What's going on with Epik and Rob Monster?

[MapleDots]

I'm catching the tail end of this, seems to be some kind of controversy...

https://domaingang.com/domain-news/rob-monster-off-twitter-after-christchurch-massacre-controversy/

Must be something odd to evoke this type of a response from one of our members.

 

[Slanted]

Joseph - you are definitely going down the rabbit hole now. As I said, I am not going to be an apologist for the Flat Earth theory, but you are asking all the right questions

So is the earth a flat circle like a disc or a vinyl record?

Or is it like the top half of a basketball, with curvature but no bottom half?

The only way there can be daylight in one part of the world while it's night in another part of the world is if there is if the sun can be located somewhere WITH a direct line of sight to the daylight part of the world but WITHOUT a direct line of sight to the non-daylight part of the world.

With a flat disc that's obviously impossible. So are we talking about a spherical earth – but chop the sphere in half and throw away the bottom?

If you don't see what I mean, Rob, then try to build a physical model. Draw a map of the world on a circular piece of paper. Then get a grape – call it the sun – and try to move it around in whatever pattern you like, in such a way that some part of the map (but not the other part) can see the grape.

 

[Mister Funsky]

Well, the thread just passed 50,000 views and still going strong!

Flat earth...I love it. Been playing golf with a guy for ten years and this came up the other day and he says he thinks it is true...so yesterday I cut a golf ball in half and gave it to him to play with this am (I could not play today so I can not report how well he did with it). If he does not come to his senses soon, I may have to replace him in our foursome!?!?!

 

[Rob Monster]

So is the earth a flat circle like a disc or a vinyl record?

Or is it like the top half of a basketball, with curvature but no bottom half?

The only way there can be daylight in one part of the world while it's night in another part of the world is if there is if the sun can be located somewhere WITH a direct line of sight to the daylight part of the world but WITHOUT a direct line of sight to the non-daylight part of the world.

With a flat disc that's obviously impossible. So are we talking about a spherical earth – but chop the sphere in half and throw away the bottom?

If you don't see what I mean, Rob, then try to build a physical model. Draw a map of the world on a circular piece of paper. Then get a grape – call it the sun – and try to move it around in whatever pattern you like, in such a way that some part of the map (but not the other part) can see the grape.

As you know, I have a few companies to run, so I am not going to be the resident expert on flat earth. There are people who are authorities on these topics. Some of them have developed elaborate 3D models:

As you are declared atheist you are dabbling with the polar opposite of your world view. In my experience, most are incapable of doing that -- the cognitive dissonance becomes too overwhelming.

Even though I am a committed Christian, I do try to understand other views, even a Satanist or Wiccan, being confident that "greater is He that is in me than he that is in the world." (1 John 4:4)

By the same token, although I don't rely on the Talmud, Bhagavad Gita, or Koran as my Holy Writ, I can still appreciate that it informs a tremendous number of people's world view, both directly and indirectly.

 

[Slanted]

As you know, I have a few companies to run, so I am not going to be the resident expert on flat earth.

That's prudent.

I know numerous conservative christians and muslims. Until about a month ago, I had never met anyone (or realized I had met anyone) who believed the world was flat. I daresay the vast majority of christians, jews, and muslims during the past 2000 years – those with some education, no matter how conservative – believed the world was a sphere and saw no conflict between the shape of the planet and their religion.

It's not my wish to debate whether or not the Bible implies a flat earth. I'm simply curious about the flat-earth model, which (as far as I can see) is incoherent. Can anybody explain to me how Night and Day can happen simultaneously in a flat-earth world? It seems that's absolutely impossible.

This is different from disputing Evolution – in the sense that Creationists DO have a coherent alternative explanation. Even though I consider that explanation incorrect, I would regard it as coherent. I can restate Creationism as a plausible theory, which (theoretically) the facts may or may not confirm.

For instance: Humans were always humans, and they had a first ancestor who was invented from scratch and who did not descend from anybody. Humans and apes are not distant cousins. Ostriches and hummingbirds did both not descend from some other bird-like creature. Tigers and elephants did not both descend from some other hairy creature. Whales are not descended from land mammals. Land mammals are not descended from sea creatures. Life itself was invented and placed on earth and did not arise spontaneously. Each species has always been as it is now. Some have gone extinct. Others might have been invented later and placed on earth. Complex organs like the eye were designed and did not arise spontaneously.

I don't regard the foregoing paragraph as true. But it is coherent. I can understand it. It's internally consistent. The inventor of species could (theoretically) be God or aliens or robots or (maybe some day) even humans. That might be wrong as a matter of history, but it's not crazy at all. Superficially it's actually quite implausible and counterintuitive to believe that complex organs can be invented on their own or that whales and mice and humans and giraffes are all cousins with the same Grandpa. I believe the facts show Evolution to be true. But it is a surprising kind of truth, if true.

That's what I mean when I say Creationism – true or false – is coherent. But this flat-earth world? Try as I might, I cannot restate or explain that hypothesis at all. It crumbles to bits in in my hands. The most familiar observations – sunsets and sunrises, daytime in the USA and nighttime in Europe, summer and winter – have to be ignored, apparently, in order to believe in a flat earth.

 

[Rob Monster]

That's prudent.
I know numerous conservative christians and muslims. Until about a month ago, I had never met anyone (or realized I had met anyone) who believed the world was flat. I daresay the vast majority of christians, jews, and muslims during the past 2000 years – those with some education, no matter how conservative – believed the world was a sphere and saw no conflict between the shape of the planet and their religion.

It's not my wish to debate whether or not the Bible implies a flat earth. I'm simply curious about the flat-earth model, which (as far as I can see) is incoherent. Can anybody explain to me how Night and Day can happen simultaneously in a flat-earth world? It seems that's absolutely impossible.

This is different from disputing Evolution – in the sense that Creationists DO have a coherent alternative explanation. Even though I consider that explanation incorrect, I would regard it as coherent. I can restate Creationism as a plausible theory, which (theoretically) the facts may or may not confirm.

For instance: Humans were always humans, and they had a first ancestor who was invented from scratch and who did not descend from anybody. Humans and apes are not distant cousins. Ostriches and hummingbirds did both not descend from some other bird-like creature. Tigers and elephants did not both descend from some other hairy creature. Whales are not descended from land mammals. Land mammals are not descended from sea creatures. Life itself was invented and placed on earth and did not arise spontaneously. Each species has always been as it is now. Some have gone extinct. Others might have been invented later and placed on earth. Complex organs like the eye were designed and did not arise spontaneously.

I don't regard the foregoing paragraph as true. But it is coherent. I can understand it. It's internally consistent. The inventor of species could (theoretically) be God or aliens or robots or (maybe some day) even humans. That might be wrong as a matter of history, but it's not crazy at all. Superficially it's actually quite implausible and counterintuitive to believe that complex organs can be invented on their own or that whales and mice and humans and giraffes are all cousins with the same Grandpa. I believe the facts show Evolution to be true. But it is a surprising kind of truth, if true.

That's what I mean when I say Creationism – true or false – is coherent. But this flat-earth world? Try as I might, I cannot restate or explain that hypothesis at all. It crumbles to bits in in my hands. The most familiar observations – sunsets and sunrises, daytime in the USA and nighttime in Europe, summer and winter – have to be ignored, apparently, in order to believe in a flat earth.

You are definitely dabbling in red pill territory. It is worth it. I started in 2007, the year I turned 40.

 

[NameLlama]

-Earth is flat
-Evolution false
-Einstein debunked
-Pizza pedos
-Danger of Muslim immigrants
-Climate change false
-9/11 conspiracy
-Homosexuality satanic
-Danger of witches and occultists
-Nobody walked on the moon
-Lots of Jews in high places
What other 'red pills' to be aare of

 

[Internet.Domains]

-Earth is flat
-Evolution false
-Einstein debunked
-Pizza pedos
-Danger of Muslim immigrants
-Climate change false
-9/11 conspiracy
-Homosexuality satanic
-Danger of witches and occultists
-Nobody walked on the moon
-Lots of Jews in high places
What other 'red pills' to be aare of

I think you are starting to see the fun of it....

 

[Slanted]

You are definitely dabbling in red pill territory. It is worth it. I started in 2007, the year I turned 40.

After all that time investigating, have you found any explanation for simultaneous day and night, seasons, sunsets and sunrises?

There ought to be a simple explanation for such things that could be taught to elementary school children. I mean, if the flat-earth theory is true and you want to prevent kids from being taught terrible lies about a spherical earth, then we need a "This is how it works" explanation to give the kids.

I can't think of any. So I'm stuck with the simple, coherent theory of a spherical earth that I was taught when I was knee high.

That ancient theory of a spherical earth fits every observation I've been able to make during my lifetime. But that's not proof. Newtonian physics fit every observation of its day; and we couldn't discard that model until years after Einstein's theory contradicted it, when we finally found a conflicting observation. It's always possible that some future observation might contradict a spherical earth, and then I'd be willing to chuck what I was taught.

But for a flat-earth theory to be plausible, it needs to fit our own observations. And for it to be convincing, it needs to be explainable. So far, we have (A) a spherical earth theory that kindergarten kids can understand; and (B) a flat-earth theory that I, as an open-minded somewhat intelligent adult, can't make any sense of, no matter how hard I try.

Maybe we can avoid the need to make sense of a flat earth and can dismiss all of its contradictions if we rely on God to cause us inescapable hallucinations or to perform continuous miracles that defy geometry. But if I were God, I would have created a reality that could sustain itself with orderly Laws and principles instead of unintelligible math-defying miracles and continuous hallucinations.

 

[NameLlama]

Fun to play in alternative facts world? Must be Dump supporter also?

 

[Internet.Domains]

Must be Dump supporter also?

Yes, I support my local landfill.

 

[Rob Monster]

After all that time investigating, have you found any explanation for simultaneous day and night, seasons, sunsets and sunrises?

There ought to be a simple explanation for such things that could be taught to elementary school children. I mean, if the flat-earth theory is true and you want to prevent kids from being taught terrible lies about a spherical earth, then we need a "This is how it works" explanation to give the kids.

I can't think of any. So I'm stuck with the simple, coherent theory of a spherical earth that I was taught when I was knee high.

That ancient theory of a spherical earth fits every observation I've been able to make during my lifetime. But that's not proof. Newtonian physics fit every observation of its day; and we couldn't discard that model until years after Einstein's theory contradicted it, when we finally found a conflicting observation. It's always possible that some future observation might contradict a spherical earth, and then I'd be willing to chuck what I was taught.

But for a flat-earth theory to be plausible, it needs to fit our own observations. And for it to be convincing, it needs to be explainable. So far, we have (A) a spherical earth theory that kindergarten kids can understand; and (B) a flat-earth theory that I, as an open-minded somewhat intelligent adult, can't make any sense of, no matter how hard I try.

Maybe we can avoid the need to make sense of a flat earth and can dismiss all of its contradictions if we rely on God to cause us inescapable hallucinations or to perform continuous miracles that defy geometry. But if I were God, I would have created a reality that could sustain itself with orderly Laws and principles instead of unintelligible math-defying miracles and continuous hallucinations.

As explained prior, I am not here to convince anyone of any particular view -- religious or otherwise. I will happily empower anyone's ability to ask questions and to seek answers.

As for specific topics that are not part of public school curriculum, to engage me as an authority on every topic would be a stretch. There are people who have gone extremely deep on any one of these topics.

Specific to the flat earth topic, it is not a new topic. It is suppressed but not new. Zetetic astronomy of the mid-1800's and the Gleason azimuthal map of the late-1800's had significant following in their day.

These days, there are entire online communities and conferences dealing with these questions. For example, here is one model that shows seasons:

For anyone going down the rabbit hole for the first time, my advice is don't let it consume you. The amount of content is endless and there is an abundance of disinfo and misinfo mixed in.

And, last but not least, be forewarned, because the closer you get to the truth, the more likely it is that you become a Christian.

 

[Slanted]

There are people who have gone extremely deep on any one of these topics.

I'm sure there are. But I have no need to chase down such lost souls.

All I need is a straightforward explanation for sunsets and sunrises, seasons, simultaneous day and night.

I can give such an explanation in about 60 seconds, based on a spherical earth.

But if I ask for something similar from someone who believes in a flat earth, I'm told:

For anyone going down the rabbit hole for the first time, my advice is don't let it consume you. The amount of content is endless and there is an abundance of disinfo and misinfo mixed in.

So it's an endless labyrinth? And if I find the wrong explanation for sunsets from a flat earther, it's not that his theory is wrong; it's just that he was part of the "disinfo". In that case, why not just give me a straightforward explanation that you regard as true? Then we could discuss that – instead of chasing an endlessly moving target, endless in scope, with endless plausible deniability.

These days, there are entire online communities and conferences dealing with these questions.

And, despite all of that, nobody can tell me how the sun moves to cause simultaneous day and night?

Those of us who believe the earth is spherical can explain all these observable facts easily on a napkin. We don't need arcane conferences.

I'm sure the flat earthers have fun going to these conferences, endlessly trying to cope with a bad theory that can't adequately explain basic observable facts like the sun rising in the morning. But the rest of the world moved beyond those mental challenges thousands of years ago.

And, last but not least, be forewarned, because the closer you get to the truth, the more likely it is that you become a Christian.

I don't mind such risks. Wherever the evidence goes, I'll follow. But I've never met anybody until now – christian or otherwise – who believed the earth was flat. There are easier paths to christianity than swallowing that idea. And the vast majority of christians, who believe in a spherical earth, will get into heaven (if at all) just as easily without believing in a flat earth.

 

[Slanted]

P.S. I don't have time for 13-minute videos. People who spend 10 seconds asking me to watch 13-minute videos aren't engaging in a balanced conversation.

I can explain each of these things in one sentence:

- simultaneous day and night
- sunsets / sunrises
- seasons
- lack of sunsets / sunrises

To be taken seriously, a flat earther should be able to give me a 1-sentence explanation for each of those too.

 

[NameLlama]

Warning about disinfo and misinfo while posting bullshit video after bullshit video from morons

 

[Larion]

There are no coincidences.
There is a GOD out there, no doubt.

 

[Rob Monster]

There are no coincidences, there is a GOD...

Golden Ratio for the win.

 

[iowadawg]

ZEUS rules all.

 

[Rob Monster]

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.

 

[Slanted]

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.

 

[Rob Monster]

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.