I finally figured out the reason they persist and spread. Flat Earthists emit refined 'blind faith' and strong emotions when their beliefs are challenged. Both of these are forms of loosh(aka lulz,emotional energy) to feed trans-dimensional aliens that secretly control all bio-life on Earth. Deeply Religious beliefs are persisting the same way: Flat Earth is a new religion for a more secular society.
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-06 12:33
It's interesting how you have literally ZERO proof that the earth is round, yet abundant proof, accessible via your own eyes, that it is indeed flat. I'm also fascinated by the fact that the "belief" that the earth is flat has NEVER been challenged by a credible source. In fact, only jews have ever pushed the idea of a round earth, using their Hollyjew techniques. Care to explain?
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-06 12:51
>>2 I'm not going to argue that Earth is a some shape, it could be a half-eaten donut: i won't start passionate debate on density of sea water or the speed of horses. These issues just drag you back into the material world instead of evolving spiritually you waste your life arguing about trivial circumstances that don't affect you at all. Earths ecology and environment is far more important than its shape or location in the universe, and it indirectly affects your life - but all that energy is spend on trivialities: like arguing about the shape of bottle of water while being thirsty in the desert.
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-06 13:20
Earths ecology and environment is far more important than its shape or location in the universe
Haha, lots of planets have thought the same way, until they became the cosmological equivalent of a bug on the windshield.
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-07 3:03
>>1 Is that you smiley? Aren't you way out of your element coming all the way to this board, instead of your usual haunt on /fringe/?
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-07 12:23
>>2 Stand on the shore and watch a ship sailing away. As it passes the horizon, the lower parts cease to become visible - why? This can be explained by the earth being round. What alternative explanation do you have?
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-07 14:04
>>2 Have you never even looked at earth from the moon? Try getting out once in a while.
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-08 1:11
It is relatively easy to prove that earth is round. Even ancient greeks were able to do that, before christians came with their flat heaven-hell dichotomy.
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-08 6:53
>>6 Once things are moving away, they become progressively harder to see until one can no longer see them at all.
>>7 How could I look at Earth from something that doesn't exist? Just asking.
Name:
Anonymous2016-06-08 16:25
>>9 You don't exist, so explain why I am replying.
>>15 Real life has to make sense. Otherwise, "I think therefore I am" is a false statement.
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-25 13:53
>>18 "I think therefore I am" is a false statement. Only idiots hail it as some cornerstone of philosophy.
Descartes supposed himself to have touched bed-rock with his “Cogito,” “ergo Sum.” Huxley pointed out the complex nature of this proposition, and that it was an enthymeme with the premiss “Omnes sunt, qui cogitant” suppressed. He reduced it to “Cogito;” or, to avoid the assumption of an ego, “Cogitatur.” Examining more closely this statement, we may still cavil at its form. We cannot translate it into English without the use of the verb to be, so, that, after all, existence is implied. Nor do we readily conceive that contemptuous silence is sufficient answer of the further query, “By whom is it thought?” The Buddhist may find it easy to image an act without an agent; I am not so clever. It may be possible for a sane man; but I should like to know more about his mind before I gave a final opinion. But apart from purely formal objections, we may still inquire: Is this “Cogitatur” true? Yes; reply the sages; for to deny it implies thought; “Negatur” is only a sub-section of “Cogitatur”. This involves, however, an axiom that the part is of the same nature as the whole; or (at the very least) an axiom that “A” is “A”. Now, I do not wish to deny that “A” is “A”, or may occasionally be “A”. But certainly “A is A” is a very different statement to our original “Cogitatur”. The proof of “Cogitatur”, in short, rests not upon itself but upon the validity of our logic; and if by logic we mean (as we should mean) the Code of the Laws of Thought, the irritating sceptic will have many more remarks to make: for it now appears that the proof that “thought exists” depends upon the truth of that which is thought, to say no more. We have taken “Cogitatur”, to try and avoid the use of “esse;” but “A is A” involves that very idea, and the proof is fatally flawed. “Cogitatur” depends on “Est;” and there's no avoiding it.
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-25 14:23
>>19 You have to be highly educated to be that stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-25 14:52
>>20 Reminds me of the joke, "what's there to think about, gotta shake!"
Name:
Anonymous2017-02-25 18:28
The Buddhist may find it easy to image an act without an agent; I am not so clever.