Located in Domaining Reviews, started by MapleDots, Mar 20, 2019
Golden Ratio for the win.
ZEUS rules all.
Not quite. Zeus is Satan. He is still God of this world but is controlled opposition and loses in the end.
Apollo (aka Apollyon) is the Antichrist. He will still have a final opportunity at running the world when he lights up his long-planned "Beast system". The stage for that to finally happen is set.
And while Religion is indeed an opiate for the masses, Jesus Christ is Life. He absolutely wins in the end, ruling and reigning the earth for 1000 years from Jerusalem.
After the 1000 year Millennial Kingdom, the Great White Throne Judgment is when all who are dead in sins are resurrected for final judgement and to give an account everything they said, did or thought.
Like it or not, the Bible has laid it all out with sufficient clarity that a kindergartener can understand the Gospel without having to go to anyone's "church" or to "tithe" anything to anyone. It is a FREE GIFT.
A kindergartner can also understand sunrises / sunsets, simultaneous day + night, and the seasons – if they know the earth is a globe.
But adults who believe the earth is flat are, apparently, unable to give cogent explanations of such basic facts.
Let's be clear:
1. I told you from the outset I was not going to be an apologist for Flat Earth. I view it as just another interesting thesis that arguably aligns with the Biblical narrative.
2. I have given you ample places to continue your search for understanding. You are plenty intelligent and fully capable of connecting the dots.
If you are sincerely interested in understanding, you can do that on your own. If your objective is to engage in a snarky exercise of atheistic virtue-signaling, you can also do that, but I would expect better from you.
Regardless, giving you the benefit of the doubt, as you wish:
Earlier I referenced how night and day co-exist and also an animation of seasons along with the lunar phases. These were all there on page 75.
As for sunrise and sunset, the phenomena is explained by atmospheric refraction and lensing. There is a simple tabletop experiment shown here that illustrates the phenomena:
You can also refer to various high altitude balloon experiments which did not use a fish-eye lens that indicate a non-moving, flat plane as far as the eyes can see.
for all of you who start questioning:
takes the time to watch this
you are posting images that are linked from gab.com
there must be a reason you fill this thread with nonsense about fat earth
while at the same time you say that you don't believe in this theory
at the same time you are never responding to
like the facts that are explained in the video
why we have 12 notes in an octave
which is debunking all your BS
about a ( human like ) Creator God
who must be a mathematician
( in fact its more like this:
the universe is running on rules
explained by mathematics
and not the other way round )
in this post you have a link to gab.com
Billions, maybe trillions, of galaxies in the observable universe, and just the nearest star after the sun is 40 billion hours ( 4.5 million years ) away if you were going 1,000 km/hr.... And people still think that there is a god, shaped like a human?, who really cares about some apes here.... Some who can't figure out the shape of the planet.But know the shape of god.
If you want to convince yourself that the math and laws that govern the universe came into existence through either (1) randomness over a vast period of time, or (2) a Creator to whom you are not accountable, that is entirely your prerogative. You have free will. I have made my assessment, and am comfortable with it. If the posts in this thread annoy you, I am sorry for that. As for posting about what "Flat earth" people believe, I find it interesting to understand why people believe certain things. I am still trying to figure out why people think it is cool to worship a black rock in the desert, for example. Lots of smart people do it, so there must be some upside from it.
Since it apparently triggers you, next time I will try to remember to screen shot the image instead of copy-pasting. I get my source content from many places. I even sites like RationalWiki to understand the atheistic talking points. Some of them are very thoughtfully constructed and reinforce the atheist programming. Were the cost not one's eternal soul it would all be rather entertaining. Unfortunately the stakes are relatively high, which is why we have free speech with which to counterbalance atheistic nonsense and their ongoing attempt to achieve a manufactured consensus.
The question isn't whether it's interesting or dull. The question is whether it's True or False.
In your view, how is the earth shaped? Is it a globe, or is it flat, or what? As you say, "Let's be clear."
No. I literally CAN'T understand how a flat-earth world would fit the observable facts of life on earth. And so, having found someone who apparently believes the earth is flat, I've asked for a straightforward explanation. Unless there is a simple explanation, then I assume the theory is unintelligible and incoherent; and I would have no reason to delve into its incoherence any further.
But that isn't my objective. My objective, Rob, is to find out whether you believe the earth is flat. And, if so, to give you a chance to explain that theory in a way that might be intelligible or coherent. And if you can't, then to persuade you to discard a ludicrous idea. Because, frankly, "I would expect better from you."
Emphatically, this has nothing to do with theism versus atheism. The vast majority christians and muslims know the earth is a globe. And among the conspiracy theorists who believe the earth is flat, there are undoubtedly atheists. Christianity or atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. It's about geometry, pure and simple.
Thanks. By now, you should realize that I have no ill will toward you. And it's preposterous to accuse me of "atheistic virtue-signaling" after I spent a week in this very NamePros thread defending Religion against ignorant attacks by other atheists.
I will push back against falsehood, no matter which direction it comes from, whether that's someone saying Religion = Poison or someone saying Einstein has been debunked and the earth is flat. And I reserve the right to be "snarky" when doing so. Debate in good humor is invariably "snarky".
Take a good look at that drawing, Rob.
If the earth is a flat disc, and the sun and moon are always hovering above it, then both the sun and the moon are ALWAYS VISIBLE from all points on the flat disc. Imagine I put 2 stickers on a ceiling fan to represent the sun and moon. Then they would chase each other in a circle above the room, just like the flat-earth model above. (What's more, we would SEE them chasing one another in loops in the sky.) From any point in the room, we could always connect a string to that sticker in a straight line. That's the line of sight between an eye and the object it sees. So the sun and moon should be ALWAYS VISIBLE in the sky. No sunset, sunrise, or night.
I see they've drawn a yellow circle around the sun to indicate the area they expect to be illuminated. So apparently they intend the sun to be like a flashlight or a streetlamp that is pointed straight down and only illuminates a round little patch. Nevertheless, someone who is standing in the dark unlit part of the street can look up and see the streetlamp. Even at night, we would still be able to look up and see the sun.
If the sun is like a streetlamp pointing straight down, then it's not a sphere if light. It would only be a circular disc emitting light. Someone who is standing directly beneath such a 2-dimensional sun could look up and see it as a circle. But for someone who is not directly underneath the sun – far north or far south, according to that picture – the sun would not appear as a circle at all. Rather, it would appear squished like a narrow ellipse. Circles only appear circular if our line of sight is perpendicular to the plane of the circle. This conclusion is obvious if you think about circles we see from a distance every day. Right now, I'm looking at a flower pot 20 meters away. Although it's circular, the rim of that pot appears very narrow due to the angle of my perspective. The same would be true of the sun, if seen from an angle. People in the north or south would see the sun as a narrow, squished sliver of light – not as a circle. Which is obviously untrue.
Another issue with that yellow circular area in the picture is that it doesn't light up half the earth at a time. Only about 20% of the earth is shown as being inside that yellow circle. So the other 80% is outside it. That would mean that our world is 80% night and 20% daylight, which is obviously false.
And the illumination effect is not uniform. In this picture, the equator gets a lot more of that yellow patch than the north (center) or south (circumference). Of course, the north has very few daylight hours in the winter. But the north gets MORE daylight hours in the summer. And that is not possible based on the circular yellow area in the picture, which fails to illuminate even close to 50% of the north at any given time. So how would it be possible to have 14 hours or 18 hours or 23 hours of daylight in the north? It's no use saying this is a picture of the Winter situation. Because if it's winter for the north, then it's summer for the south. And the south (circumference) gets virtually no daylight at all in this picture.
This model has a long list of insurmountable problems. Why struggle with such a model when a globe works perfectly?
I don't have a dogmatic position on the shape of the earth. I relayed a bit of what I understand about the flat earth hypothesis because apparently you and I both find the topic interesting. That said, I don't see it as my responsibility to defend a position where I myself don't have a definitive position.
At your insistence, I have shared some easily digestible content. Although I lightly curated the content, I did not go through hundreds of high altitude balloon videos that are out there these days.
For anyone who wants to send up one of these on their own, there are now some handy how-to resources, e.g. here. The theoretical maximum altitude for a balloon appears to be about 120,000 feet.
Most of the balloon videos that are allowed to stay on YouTube use a fish--eye lens that adds curvature where none exists with the naked eye. Alternative video sharing sites like BitChute.com (an Epik client) do have some uncensored video like these:
Perhaps the most famous high altitude balloon was a manned one invented by French scientist Auguste Piccard. I own one of his books. Gene Roddenberry, creator of Star Trek, acknowledges that his Captain Picard was inspired by this person.
So what will I defend? I will defend that Satan is real, Jesus Christ is Lord, and the Bible is the Word of God. However, at the same time, I will also defend someone else's lawful ability to contradict that view, and will even empower them to proselytize others of their competing view of the world.
As for delivery style, yes, you can be snarky, and have had that tendency as long as we have known each other. Since we have talked about it many times, I think you know that I say that lovingly and with all due respect.
As for this thread, which has become a special kind of NamePros playground, I will happily engage anyone in a genuine discussion searching for truth. That said, I will generally steer clear of what I consider to be unproductive pissing matches such as I observed earlier in this thread.
it doesn't trigger me
it's just a fact that you linked to gab _/com
you said you didn't do so
you said you want a proof
otherwise, I lose credibility
so here is the proof you asked for
I don't care if I lose credibility or not in your eyes
but I love to prove that you're are wrong
and play the innocent
looks like this is important to you..
but what if you are wrong?
and your father is right
not the priest
the father of your youth
the one who was an atheist
- you are fighting atheists-
(I am not an atheist by the way)
what if he was right?
I guess you are fighting your father
I don't blame you for this
you are young
maybe you will understand
that this is futile approach in your mature years
but you are a public figure
with some authority
and you are able to influence people
and in my view
you shouldn't spread such nonsense in such a public forum
it's your responsibility
not to mislead people
I am confident that I am right.
I understand that the public education system and a growing segment of mainstream media would have me believe otherwise.
As for my "public figure" status, if that means a few more folks will wake up and investigate things a bit further, then great.
I am happy to be a source of "salt and light" in a world that is losing both.
it doens't matter if you are right or wrong
we all will meet at the same place
no matter what we have thought before
this belief is a private matter
you are absolutely free to believe whatever you like
you have all my best wishes
that you free great with what you believe
but I believe that the other people have a right
to be not affected by your belief system
and have a right not to be harmed with dis-information
if everybody would just keep it private
what they believe will happen after death
the world would be a better place
let's make the world a better place
You clearly favor a flat earth. Dogmatic about that belief or not, you have gone out of your way to promulgate the idea that the earth is flat. I've only seen you spread the idea as a proponent – never critique or even acknowledge its fairly obvious shortcomings. So I assume you believe it and wish to spread that belief. This zeal to spread the flat earth idea came from you initially, did it not? As I recall, the topic was introduced by you in this thread without prompting. And you posted about it extensively for a month or two before I questioned you about it.
Anybody who goes out of their way to spread an idea – doing so extensively for months and always in a way that advocates or favors that idea (never the opposite) – has a responsibility to examine that idea, defending it from criticism or else acknowledging its deficiencies.
Even if the person isn't dogmatic about an idea, the fact that they are spreading it in a non-neutral, non-critical way makes them responsible for it.
Debate is only an "unproductive pissing match" when someone doesn't know how to engage in polite debate about ideas. I know how. The rest depends on the other guy.
Bible written by men.
Old testament, most was taken from so called pagan myths...rest was Hebrew history.
New testament came about because of power and money...thus much was left out....and came to be called heresy because it was not in the bible.
ZEUS is not satan......satan is a so called angel who threw a fit and left to form his own kingdom....
It was early catholic church that made satan out to be a bad guy in a bad place.
For it was easier to control the dumb, poor masses by telling them do as we say or go to hell.
Once the dumb, poor masses finally learned to read and write that the catholic church had to find another way to keep their power and continue getting the riches of the world.
Pope is the satan.
There are a few things I know for sure. There are other things where I am not as sure. Although one could accuse me of being unscientific, that would be inaccurate. I am actually being rigorous in the application of scientific method. You might recall something like this:
Many people will accept for gospel something they read in some established publication, perhaps not contemplating the possibility that they are being propagandized. I have seen enough evidence to believe that we are being irresponsible when we don't take responsibility for consuming content through a lens of active discernment and healthy skepticism.
I think propaganda is particularly large issue in healthcare where the medical establishment often falls short, and the ability to investigate matters on one's own requires navigating through a sea of disinfo and misinfo. There is a reason why Americans don't live as long as others and yet spend more on healthcare than anyone. It is by design. The country is in the business of making people sick and then charging them through the nose to make them better. If that sounds demented, or psychopathic, yes, it is.
Just consider the heavy indoctrination about the use of sunblocks and sunscreens. There is an abundance of evidence that most commercial sunscreens are loaded with benzene derivatives. I pretty much never use the stuff. If I do, I opt for a mineral-based sunscreen for non-coverable areas. The sun is good for you. We need it to produce vitamin D, the deficiency of which is highly correlated with cancer.
It would all be very funny, almost like a game, were it not for documented proof that our own government is routinely complicit in embracing pro-eugenics policies. Study the works of guys like Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich, and contemplate their history of policy influence. Long story short: to think that deleterious propaganda ended with the likes of Goebbels is extremely naive.
The issue is not about flat earth. I can imagine that it is entertaining to drill down on that one since it just sounds so impossibly crazy. The real issue is about personal sovereignty when it comes to the continuing right to life, liberty and happiness, which includes the right to being able to search and discern the TRUTH.
You sound like someone who grew up in Freemasonry.
The papacy is more likely the False Prophet, governing most of the world's religions and cults of any size, either directly or indirectly. The papacy has been refining the art for nearly 2000 years.
You can be sure that Satan is not the good guy. He can give folks fame and fortune on this earth. I will grant you that. He will also promise a path to eternal life through technology, but he won't be able to deliver.
Happy to compare notes anytime as to what you are relying on to form your apparently considered opinion. I think you have it wrong but am happy to listen and be persuaded.
I, for one, am happy you are on the side of those seeking information that allows for informed decisions rather than those looking to suppress; whether that suppression is intentional or due to indoctrination.
I know this QUOTE was just shared above, but this line is that important. It seems to really answer the topic of this thread, "What's going on with Epik and Rob?"
I'm not sure how any person, especially intellectuals, can disagree with that statement, regardless of positions in debates. Regardless of ideologies. Regardless of all indifferences. Yes, that statement or QUOTE is that good.
Separate names with a comma.