The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers

  • 82 Replies
  • 7147 Views
The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« on: December 23, 2016, 09:22:33 PM »

There is a general thread among most Flat Earther’s belief systems and that is a literal interpretation of the Bible. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. For the record, I am a born-again Christian who believes the Bible is inerrant, the Word of God and literally true. But from this point, scepti et al and I veer considerably off course in what we think that statement actually means.

Firstly, the Bible is not a book on science, but rather history and the story of God’s relationship with His people. That is not to say that it contradicts science. In fact, with the exception of evolution (a different subject) the Bible does not generally contradict existing scientific beliefs and proofs. And to repeat, the Bible is not a science book and going there for your science will be at best, disappointing.

Now back to the Bible… Scepti et al believe in this flat earth model with a fixed dome and even literal ‘windows’ to heaven and with the flat earth standing on literal pillars. One of the first things you learn when trying to understand the Bible is to recognise what you are reading at the time. When you are reading Jesus’ parables, you are not reading literal events, but rather metaphorical stories. Jesus even stats as much. When the Bible refers to the corners of the world, it says so in the same vein that we even today refer to the ‘four corners of the globe’. There is metaphor, history, poetry and teaching all in the Bible and if you don’t know which one you are reading, then you will end up with silly ideas like a domed earth.

When God asks Job ‘who set the earth on its pillars’, does He mean literal pillars or rather how we describe some people as ‘pillars of society’ without believing that they are literally stone pillars. When the Bible refers to the ‘windows of heaven’ it is not talking about opening and closing literal windows somewhere on a dome, but more like how we say that ‘the eyes are the window to the soul’.
It is easy (and correct) to believe that the entire Bible is inerrant and literally true when you know what you are reading because poetry is LITERALLY poetry and metaphors are LITERALLY metaphors.

I say all this to explain Scepti et al and their absolute refusal (and inability) to accept the real model of the universe and a spherical earth. It is faith. Pure, absolute faith. But faith that is misguided because it is faith not in what the Bible actually says, but rather on a very poor and biased understanding of the Bible. Biblical interpretation can be subjective for some, but only cults and a few peripheral nutters don’t accept that parts of the Bible are actually poetry and metaphor or sometimes historical summaries rather than all literal fact.

The fact that he cannot be shifted is both admirable and pitiful. Steadfastness for the things of God are good, but that implies we must actually know what those things are. When science absolutely and without doubt disproves what you believe you need to check again to see if your faith is actually lining up with God’s Word or simply your own (mis)interpretation. Being steadfast and faithful to error is not admirable at all.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2016, 09:30:41 PM »
the Bible is not a book on science, but rather history
No, historians don't consider the bible to be a reliable historical document.

Nice of you to ignore the content and actual point of the post, but you are quite incorrect. Historians generally accept the Bible as one of the most accurate and voluminous historical records. Around Christmas and Easter there is always a handful of silly twits that come up with their 'theories' only to be routinely rejected and disappear without trace while the Biblical model remains secure.

*

Logick

  • 299
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2016, 09:31:59 PM »
the Bible is not a book on science, but rather history
No, historians don't consider the bible to be a reliable historical document.

It is (OBVIOUSLY) not a book on science, and it is no more a book on history than, say, the Odyssey and Iliad are.
quod erat demonstrandum

*

Logick

  • 299
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2016, 09:33:25 PM »
Historians generally accept the Bible as one of the most accurate and voluminous historical records.
Please provide supporting evidence for this outlandish claim.
quod erat demonstrandum

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2016, 09:34:20 PM »
tl;dr

tl;dr.

Ok I skimmed it, did you start a thread in the upper fora purely to whinge about scepti?

Here have some concrete.

and harden the f**k up.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 09:37:18 PM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2016, 09:35:52 PM »
the Bible is not a book on science, but rather history
No, historians don't consider the bible to be a reliable historical document.

It is (OBVIOUSLY) not a book on science, and it is no more a book on history than, say, the Odyssey and Iliad are.

Quite simply you are wrong and historians themselves would tell you that. Just because you are an atheist doesnt mean you have to naturally reject anything Christian. It makes you just as narrow-minded as scepti et al because your 'beleive' just as strongly and with the same degree of evidence - none.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2016, 09:36:42 PM »
Historians generally accept the Bible as one of the most accurate and voluminous historical records.
Please provide supporting evidence for this outlandish claim.

You made the original claim so you support your position first.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2016, 09:38:21 PM »
Historians generally accept the Bible as one of the most accurate and voluminous historical records.
Please provide supporting evidence for this outlandish claim.

You made the original claim so you support your position first.

You started this thread, citation or gtfo.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2016, 09:38:57 PM »
I still find it hard to believe that in this day and age, an ancient book of desert fables is looked upon as some sort of beacon of truth and the word of some god. It's almost as unbelievable as people truly believing the earth to be flat because it requires just as much faith IMO, not to mention a penchant for ignoring or denying the evidence.

I say all this to explain Scepti et al and their absolute refusal (and inability) to accept the real model of the universe and a spherical earth. It is faith. Pure, absolute faith.

Much like your faith that the bible is 'inerrent, the Word of God and literally true', correct? For the record, I don't think scepti actually subscribes to any religion or god. Based off of what he's had to say, I would lable him as agnostic but I'm happy to be corrected.

Anyway, that's all I have to add. Enjoy debating semantics on passages from the book of printed excrement better known as the bible.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2016, 09:40:52 PM »
For the record, I don't scepti actually subscribes to any religion or god. Based off of what he's had to say, I would lable him as agnostic but I'm happy to be corrected.

Exactly, what did you do like thirty seconds of research before posting flaggs?
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2016, 09:45:19 PM »
I still find it hard to believe that in this day and age, an ancient book of desert fables is looked upon as some sort of beacon of truth and the word of some god. It's almost as unbelievable as people truly believing the earth to be flat because it requires just as much faith IMO, not to mention a perchent for ignoring or denying the evidence.

I say all this to explain Scepti et al and their absolute refusal (and inability) to accept the real model of the universe and a spherical earth. It is faith. Pure, absolute faith.

Much like your faith that the bible is 'inerrent, the Word of God and literally true', correct? For the record, I don't scepti actually subscribes to any religion or god. Based off of what he's had to say, I would lable him as agnostic but I'm happy to be corrected.

Anyway, that's all I have to add. Enjoy debating semantics on passages from the book of printed excrement better known as the bible.

You could always trying to find ACTUAL disproved problems with the Bible rather than opinion and hearsay.

For the record - since no one seems to care - I put together a cogent explanation for scepti's believe patterns and inability to be taught. Nice of everyone to ignore that!

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2016, 09:46:25 PM »
For the record, I don't scepti actually subscribes to any religion or god. Based off of what he's had to say, I would lable him as agnostic but I'm happy to be corrected.

Exactly, what did you do like thirty seconds of research before posting flaggs?

A great deal more than you.  Are you supposed to be off saving peoples lives or what other fantasy job you claim to have?

*

Logick

  • 299
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2016, 09:47:19 PM »
You made the original claim so you support your position first.
Let's see...
  • You said the bible is a book on history
  • I said historians don't consider it to be a reliable historical document
  • Now you think I made the original claim
As the initial claimant, the burden of proof is on you.
quod erat demonstrandum

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2016, 09:52:25 PM »
You made the original claim so you support your position first.
Let's see...
  • You said the bible is a book on history
  • I said historians don't consider it to be a reliable historical document
  • Now you think I made the original claim
As the initial claimant, the burden of proof is on you.

If you wish to disprove that claim then it is up to you. I do not need to or want to go into yet another circular argument with the ignorant who are relying (ironically) not on science but on atheism.  I think we would find that the difference between ardent (and uninformed) athiests and flat-earthers is far less than you might find comfortable.

Of course you could address the actual thrust of the OP, but I guess your favourite hobby-horse is far more fun - like denspressure.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2016, 09:54:08 PM »
tl;dr

tl;dr.

Ok I skimmed it, did you start a thread in the upper fora purely to whinge about scepti?

Here have some concrete.

and harden the f**k up.

So... reading the whole things was a bit too much for you?

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2016, 09:55:40 PM »
Sceptimatic does not use the bible as proof for denpressure.

Not once in the 70 page denpressure thread has Scepti ever mentioned the bible.

You might be thinking about iWitness, a poster I have not seen for some months who often referred to literal pillars holding up the earth.

*

Logick

  • 299
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2016, 09:57:48 PM »
So you cop out of the debate (and therefore lose). Thanks for playing. That was mighty boring, though.

Maybe you should post this shit in the religion forum next time, BTW.
quod erat demonstrandum

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2016, 09:58:57 PM »
Sceptimatic does not use the bible as proof for denpressure.

Not once in the 70 page denpressure thread has Scepti ever mentioned the bible.

You might be thinking about iWitness, a poster I have not seen for some months who often referred to literal pillars holding up the earth.

SCepti has in other threads referred to the dome and posted drawings about it. It fits with his belief structure.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2016, 10:01:03 PM »
So you cop out of the debate (and therefore lose). Thanks for playing. That was mighty boring, though.

Maybe you should post this shit in the religion forum next time, BTW.

If you want to debate you might want to try engaging a bit more and not trying TRump-style rules.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2016, 10:03:45 PM »
I see very few people here supporting FE here mentioning the Bible as evidence.  Not that there are not any here, but there seems to be few among the active posters in the debate, Q&A, and general.

I think intikam may base his belief the Earth is flat on religious text, but not sure.

I do not think I ever seen Scepti use it to support his model.  I admit I could be wrong since I do not read all his post.

Edit: Forgot to add

Saying historians regard the Bible as a reliable source is somewhat misleading.

There is a reason when you find people saying it is historical accurate and reliable source to learn history tend to be rather religious and view the Bible as being literal.

I'll pick one thing:

"Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan.  There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan."

Yes some cities existed and events mentioned in the Bible happened.  However it seems the Bible may have combined different events, embellished some to make a better story, have them happening at the wrong time. 

 
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 10:20:41 PM by Woody »

*

Logick

  • 299
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2016, 10:13:39 PM »
If you want to debate you might want to try engaging a bit more and not trying TRump-style rules.
You already lost the debate. Why are you still talking to me?
quod erat demonstrandum

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2016, 10:18:03 PM »
If you wish to disprove that claim then it is up to you. I do not need to or want to go into yet another circular argument with the ignorant who are relying (ironically) not on science but on atheism.  I think we would find that the difference between ardent (and uninformed) athiests and flat-earthers is far less than you might find comfortable.

Of course you could address the actual thrust of the OP, but I guess your favourite hobby-horse is far more fun - like denspressure.

Yes, ironically, the religious folks among us seem to think there is some sort of burden on the non-believers to disprove their religious claims. The burden, good sir, has and always will be on the religion making the claims of which they all do. You claim the bible, in whatever capacity, has some sort of veracity, thus it is up to you to provide evidence for such a claim.

Speaking of irony, calling non-believers ardent is rather hilarious. You, too, are a non-believer for every religion other than your own, correct? Therefore, you're an atheist in respect to Hinduism, Judaism etc etc ad infinitum, are you not? Oh yea, you are. What were you saying again?

Lastly, atheism is the most rational position a person can hold due to, get this, the lack of evidence for every claim every religion makes, including the most important part: that being evidence their purported deity exists in the first place. Atheism is axiomatically the least ardent position.

If you truly think the position I hold is ardent or irrational, you need a bit of a reality check.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2016, 10:26:55 PM »
I see very few people here supporting FE here mentioning the Bible as evidence.  Not that there are not any here, but there seems to be few among the active posters in the debate, Q&A, and general.

I think intikam may base his belief the Earth is flat on religious text, but not sure.

I do not think I ever seen Scepti use it to support his model.  I admit I could be wrong since I do not read all his post.

Edit: Forgot to add

Saying historians regard the Bible as a reliable source is somewhat misleading.

There is a reason when you find people saying it is historical accurate and reliable source to learn history tend to be rather religious and view the Bible as being literal.

I'll pick one thing:

"Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan.  There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan."

Yes some cities existed and events mentioned in the Bible happened.  However it seems the Bible may have combined different events, embellished some to make a better story, have them happening at the wrong time.

keep in mind that we are talking about an event from 4000 years ago and while you might not find any evidence to support it, you also dont find any evidence to debunk it. And an extensive document (the Bible) that discusses it at length I actual evidence if not proof. But, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2016, 10:29:37 PM »
If you wish to disprove that claim then it is up to you. I do not need to or want to go into yet another circular argument with the ignorant who are relying (ironically) not on science but on atheism.  I think we would find that the difference between ardent (and uninformed) athiests and flat-earthers is far less than you might find comfortable.

Of course you could address the actual thrust of the OP, but I guess your favourite hobby-horse is far more fun - like denspressure.

Yes, ironically, the religious folks among us seem to think there is some sort of burden on the non-believers to disprove their religious claims. The burden, good sir, has and always will be on the religion making the claims of which they all do. You claim the bible, in whatever capacity, has some sort of veracity, thus it is up to you to provide evidence for such a claim.

Speaking of irony, calling non-believers ardent is rather hilarious. You, too, are a non-believer for every religion other than your own, correct? Therefore, you're an atheist in respect to Hinduism, Judaism etc etc ad infinitum, are you not? Oh yea, you are. What were you saying again?

Lastly, atheism is the most rational position a person can hold due to, get this, the lack of evidence for every claim every religion makes, including the most important part: that being evidence their purported deity exists in the first place. Atheism is axiomatically the least ardent position.

If you truly think the position I hold is ardent or irrational, you need a bit of a reality check.

and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?

You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2016, 10:30:46 PM »
If you want to debate you might want to try engaging a bit more and not trying TRump-style rules.
You already lost the debate. Why are you still talking to me?

Are you a school-kid thinking he won an argument in the schoolyard?

Grow up and play at the big-peoples table.

*

Logick

  • 299
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2016, 10:32:36 PM »
Are you a school-kid thinking he won an argument in the schoolyard?
You failed to honor your burden of proof.

You don't know what debate is.
quod erat demonstrandum

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11801
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2016, 10:42:10 PM »
Fliggs you had to use a lot of words describing how the inerrant word of God doesn't really mean what it says. ::)
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2016, 10:42:29 PM »
and yet, your entire contribution to the debate at hand is nothing more than criticism. Bit like atheists really, whose contribution to the world- especially in the doing-good dept - is rather slim. Where are the atheist-founded schools, hospitals?

You might do well to remember that the foundations of your own society is the Bible you so flippantly dismissed.

Ouch.. hit a sore spot, I see. So, no evidence for your religion or anything it claims... got it!

Again, the irony of your posts. Let us not forget what religious institutions gave the world when it predominantly ruled over its respective flocks with an iron fist, whilst crucifying (literally) the non-believers amongst them. You know what they say about glass houses, right? Yikes.

Finally, are you implying that without the bible, we wouldn't know morality? Tell me you're joking. I do wonder how we as a species survived hundreds of thousands of years without any god/religion if we thought that murder, pillaging and theft were actually good things!

Another religion-derived logic fail.

Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2016, 11:00:44 PM »
Sceptimatic does not use the bible as proof for denpressure.

Not once in the 70 page denpressure thread has Scepti ever mentioned the bible.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: The confusion of Scepti and other Flat Earthers
« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2016, 11:32:53 PM »
I see very few people here supporting FE here mentioning the Bible as evidence.  Not that there are not any here, but there seems to be few among the active posters in the debate, Q&A, and general.

I think intikam may base his belief the Earth is flat on religious text, but not sure.

I do not think I ever seen Scepti use it to support his model.  I admit I could be wrong since I do not read all his post.

Edit: Forgot to add

Saying historians regard the Bible as a reliable source is somewhat misleading.

There is a reason when you find people saying it is historical accurate and reliable source to learn history tend to be rather religious and view the Bible as being literal.

I'll pick one thing:

"Take the whole story of the Jews being enslaved in Egypt, Moses leading them into the desert, their wanderings in the wilderness for forty years and their conquest of Canaan.  There is no mention of any of this in any Egyptian material, no evidence of any wholesale enslavement of Jews or any mention of Jews at all, no evidence that Moses existed, no archaeological evidence of any sojourn in the wilderness and no evidence of some invasion and conquest of Canaan."

Yes some cities existed and events mentioned in the Bible happened.  However it seems the Bible may have combined different events, embellished some to make a better story, have them happening at the wrong time.

keep in mind that we are talking about an event from 4000 years ago and while you might not find any evidence to support it, you also dont find any evidence to debunk it. And an extensive document (the Bible) that discusses it at length I actual evidence if not proof. But, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So if I wanted to study history and went to the Bible and I could not find any other mention of events or evidence except in the Bible I should consider the Bible a reliable source?

Do not forget the Egyptians like other civilizations recorded their history using various methods.  The exodus of the Jewish slaves seemed like something worth recording.

There is plenty of events in the Bible that can not be confirmed.  Usually the best a historian can confirm is that some place existed.  The Bible is not exclusive in this regard.  Many of the places mentioned in the Bible are mentioned elsewhere.

Please explain how the Bible is a reliable source for a history lesson.  Keep in mind you made the claim the Bible should not be used for science and for a good reason.  That it is basically stories to teach morals, why would this not include stories about things that happened? Stories that may have been embellished or altered for the intended narrative of the author.

Can you describe how we got the collection of books that make up the Bible?  Was it written soon after the events happened or were the stories passed on orally before they were recorded?  One thing to consider is Mark was not written until about 40 years after the Crucifixion.  The rest of the synoptic gospels were written later.

If the stories were passed down orally for more than one generation how reliable should we consider them?