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".
Thanks Joseph.
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:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0WUx4iVNbS0/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DfxsO6GiIpY/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/mvn0TDSjc90/
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.