I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” (Millikan 1925).

HOWEVER :

God is a necessary existence! A necessary existence cannot not exist! It would be ridiculous to suppose that necessary existence is not omniscient and omnipotent being (Absolute being). As for the omnibenevolence of God i am not so sure : Omnibenevolence (from Latin omni- meaning "all", and benevolent, meaning "good") is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil.
Link 1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy
Link 2 : http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
Link 3 : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
Link 4 : http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml

Let's see what prominent philosopher William Lane Craig has to say on this problem :

 "The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. When I ponder both the extent and depth of suffering in the world, whether due to man’s inhumanity to man or to natural disasters, then I must confess that I find it hard to believe that God exists. No doubt many of you have felt the same way. Perhaps we should all become atheists."

I CAN'T FIND ANY LOGICAL FLAW IN THE FOLLOWING REASONING :

>>>If Adam and Eve never sinned then one of their descendants would have eaten the forbidden fruit. Sooner or later one way or another somebody would have done something to offend God and paradise would be ruined. The Biblical God is cruel and He PUNISHES PUNISHES PUNISHES. He punishes for the slightest reasons or for silly reasons such as David taking a census and for touching or peeking inside the Ark of the Covenant for which He kills thousands of people. This God cursed and punished the ENTIRE creation for Adam and Eve eating a forbidden fruit eons ago and He allows Adam and Eve's sin to be passed on to ALL future unborn humans. Human nature is ruined and the whole creation is ruined. This God punishes animals for the sins of human beings. This God allows Satan and demons to tamper with and corrupt His creation. He allows a talking tempting snake to deceive Adam and Eve. That's like allowing a child molester alone with your kids. God is irresponsible and a bad parent almost from the start. The creation was set up to be screwed by free will Satan and Adam and Eve. Its an experiment with the ingredients for disaster tragedy and failure. Note in His initial warning to Adam and Eve God never bothers telling them about sin diseases starvation pollution wars genocides etc. Only AFTER Adam and Eve sin does God decide to allow their sin to be passed on to all future humans and decides to curse and punish the entire creation along with Adam and Eve. Its unfair unjust irrational unreasoning unkind unwise uncouth unforgiving and cruel. Inflicting or allowing horrible diseases mass starvation crimes wars pollution loneliness birth defects hurricanes tsunamis etc is cruelty. The creation was destined to be screwed and ruined sooner or later one way or another because this God of the Bible is just not right in the head. The Biblical God has a cruel evil punitive side. He has a Jekyll and Hyde personality which can be seen in His behavior and in the Nature He created. The same God who created roses also created cancer. If blame is going to be thrown on Satan and demons then why does God allow these evil entities to ruin His creation? It doesn't make sense. It's a flawed deficient God. Its an absentee landlord for a God. Its a cruel God. Its an incompetent irrational God. Or God is not in control of what's going on in this screwed up world and its Satan and demons who are winning this war. A deficient God and Satanic or devilish or demonic forces at work explains why the world is the screwed up hellhole that it is.<<<

READ MORE : http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-would-have-happened-if-Adam-and-Eve-had-not-sinned

So, since i can't find any logical flaw in the reasoning above, i would very gladly accept the claim that the earth is spherically shaped if someone managed to convince me (scientifically) that this is really the truth and not just a theory.

WHY?

Because the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, so if the earth is not flat then the Bible is wrong, and if the Bible is wrong then stupid (according to my reasoning) story about man's fall is wrong also, and if stupid story about man's fall is wrong then christianity is also wrong, and if christianity is wrong then we are fucked up...

Only the problem is this : even if christianity is not wrong we are also fucked up...

So, i am not religious fanatic, NOT AT ALL (not even to the slightest extent)!!!

Now, all you have to do is to convince me (on scientific basis) that the earth is round!!!

Ironically, you will invest your time and energy to convince me that the Bible is not FLATLY FLAT EARTH book (instead of putting your effort into convincing me that the earth is round), but you chances to accomplish such mission ARE EQUAL TO ZERO, because the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book!!!

I am afraid that you are frightened to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, since you are christian, aren't you RABINOZ?

Since you believe in spherical shape of the earth, you are frightened to death to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, aren't you RABINOZ?

BEFORE YOU TRY TO ARGUE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, YOU HAVE TO WATCH THIS :

THE BIBLE DOES SAY FLAT EARTH :





You see, i am not frightened at all to face ANY KIND OF THE TRUTH - AT ANY COST!!!

NOW, ARE YOU READY TO TAKE PART IN STRAIGHTENING OUT THIS ISSUE (GOING THE WHOLE HOG, NO MATTER WHERE OUR INVESTIGATION WILL LEAD US AT THE END OF THE DAY)?

ARE YOU???

Saying higher mason rankings are hiding the truth from the low grades is perfectly true. The truth is revealed bits by bits when you climb "Jacob's" ladder. But it is in accordance with the Bible : "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. " Matthew §7:6

This is exatcly what they do : the truth is reserved to the saints and to the elected (the Elite : 1337!!!). The masses could not understand the whole truth, thus they use esoterical (meaning "hidden from the masses") teachings where they try to discourage the readers or test their faith. it's perfectly biblical.

Jesus himself was speaking in parabolas so that "they couldn't see" and "could not understand".

"There are only a few saved", "the path is small", etc... So it is in accordance with a secret teaching that they would provide at higher ranks.

Most people that say Freemasons rule the world and wanna make us slaves don't know any mason personnally usually : I know masons, and i'm talking ancient great masters and 33 degree masons : those that "saw the light", and i've "seen the light of God" also myself and those people are elites, but elites in the meaning of : they have highest faith, they have highest knowledge, they have highest power, highest kindness. They are GOOD people basically. And to become a F:.M:., you have to be a good man with good morals and believe in God, and also be Christian. FM was created by two christian and one was a pastor, so...

You have to be careful with all the conspiracies, because most of them want to make FM look bad, but so did Hitler who was chasing and sending them to camps...Most of the time, fondamentalists try to discredit FM, so one has to be carefull here.

Most people that say Freemasons rule the world and wanna make us slaves don't know any mason personnally usually : I know masons, and i'm talking ancient great masters and 33 degree masons

I know ancient great GREAT masters and 47 degree masons. They all say you are an asshole.

If 1 then the cosmos is just another word for God! - What is wrong with such ludicrous identification? This is what is wrong: - The true meaning of a word "God" is: A being which cannot not to be!!! Such Being can't be created since God has no need to have been created, He exists outside time, but the cosmos HAS NEED TO HAVE BEEN CREATED and IS submitted to the second law of thermodynamics!

No. It isn't just another word for God.
"God" is a name given to a particular sentient entity capable of defying the laws of nature.

If the cosmos isn't sentient, then it isn't a god and thus not God.

Your definition is just a pathetic attempt at defining God into existence.

Saying God doesn't need a creator but the cosmos does is merely special pleading. Your god needs it just as much as the cosmos.
Saying your god exists outside of time means it is unable to do anything.

Of course, there is one necessary "exception"

And any exception will disprove the rule. As such, things can come into existence out of nothing.
As such, the universe can come into existence out of nothing and there is no need for your imaginary fiend.

Trying to say your god can violate it but nothing else can is merely special pleading.

Ultimately, there is either an infinite series of causes (or things) extending into the past and thus your god is not needed.
Or things can exist without cause and thus your god is not needed.

So if we are going to have a necessary exception (the only option if we exclude an infinite series of past events), why not leave it at the universe, rather than resorting to primitive childish nonsense?

Which is more likely to exist without cause:
A simple singularity,
or a massively complex, thinking, sentient entity?

- In the philosophy
- In "the book of nature" (creation)
- In the Bible (in history)

Philosophy indicates God is a useless, needless, complication.
There is no honest indication nature is a creation.
The Bible is a work of mythology, not history.

God even became one of us, and took our sins away! It is hard to understand such a great love, but it is possible for us to believe that such a perfect love can exist! Creation itself is a token of God's perfect love towards us!

That is because it isn't love.
God, by virtue of being omnipotent and the judge of everyone, could merely forgive us and not send us to hell.
Instead he created a being (which was himself) for the primary purpose of having it tormented and killed.
That isn't love.
Additionally, this being was only dead for a few days before coming back more powerful.
How is that a sacrifice?

The whole story of Jesus is pure nonsense.
It only makes sense if God was not omnipotent and thus needed to sacrifice to something greater than itself, Jesus was working against God (such as by being or working with Satan), or as propaganda (and that is ignoring the more obvious option of it is all a load of shit).

The Biblical God is a horribly abusive, corrupt evil tyrant that no decent human being would ever worship.
He set up Adam and Eve to fail.
He turned a woman into a pillar of salt just for looking back.
He commanded someone to kill their son.
He tormented the Egyptians to show off.
He commanded or carried out countless acts of genocide.
And then rather than forgive people, he instead decides to demand a blood sacrifice.

Do you know what loving is?
You appear to be suffering from battered wife syndrome.

I will go so far as to contend that religion goes astray the moment it relinquishes its just rights in the so-called natural domain nowadays occupied by science.

Religion has no right in the domain occupied by science. Science seeks the truth. Religion seeks indoctrination into pure bullshit which it claims as truth.

I believe that the contemporary crisis of faith and the ongoing de-Christianization of Western society have much to do with the fact that for centuries the material world has been left to the mercy of the scientists. This has of course been said many times before (YET NOT NEARLY OFTEN ENOUGH!)

Yes, and in doing so we discovered the Bible is complete nonsense which contradicts reality.
We also have answers to previously unknown questions which people previously resorted to religion to find answers, and are living much better lives and thus have less need for the false hope of religion.

The primary cause of the de-Christianisation of western society is because Christianity is baseless bullshit.

It was not by any accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls. - Max Planck
Read more : http://todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm

Except they weren't.
The ones of the past typically were or at least presented themselves as such. That is because they lived in a time with lots of religious persecution where people would be treated appallingly if they weren't religious, being dismissed as insane or stupid, or tortured or killed.

In modern times, most of the greatest thinkers are atheists.
And it doesn't really matter what those people say.

The simple fact is that belief in god is one of the most unscientific things one can do.

God is a necessary existence!

No. There is nothing necessary about God. That is just a pathetic attempt at defining God into existence

Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil.

And so far, no one has been able to find a solution for it.

Let's see what prominent philosopher William Lane Craig has to say on this problem :

Really? A blatant conman with no integrity at all, happy to blatantly lie and misrepresent things just to push his own views.

He also has a much simpler solution for the problem of evil, and that is to effectively render omnibenevolent (or any term containing "good") into a meaningless tautology when it comes to God by declaring good to be whatever God commands.
So if God commands you to murder, rape and pillage, then that must be good.
The real issue with that is the bullshit claim that this is somehow an objective moral standard.

So, since i can't find any logical flaw in the reasoning above, i would very gladly accept the claim that the earth is spherically shaped if someone managed to convince me (scientifically) that this is really the truth and not just a theory.

But until then, you outright reject reality because it contradicts your fantasy?

There is also a rather simple way around it.
Accept your god is an evil tyrant that lies to mankind.

Because the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, so if the earth is not flat then the Bible is wrong, and if the Bible is wrong then stupid (according to my reasoning) story about man's fall is wrong also, and if stupid story about man's fall is wrong then christianity is also wrong, and if christianity is wrong then we are fucked up...

I at least like your honesty with this.
The same also applies to other things, like evolution (contradicting Adam and Eve), archaeology (contradicting the flood), homosexuality being acceptable (rather than an abomination punishable by death), slavery being bad (rather than something that was fine, even beating a slave to within an inch of death was fine).
But so many Christians these days ignore all that "interpreting" (by which they really mean perverting/manipulating) the Bible to suit themselves.
If when Christians first realised the Bible was wrong they discarded it, the world would have been a much better place (and it would deal a significant blow to this FE nonsense)

But unlike you, rather than reject a round Earth, which was backed up by plenty of evidence, I rejected the Bible, which was backed up by indoctrination. (no, not even the Bible containing some historical things is proof. Harry Potter contains London. Avatar contains Earth. Lots of works of fiction contain real places. And if you are trying to sell it as the truth, you would want that to make it more convincing)

I am afraid that you are frightened to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, since you are christian, aren't you RABINOZ?

Since you believe in spherical shape of the earth, you are frightened to death to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, aren't you RABINOZ?

Because like so many Christians they suffer from cognitive dissonance.
They are confronted by 2 conflicting views.
One is their religion which they hold deeply and are heavily indoctrinated into and do not want to let go of.
The other is all the evidence and modern science indicating Earth is round.

People naturally dislike believing 2 contradictory things, so they try and find a way to solve this.
For the most (and often also the least) rational, that is to discard one.
For some people, things like this is the moment they discard their religion or start to have serious doubts about it.
For others, it is the part where they begin to reject reality because they want their religion to be true.

But for some of the most dishonest they come up with other crap, like "interpreting" their holy text to mean something else, like it doesn't say circle it says sphere, it doesn't say flat it says egg-shaped.

Or alternatively, they accept that it is wrong, but come up with other excuses, like it is just a metaphor, or it is a tale with a moral and not meant to be taken literally, or it no longer applies.

Quote from: cikljamas on December 02, 2016, 04:27:34 AM

I am afraid that you are frightened to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, since you are christian, aren't you RABINOZ?

Since you believe in spherical shape of the earth, you are frightened to death to face the truth that the Bible is FLATLY FLAT EARTH book, aren't you RABINOZ?

People naturally dislike believing 2 contradictory things, so they try and find a way to solve this.
For the most (and often also the least) rational, that is to discard one.
For some people, things like this is the moment they discard their religion or start to have serious doubts about it.
For others, it is the part where they begin to reject reality because they want their religion to be true.

But for some of the most dishonest they come up with other crap, like "interpreting" their holy text to mean something else, like it doesn't say circle it says sphere, it doesn't say flat it says egg-shaped.

Or alternatively, they accept that it is wrong, but come up with other excuses, like it is just a metaphor, or it is a tale with a moral and not meant to be taken literally, or it no longer applies.

At least we can agree on this

“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either."  Thomas Paine, "Age  of Reason".

Most people that say Freemasons rule the world and wanna make us slaves don't know any mason personnally usually : I know masons, and i'm talking ancient great masters and 33 degree masons

you personally know people (plural) who have achieved elite status in the supposed secret society that rules the world? you're telling me that you managed to not only meet one of the few masters that lead our world from behind the scenes, but also managed to have him reveal his identity as said secretive world power, and then persuaded him to introduce you to some of his friends who also secretly tell us what to do?

i feel like you are missing the blaringly obvious possibility that someone was fucking with you.

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

God revises this phrase and changes it to the third person by saying, “Tell them that ‘He is’ has sent you.”

The word “He is” comes from the Hebrew root word haya, which means, “to be.” It is the third person form of this word, “He is,” that becomes the name Yahweh.

Oh
my
God

Quote from: 1on0ne on December 02, 2016, 04:32:42 AM

Most people that say Freemasons rule the world and wanna make us slaves don't know any mason personnally usually : I know masons, and i'm talking ancient great masters and 33 degree masons

you personally know people (plural) who have achieved elite status in the supposed secret society that rules the world? you're telling me that you managed to not only meet one of the few masters that lead our world from behind the scenes, but also managed to have him reveal his identity as said secretive world power, and then persuaded him to introduce you to some of his friends who also secretly tell us what to do?

i feel like you are missing the blaringly obvious possibility that someone was fucking with you.

in FE videos this is always FM this FM that, but i just stated that i have met high degree FM and they are trusty good people that would give their life to protect the widow and the child (literally). That doesn't mean they rule the world, that doesn't mean i know people that rule the world i just mean what i said : be careful with the FM = devil scheme because it might be what THEY want you to believe... It's a bit an easy, too obvious, path there, so i'm careful..

Jeff

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.

Quote from: southern hemispherer on December 02, 2016, 06:52:55 AM

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2

No. lots of atheists are intelligent enough to ask those questions.
You just misunderstand.

The point isn't to determine the cause of God, it is to point out that all a god does is push the problem back.
So either god needs a cause, or the theist is forced to admit things can exist without cause, refuting their argument.
Yes. Theists want it to end on their side, basically at 1. Because if it goes any further, their argument is shown to be bullshit.

Quote

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.

So you accept that the theists argument is bullshit?
You accept that either not everything needs a cause, so their argument is wrong from the start, or God, not needing a cause is not part of everything and thus doesn't exist and thus can't be the cause?

Quote from: observer on December 02, 2016, 10:17:53 AM

Quote from: southern hemispherer on December 02, 2016, 06:52:55 AM

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: God is uncaused. The existence of the universe requires a cause. God does not.

ATHEIST: But if you’re going to make an exception to the rule that everything has a cause, why not make the universe the exception? Why do you posit the existence of a further entity–God–for which we have no proof? Why can’t the universe itself be uncaused?

THEIST: Er … because?

Sounds a bit like FE reasoning!

I'm sure atheists are not dumb enough to say the above. Your logic actually ends on number 2

No. lots of atheists are intelligent enough to ask those questions.
You just misunderstand.

The point isn't to determine the cause of God, it is to point out that all a god does is push the problem back.
So either god needs a cause, or the theist is forced to admit things can exist without cause, refuting their argument.
Yes. Theists want it to end on their side, basically at 1. Because if it goes any further, their argument is shown to be bullshit.

Quote from: observer on December 02, 2016, 10:17:53 AM

Quote

THEIST: Everything has a cause. The universe too must have had a cause. That cause is God.

ATHEIST: Well what caused God then?

THEIST: If something caused God then that wouldn't be God.

So you accept that the theists argument is bullshit?
You accept that either not everything needs a cause, so their argument is wrong from the start, or God, not needing a cause is not part of everything and thus doesn't exist and thus can't be the cause?

All 3 major Abrahamic religions believe in a single concept of God. That God is one, nothing is like him to our understanding, he has no beginning and no end. A beginning cannot have a cause otherwise the cause becomes the beginning and the belief in God would not be valid. Now identify here that this is a belief. There's absolutely no proof of this and I always say anyone who can prove this is a liar.

Simply put, Atheists either do not understand the concept of God or refuse to accept a very basic concept of "belief" in God based on "faith". The very question "What caused God" clearly means Atheists believe God to be a creation, a man with a white beard floating in the sky looking down at us which entirely defeats the purpose of believing in God as the creator.

Proof clearly doesn't help either as there's a ridiculous amounts of proof for a Glove Earth yet there's thousands of people who simply cannot comprehend basic observable facts of a Globe Earth and in turn believe in a Flat Earth for ludicrous reasons.

This is a good question. probably almost all of us thinked about that question.

One of your reason is meaningfull. "people would go crazy and try to break the dome, or even reach the firmament like they did with the Babel tower, it would be complete chaos !". I thinked on it.

I want to tell you two stories. I'll show you two different matter.

One of them is Iran. USA and Israel together got a plan to destroy Iran. Then Iran made a statement as they created a cannon has about 10 tousends of kms range. After that the behavior of US is changed.

Another example about North Korea. They are producing nuclear (?) bomb and testing it. And it is interesting that they are continue to doing that against all of the world.

I believe like this:

Iran has already cannons have the range to fire to Israel. But after 10.000 kms ranged cannon they have the chance to hitting the firmament. I believe it was a great threatening and USA could not get that risk.

And North Korea actually hasen't nuclear weapons because nukes already a lie. But when North Korea saying they are doing test of atomic bombing, actually they are getting a partner to nuke lie!

There is a possibility that it is a secret working to dominant forces saving their power on the world. In my opinion, God helped them to save this secret and save their power. There is a balance on this supporting of God. Balance is "justice". When a nation manager other nations with justice, God help them. And when they start to unjustify, God breaks to help them. This is my Detection depends on three Abrahamy books and a lot of historical experience. Rarely opposite is true but usually this theory works.

So;

I'm thinking that USA and his partners started to persecute and left to justice, then God broken to help them. So God let us to destroy their secret.

It is a destruction, there is no escape. Whatever it costs, injustice will be destroyed. After that, if there is really a secret and God still want to save secret, can find out another nation will Govern to the world with justice.

This matter is expandable.

All 3 major Abrahamic religions believe in a single concept of God. That God is one

Except Christianity which has him as 3.

nothing is like him to our understanding, he has no beginning and no end. A beginning cannot have a cause otherwise the cause becomes the beginning and the belief in God would not be valid. Now identify here that this is a belief. There's absolutely no proof of this and I always say anyone who can prove this is a liar.

Yes. That is a belief.
But that belief still destroys the argument.
You accept that something can exist without cause.
If this is the case then the first line of that argument:
"Everything has a cause, thus the universe has a cause"
is false.

Simply put, Atheists either do not understand the concept of God or refuse to accept a very basic concept of "belief" in God based on "faith". The very question "What caused God" clearly means Atheists believe God to be a creation, a man with a white beard floating in the sky looking down at us which entirely defeats the purpose of believing in God as the creator.

Or it means you simply have no idea what the atheists are trying to do with that argument.
Did you even read what I said?

I said quite clearly that we aren't asking for you to tell us what caused God or anything of the like.
The question is to show that you already accept that things can exist without cause.
It is to show you that a god doesn't actually solve anything, it merely pushes the problem back.

It isn't necessarily even to try and stop you believing in God.
All it is doing is showing that the proof is flawed, and God and the universe would be on equal footing if that argument was applied rationally.

Do you understand that? The question is primarily to show the argument is flawed.

And no, your beliefs about God do not let you magically get around that fact, and the special pleading required.

Proof clearly doesn't help either as there's a ridiculous amounts of proof for a Glove Earth yet there's thousands of people who simply cannot comprehend basic observable facts of a Globe Earth and in turn believe in a Flat Earth for ludicrous reasons.

Yes. Proof doesn't matter to those with deeply held beliefs. They will keep on believing regardless of how often you show their beliefs to be false.
Some people will believe in a flat Earth because of religious indoctrination.
And the religious and the FErs make the same horribly flawed arguments.

For example, several love trying to point out a problem with a round Earth, without realising (or admitting) it would exist on a flat Earth as well. Their arguments work equally well against a flat Earth as a round Earth. As such, it is not actually an argument for a flat Earth.
Just like the argument made here for a god would work equally against that god not having a creator. As such it is not actually an argument for God's existence or being the creator of the universe.

And before you go saying I am ignoring what it means to be God, I am not, also note that the same argument can be made for the universe.
The universe can be defined as all that exists.
In order for something to create the universe it would need to exist outside the universe. That requires it to exist outside of all that exists, which is impossible.
As such, the universe cannot be created.
As such, any god that exists is merely a part of the universe, not the creator of it.

There is a possibility that it is a secret working to dominant forces saving their power on the world. In my opinion, God helped them to save this secret and save their power. There is a balance on this supporting of God. Balance is "justice". When a nation manager other nations with justice, God help them. And when they start to unjustify, God breaks to help them. This is my Detection depends on three Abrahamy books and a lot of historical experience. Rarely opposite is true but usually this theory works.

I find most often with you the exact opposite is true and your theory is pure bullshit.

Your explanation makes almost no sense at all. Especially the part about God caring about justice.

The only part that does make sense is your evil god keeping secrets and screwing over the world.

"I believe that the contemporary crisis of faith and the ongoing de-Christianization of Western society have much to do with the fact that for centuries the material world has been left to the mercy of the scientists."


THE HORROR!!! Just look at this satan's satanic smile:

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/alberteinste.jpg

His face is as that of an ape, sticking his ugly tongue out like an unholy goat or something!!!

Y'all need Jesus, here's some Jesus for ya:

https://lewandpatpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pedophiles-their-enablers-rev-6-7-10.jpg

Well, unless you're a protestant, in which case here's some fun Jesus for you:



Or maybe you're orthodox. In which case there's plenty of Jesus material, but for now this priest explaining to everyone how Furbies are fucking evil will suffice:



Well, it would if you knew Greek. I don't care. Oh well, here's a song, dedicated to you, ciklijamas:



And here's a bonus one:



Or are you too scared of rock music?

"I believe that the contemporary crisis of faith and the ongoing de-Christianization of Western society have much to do with the fact that for centuries the material world has been left to the mercy of the scientists."


THE HORROR!!! Just look at this satan's satanic smile:

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/alberteinste.jpg

His face is as that of an ape, sticking his ugly tongue out like an unholy goat or something!!!

Y'all need Jesus, here's some Jesus for ya:

https://lewandpatpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pedophiles-their-enablers-rev-6-7-10.jpg

Well, unless you're a protestant, in which case here's some fun Jesus for you:



Or maybe you're orthodox. In which case there's plenty of Jesus material, but for now this priest explaining to everyone how Furbies are fucking evil will suffice:



Well, it would if you knew Greek. I don't care. Oh well, here's a song, dedicated to you, ciklijamas:



And here's a bonus one:



Or are you too scared of rock music?

i listen to christian metalcore

humans will do the worst with ANYTHING (literally), so i don't understand how religion would be put aside.

Quote from: observer on December 03, 2016, 08:42:11 AM

All 3 major Abrahamic religions believe in a single concept of God. That God is one

Except Christianity which has him as 3.

Don't get me started on trinity. That's a seriously messed up thing that's even confused those who try to explain it. Fundamentally all 3 still believe in one entity and the oneness as stated earlier.

Quote from: observer on December 03, 2016, 08:42:11 AM

nothing is like him to our understanding, he has no beginning and no end. A beginning cannot have a cause otherwise the cause becomes the beginning and the belief in God would not be valid. Now identify here that this is a belief. There's absolutely no proof of this and I always say anyone who can prove this is a liar.

Yes. That is a belief.
But that belief still destroys the argument.
You accept that something can exist without cause.
If this is the case then the first line of that argument:
"Everything has a cause, thus the universe has a cause"
is false.

The problem is that you still don't understand the concept of God. Please read carefully: The belief is not "something can exist without cause." - According to Atheists you believe God to be a "something created" - Theists believe God to be the creator. He already existed, Alpha Omega etc etc etc. So you cannot falsify a statement by attributing the meaning to Theists by using Atheist's belief in the matter.

Quote from: observer on December 03, 2016, 08:42:11 AM

Simply put, Atheists either do not understand the concept of God or refuse to accept a very basic concept of "belief" in God based on "faith". The very question "What caused God" clearly means Atheists believe God to be a creation, a man with a white beard floating in the sky looking down at us which entirely defeats the purpose of believing in God as the creator.

Or it means you simply have no idea what the atheists are trying to do with that argument.
Did you even read what I said?

Yes I did. However as the argument is invalid to begin with (I'm not saying it's an incorrect or wrong argument), it cannot be answered until the argument is applied to the correct disputed matter.

I said quite clearly that we aren't asking for you to tell us what caused God or anything of the like.
The question is to show that you already accept that things can exist without cause.

Once again, not "things" - you miss the concept of God according to Theists.

It is to show you that a god doesn't actually solve anything, it merely pushes the problem back.

There's nothing to solve when it comes to the matter of God. What's there to solve?

It isn't necessarily even to try and stop you believing in God.
All it is doing is showing that the proof is flawed, and God and the universe would be on equal footing if that argument was applied rationally.

Do you understand that? The question is primarily to show the argument is flawed.

That's exactly my point. No one is giving proof so what proof is flawed? As far as I have typed no proof has been put forward. So what proof are you talking about?

And no, your beliefs about God do not let you magically get around that fact, and the special pleading required.

Theist's defense mechanism in action... use the word "magic" I won't bother with this

Quote from: observer on December 03, 2016, 08:42:11 AM

Proof clearly doesn't help either as there's a ridiculous amounts of proof for a Glove Earth yet there's thousands of people who simply cannot comprehend basic observable facts of a Globe Earth and in turn believe in a Flat Earth for ludicrous reasons.

Yes. Proof doesn't matter to those with deeply held beliefs. They will keep on believing regardless of how often you show their beliefs to be false.
Some people will believe in a flat Earth because of religious indoctrination.
And the religious and the FErs make the same horribly flawed arguments.

For example, several love trying to point out a problem with a round Earth, without realising (or admitting) it would exist on a flat Earth as well. Their arguments work equally well against a flat Earth as a round Earth. As such, it is not actually an argument for a flat Earth.
Just like the argument made here for a god would work equally against that god not having a creator. As such it is not actually an argument for God's existence or being the creator of the universe.

And before you go saying I am ignoring what it means to be God, I am not, also note that the same argument can be made for the universe.
The universe can be defined as all that exists.
In order for something to create the universe it would need to exist outside the universe. That requires it to exist outside of all that exists, which is impossible.
As such, the universe cannot be created.
As such, any god that exists is merely a part of the universe, not the creator of it.

[/quote]

Amazing. You're almost as dense as Flat Earthers.. Let me explain:

You say "And before you go saying I am ignoring what it means to be God" and then you follow it up by proving you still ignore what it means to be God according to Theists.

You say, "which is impossible" - just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's impossible. Many things were deemed impossible at one point. Relativity is so important which Flat Earthers cannot comprehend and in the case of God existing outside of His created universe you ignore relativity here also by stating it's impossible to exist outside of all that exists when what exists according to Theists is relative from within the created universe.