Wikipedia is awesome!

Now that multiple people may look at it, it might change so let me quote it.

"The Flat Earth Society is an organization first based in England and later in Lancaster, California that advocates the belief that the Earth is not a sphere but is flat (see also Flat Earth). No modern scientists or religious groups have published support for this belief. This has exposed the society to much outside ridicule and made it a popular metaphor for dogmatic thinking and unreasoning adherence to tradition, with the term Flat-Earther coming to refer to a person who rejects changes in the scientific consensus, and by extension one who lives in the past."

____________________________________________________________________________
I added the bold tags to the text. 
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Religion is a premise of beliefs. Beliefs without factual evidence is what you (more so Franc) accuse Round Earthers of. While this would constitute being a religion, one major flaw in this logic exists. There is tons and tons of evidence for RE as cited arguments by others and myself. Meanwhile, FE has absolutely none. This extreme lack of evidence has been seen heavily in these forums as well as the rest of the flat earth groups.

Seeing as how a RE is almost completely compatible with known physics and a FE breaks these laws almost in every way, FE is more of a flawed speculation than a theory. Choosing to believe such a theory constitutes as religion.

Might I ask, how are you people personally aware the Earth is flat and that there is a conspiracy? Round Earthers, at least myself, have observed a great deal of evidence firsthand and concluded that the well known fact of a round Earth is in fact true.

To elaborate on the compatibility of the theories with known physics: An example would be the creation of the Earth. Strong logical theories have been developed that completely explain such an event without the science behind it being proved wrong. The FE however formed how? The spotlight sun lamp formed how? The Earth is accelerating so much how?

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

I agree. Post count +1 =)

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

If college professors will take them as valid sources, then they are valid sources.

Also note that all articles are cited on Wikipedia. That makes them valid sources as well.

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Even if Wikipedia was not a valid source, no evidence on all of this forum has surfaced to support FE. Wikipedia is not much more than a confirmation of such information. 

Quote from: Flat Earth Master Mint on March 28, 2007, 12:17:21 PM

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Even if Wikipedia was not a valid source, no evidence on all of this forum has surfaced to support FE. Wikipedia is not much more than a confirmation of such information. 

This forum is all about reading between the lines.

Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)

Quote from: Maus on March 28, 2007, 02:01:15 PM

Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)

You know nothing of the conspiracy.

Quote from: L0gic on March 28, 2007, 02:18:19 PM

Quote from: Maus on March 28, 2007, 02:01:15 PM

Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)

You know nothing of the conspiracy.

Feel free to explain it further. 

Quote from: Robo Vauxhall on March 28, 2007, 02:25:15 PM

Quote from: L0gic on March 28, 2007, 02:18:19 PM

Quote from: Maus on March 28, 2007, 02:01:15 PM

Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)

You know nothing of the conspiracy.

Feel free to explain it further. 

Please wait one moment.

Sure, I'll check back. 

A religion isn't only a belief in something. I believe that there are cookies in my oven, but I have no evidence to support it. Does that mean that my belief that there are cookies there are religious? Misinformed, undersourced, and probably incorrect, perhaps, since really, I have no idea if there are cookies in my oven or not and yet I still believe they are, but religious? Hmm...
Religion takes a certain level of piety and devotion as well as adherents and dogma. It's not just a premise of beliefs.

Seeing as how a RE is almost completely compatible with known physics and a FE breaks these laws almost in every way, FE is more of a flawed speculation than a theory. Choosing to believe such a theory constitutes as religion.

Woah, woah. Slow down there, cowboy.

a) How does gravity fit with known physics? As far as I know, gravity doesn't mesh well at all with things like General Relativity.
b) What laws, exactly, are broken by the presumption of the flat Earth theory? So far, I've yet to come across a serious problem with logical physics, so unless you are to have me believe you're just spouting nonsense, I'd expect to see why you think that any universal laws are broken.

Might I ask, how are you people personally aware the Earth is flat and that there is a conspiracy?

I'm not one-hundred percent sure of the flat Earth, of course. It's very possible, though. As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth. If the Earth is flat, and everyone "knows" that the Earth is round, then SOMEONE is lying to us, no?

Round Earthers, at least myself, have observed a great deal of evidence firsthand and concluded that the well known fact of a round Earth is in fact true.

So, you're an authority on this matter, then? What experiments have you done to prove it? What evidence have you conceived FOR YOURSELF that the Earth is round? Have you personally gone to space and seen the Earth is round? Have you personally found evidence that leads you to believe that the Earth is indeed round, or are you just taking your evidence from school textbooks and displaying them as your own personal evidence without follow-up?

~D-Draw

Quote from: Maus on March 28, 2007, 02:01:15 PM

Wikipedia is quite reliable I find for things like History and Classics and English. No reason why it shouldn't be fairly reliable with science as well. (of course, it's controlled by the conspiracy so I guess it isn't a valid source).

Controlled by the conspiracy? If a conspiracy did exist, it would influence the page indirectly by "brainwashing" a majority of citizens to believe otherwise. However, everyone shapes the overall definitions in Wikipedia. Flat Earthers too. Without presenting evidence on Wikipedia, they can't claim that they have any. That article is proven fact and reliable ideal. And yet, I don't use it as direct evidence anyways. (It confirms my findings throughout all flat Earth sources.)

I was being sarcastic....of course there is no conspiracy. Except perhaps, that some ribena has vitamin C in...that's a lie. (actually proven by some school girls)

Quote from: Flat Earth Master Mint on March 28, 2007, 12:17:21 PM

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

If college professors will take them as valid sources, then they are valid sources.

Also note that all articles are cited on Wikipedia. That makes them valid sources as well.

A college professor is not Tesla, or Einstein, and makes their living teaching neophytes in their chosen area how to become what they [the professor] would have been, if not a teacher.

So that hardly means anything profound.

A religion isn't only a belief in something. I believe that there are cookies in my oven, but I have no evidence to support it. Does that mean that my belief that there are cookies there are religious? Misinformed, undersourced, and probably incorrect, perhaps, since really, I have no idea if there are cookies in my oven or not and yet I still believe they are, but religious? Hmm...
Religion takes a certain level of piety and devotion as well as adherents and dogma. It's not just a premise of beliefs.

Quote from: L0gic

Seeing as how a RE is almost completely compatible with known physics and a FE breaks these laws almost in every way, FE is more of a flawed speculation than a theory. Choosing to believe such a theory constitutes as religion.

Woah, woah. Slow down there, cowboy.

a) How does gravity fit with known physics? As far as I know, gravity doesn't mesh well at all with things like General Relativity.
b) What laws, exactly, are broken by the presumption of the flat Earth theory? So far, I've yet to come across a serious problem with logical physics, so unless you are to have me believe you're just spouting nonsense, I'd expect to see why you think that any universal laws are broken.

Quote from: L0gic

Might I ask, how are you people personally aware the Earth is flat and that there is a conspiracy?

I'm not one-hundred percent sure of the flat Earth, of course. It's very possible, though. As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth. If the Earth is flat, and everyone "knows" that the Earth is round, then SOMEONE is lying to us, no?

Quote from: L0gic

Round Earthers, at least myself, have observed a great deal of evidence firsthand and concluded that the well known fact of a round Earth is in fact true.

So, you're an authority on this matter, then? What experiments have you done to prove it? What evidence have you conceived FOR YOURSELF that the Earth is round? Have you personally gone to space and seen the Earth is round? Have you personally found evidence that leads you to believe that the Earth is indeed round, or are you just taking your evidence from school textbooks and displaying them as your own personal evidence without follow-up?

~D-Draw

You're right in one respect: believing you have cookies in your oven is not a religion. This is because you have logical evidence to support it such as you put them there (so i presume), you saw them, and no known physics would make them randomly disappear. Otherwise it would be in a sense religious or in faith.

Notice I said "RE is almost completely compatible with known physics". Even so, gravity is an continuing field of study that looks more than plausible when expanding upon string theory. I knew ahead of time this topic would be used as I cannot think of another contradiction.

FE laws of physics have no plausible basis whatsoever. A force powerful enough to accelerate the whole planet and everything on it for all of history would seem to do so. Conservation of energy is just the tip of the iceberg. FE theory also claims that a giant spotlight is really the sun. The laws of physics wouldn't apply to the creation of a giant light bulb, unless people built it. To bad that's impossible...

"As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth."
What?! With no evidence of a conspiracy, how can you conclude that the Earth is in fact flat? In this respect, if you are saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with that of us not knowing about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence, it's not worth responding to.

To answer your question, I have not been in space. However, I have personally observed:

Solar flares, the curvature of the sun's path at different latitudes, studied weather patterns, seen the curvature of the Earth at the horizon (both from side to side and back and forth), studies the effects of magnets and their strengths, calculated the trajectory of satellites based on radio feeds with the angles of dishes, witnessed Foucault pendulums at multiple latitudes, seen other planets through my telescope at multiple stages in rotation, studied the possibility of stellar fusion in a flat sun, and found an approximation of radiation needed to emanate from this spotlight.

Anything else? 

Quote from: L0gic on March 28, 2007, 01:50:17 PM

Quote from: Flat Earth Master Mint on March 28, 2007, 12:17:21 PM

Wikipedia is not a valid source.

Even if Wikipedia was not a valid source, no evidence on all of this forum has surfaced to support FE. Wikipedia is not much more than a confirmation of such information. 

This forum is all about reading between the lines.

This forum is all about a bullshit idea thought up by some dillusional guy in the nineteenth century. Some of these people are actually relying on information that has been stagnant for over a hunred years.

hunred?

Huns were pink.

We went from Wikipedia to religion.

I need a shot.

We went from Wikipedia to religion.

I need a shot.

Wild Turkey?

Or Cordizone?

Actually, I like vodka.

Wild Turkey is too strong for me. But then again, I don't like whiskey so much period.

Actually, I like vodka.

Wild Turkey is too strong for me. But then again, I don't like whiskey so much period.

A wise man.

My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.

My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.

Am I going to have to start singing Oxy Cotton?

My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.

No. nononono. YOU are lucky she is on Oxycontin. YOU are lucky....

Quote from: Hara Taiki on March 30, 2007, 10:03:35 AM

My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.

No. nononono. YOU are lucky she is on Oxycontin. YOU are lucky....

I guess I'm missing the joke. 

A REPOST

A religion isn't only a belief in something. I believe that there are cookies in my oven, but I have no evidence to support it. Does that mean that my belief that there are cookies there are religious? Misinformed, undersourced, and probably incorrect, perhaps, since really, I have no idea if there are cookies in my oven or not and yet I still believe they are, but religious? Hmm...
Religion takes a certain level of piety and devotion as well as adherents and dogma. It's not just a premise of beliefs.

Quote from: L0gic

Seeing as how a RE is almost completely compatible with known physics and a FE breaks these laws almost in every way, FE is more of a flawed speculation than a theory. Choosing to believe such a theory constitutes as religion.

Woah, woah. Slow down there, cowboy.

a) How does gravity fit with known physics? As far as I know, gravity doesn't mesh well at all with things like General Relativity.
b) What laws, exactly, are broken by the presumption of the flat Earth theory? So far, I've yet to come across a serious problem with logical physics, so unless you are to have me believe you're just spouting nonsense, I'd expect to see why you think that any universal laws are broken.

Quote from: L0gic

Might I ask, how are you people personally aware the Earth is flat and that there is a conspiracy?

I'm not one-hundred percent sure of the flat Earth, of course. It's very possible, though. As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth. If the Earth is flat, and everyone "knows" that the Earth is round, then SOMEONE is lying to us, no?

Quote from: L0gic

Round Earthers, at least myself, have observed a great deal of evidence firsthand and concluded that the well known fact of a round Earth is in fact true.

So, you're an authority on this matter, then? What experiments have you done to prove it? What evidence have you conceived FOR YOURSELF that the Earth is round? Have you personally gone to space and seen the Earth is round? Have you personally found evidence that leads you to believe that the Earth is indeed round, or are you just taking your evidence from school textbooks and displaying them as your own personal evidence without follow-up?

~D-Draw

You're right in one respect: believing you have cookies in your oven is not a religion. This is because you have logical evidence to support it such as you put them there (so i presume), you saw them, and no known physics would make them randomly disappear. Otherwise it would be in a sense religious or in faith.

Notice I said "RE is almost completely compatible with known physics". Even so, gravity is an continuing field of study that looks more than plausible when expanding upon string theory. I knew ahead of time this topic would be used as I cannot think of another contradiction.

FE laws of physics have no plausible basis whatsoever. A force powerful enough to accelerate the whole planet and everything on it for all of history would seem to do so. Conservation of energy is just the tip of the iceberg. FE theory also claims that a giant spotlight is really the sun. The laws of physics wouldn't apply to the creation of a giant light bulb, unless people built it. To bad that's impossible...

"As far as the conspiracy goes, it's simply a logical conclusion of the flat Earth."
What?! With no evidence of a conspiracy, how can you conclude that the Earth is in fact flat? In this respect, if you are saying that the "facts" of a fictitious conspiracy fitting together with that of us not knowing about the fictitious Flat Earth is too much of a coincidence, it's not worth responding to.

To answer your question, I have not been in space. However, I have personally observed:

Solar flares, the curvature of the sun's path at different latitudes, studied weather patterns, seen the curvature of the Earth at the horizon (both from side to side and back and forth), studies the effects of magnets and their strengths, calculated the trajectory of satellites based on radio feeds with the angles of dishes, witnessed Foucault pendulums at multiple latitudes, seen other planets through my telescope at multiple stages in rotation, studied the possibility of stellar fusion in a flat sun, and found an approximation of radiation needed to emanate from this spotlight.

Anything else? 

Yeah, why am I lucky she is on Oxycotin?

Quote from: midnight on March 30, 2007, 11:03:43 AM

Quote from: Hara Taiki on March 30, 2007, 10:03:35 AM

My girlfriend is lucky. She's all hopped up on liquid Oxycotin.

No. nononono. YOU are lucky she is on Oxycontin. YOU are lucky....

I guess I'm missing the joke. 

You mentioned your recent little one arriving. If that was you. Otherwise I'm insane. A woman who just gave birth is one you want sedated. LOL Been there man. lol