Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: How does "flat-earthism" defame Church, providing material for ridicule thereof?  (Read 4248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

.
From an earlier post:
.
.
—Lunar Eclipses:
When we get a lunar eclipse, the shadow of the earth (the umbra, or darkest center part) is always round, and all parts of the world experience lunar eclipses at one time or another, each eclipse being observed from all over the night side of the earth simultaneously. The ONLY shape that gives a round shadow, regardless from which angle you light it, is a sphere. A flat object will only give a circular shadow if lit from directly above / below, normal to the flat surface; at all other angles, the shadows will range from a noticeable ellipse, to an elongated rectangle (the ‘disc’ being on-edge with a boxed perimeter to cast a rectangular shadow).

This is leaving aside the fact that we know that lunar eclipses are the result of the Earth being in between the Sun and the Moon. However, considering how the Flat Earth model suggests that the Sun is always above the Earth ‘disc’ in order to assure that it is always daytime somewhere—then, how it can be above the disc and also below it at the same time is beyond me.
.
.
Flat-earthers have yet to respond to this challenge.

- They resort to all manner of obfuscation instead.
- They claim there is no flat-earth model and they don't want one (well, obviously, having a model makes you responsible!)
- They claim the lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth casting a shadow on the moon
- Some have said that lunar eclipses are a fake projection like a hologram
- Some have said that the moon itself is a holographic projection, so a lunar eclipse is no problem at all
- They try to put the moon's illumination inside the moon even saying the moon is transluscent
- Those who say the moon is transluscent have no answer to what mechanism is the source of the moon's light
- They purchase optical thermometers online and say they can "prove" the moon's light is cooler, therefore it's not from the sun
- They have resorted to claiming the moon is not spheroid (like the "flat" earth, they say) but it is rather "flat" too
- They have asserted with great confidence that some OTHER body is causing the shadow, but "it's invisible" - cannot be observed
      (But then how could something that's "invisible" cast any shadow whatsoever? They don't have a clue.)
.
Meanwhile, this manifestly obstreperous nescience only goes to defame the Church when such lunatics say they are "Catholic."

No wonder flat earth contrarians don't get it.  They can't, or won't read and do not understand the argument at all. 

Flat-earthers have yet to respond to this challenge.

- They resort to all manner of obfuscation instead.  False. Casting aspersions is a common tool used to disparage, but self reveals it comes from the one casting.
- They claim there is no flat-earth model and they don't want one (well, obviously, having a model makes you responsible!)
Also false. Every flat earther wants a flat earth model that works so this statement is a full blown lie.  In addition, an excellent working model is explained in a video in these threads. This debunks lie number 2. What is not explained by geocentric globers is it is they who do not have a working model. NASA explains days and seasons partly on the spinning globe.
- They claim the lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth casting a shadow on the moon   True
- Some have said that lunar eclipses are a fake projection like a hologram  Probably globers shilling.
- Some have said that the moon itself is a holographic projection, so a lunar eclipse is no problem at all  Globers shilling
- They try to put the moon's illumination inside the moon even saying the moon is transluscent  Maybe maybe not. Modern science doesn't explain many anomalies globe earthers are mostly unaware of.
- Those who say the moon is transluscent have no answer to what mechanism is the source of the moon's light  Neither does modern science know what mechanism is the source of the moon's light.
- They purchase optical thermometers online and say they can "prove" the moon's light is cooler, therefore it's not from the sun
This is proven over and over and over and over again.  Except by those who sneer, yet can't be bothered to experiment themselves.
- They have resorted to claiming the moon is not spheroid (like the "flat" earth, they say) but it is rather "flat" too
A globular object cannot produce a curved shadow, or other lighting issues, thus proving the moon is not spheroid, but it is a light like the rest of the celestial objects in the sky and as Scripture describes them.
- They have asserted with great confidence that some OTHER body is causing the shadow, but "it's invisible" - cannot be observed
      (But then how could something that's "invisible" cast any shadow whatsoever? They don't have a clue.)
A theory.
Meanwhile, this manifestly obstreperous nescience only goes to defame the Church when such lunatics say they are "Catholic."
Interesting accusation.  This is the lament of a modernist who worries that truth will defame the Church.  Kind of funny that in this admission, there is the seed of truth about the manner in which false science has trumped the Church in men's minds, leading them astray for fear of being mocked. 


.
Here is how malicious flat-earthers misrepresent reality and refuse to pay attention to the truth:
.
.
.
Question: Let's say I don't believe the world is round. How can one prove the world is round to me?
.
Timothy Todd, Geologist, writer (transitionstofreedom.com), traveler
Answered May 12, 2017

There are some great answers here, and another one is probably not necessary. But I had an exchange with some flat earthers that shifted my perspective on their thought processes (or the lack of them).

Anyone that’s ever interacted with an actual FE adherent knows that they will reject all evidence that the earth is any shape other than flat. Depending on your disposition, it can be pretty entertaining to watch them struggle through the dissonance that arises when they attempt to reconcile their unshakable faith in their world view with facts that contradict it.

I used to live in Kailua-Kona on the Big Island of Hawaii. We had a house there that faced west with a spectacular view of the coastline and the Pacific. It was about 1200 feet above sea level.

One evening, near sunset, I was at home perusing the silly musings of a group of FE adherents on a public forum. My wife happened to be in town near the beach about the time the sun set. I called her just as it was setting to ask her to tell me the exact moment that the tip of the sun sank below the horizon. At the moment that she confirmed her observation of the sun’s disappearance, I could still see a portion of the sun above the horizon from my elevated vantage point. I then marked the time that I observed the sun disappear below the horizon.

The distance to the horizon on the ocean can be estimated by using d = 3.57 * √h where d is the distance to the horizon in kilometers and h is the elevation of the observer in meters. Using 5 meters for my wife’s elevation (she was not directly on the beach) and 400 meters for mine, I estimated that the distance to the visible horizon for her was about 8 kilometers, while from my location it was about 70 kilometers. Since she was about 5 kilometers west of me, I added that to her 8 kilometers, making my visible horizon about 57 kilometers further west than my wife’s.

The earth’s rotational speed at any latitude can be estimated by multiplying the cosine of latitude in degrees by 1670 kilometers per hour (the rotational speed at the equator). In our case, we were at about 19.6 degrees north latitude, so our rotational speed was around 1,570 kilometers per hour, or about 26 kilometers per minute. That meant that the sun should disappear under the horizon about 2 minutes later for me than for her, which is exactly what we observed.

I shared our observations and the associated calculations with the FE cultists on the forum that I’d been reading. You won’t be surprised to learn that I was unable to claim a single convert. Instead, I was ridiculed, insulted, and mocked, but not on the basis of any reasoned rebuttal. The most common response was some variation on the theme that I was lying. I was eventually invited to leave the forum and asked not to engage in further discussion.

Yes, I know that it was a foolish waste of my time, but I did come away with some interesting insights into human nature and the FE cult mindset. Reason and evidence are not the ingredients that have led them to their understanding of reality, so reason and evidence will never be part of the solution that will help them to accept the world as it is rather than as they want it to be.
.
.
He was ridiculed, insulted and mocked, not on any reasoned rebuttal. Sound familiar? Sounds very familiar!
.

No wonder flat earth contrarians don't get it.  They can't, or won't read and do not understand the argument at all.  

Flat-earthers have yet to respond to this challenge.

- They resort to all manner of obfuscation instead.  False. Casting aspersions is a common tool used to disparage, but self reveals it comes from the one casting.
- They claim there is no flat-earth model and they don't want one (well, obviously, having a model makes you responsible!)
Also false. Every flat earther wants a flat earth model that works so this statement is a full blown lie.  In addition, an excellent working model is explained in a video in these threads. This debunks lie number 2. What is not explained by geocentric globers is it is they who do not have a working model. NASA explains days and seasons partly on the spinning globe.
- They claim the lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth casting a shadow on the moon   True
- Some have said that lunar eclipses are a fake projection like a hologram  Probably globers shilling.
- Some have said that the moon itself is a holographic projection, so a lunar eclipse is no problem at all  Globers shilling
- They try to put the moon's illumination inside the moon even saying the moon is transluscent  Maybe maybe not. Modern science doesn't explain many anomalies globe earthers are mostly unaware of.
- Those who say the moon is transluscent have no answer to what mechanism is the source of the moon's light  Neither does modern science know what mechanism is the source of the moon's light.
- They purchase optical thermometers online and say they can "prove" the moon's light is cooler, therefore it's not from the sun
This is proven over and over and over and over again.  Except by those who sneer, yet can't be bothered to experiment themselves.
- They have resorted to claiming the moon is not spheroid (like the "flat" earth, they say) but it is rather "flat" too
A globular object cannot produce a curved shadow, or other lighting issues, thus proving the moon is not spheroid, but it is a light like the rest of the celestial objects in the sky and as Scripture describes them.
- They have asserted with great confidence that some OTHER body is causing the shadow, but "it's invisible" - cannot be observed
      (But then how could something that's "invisible" cast any shadow whatsoever? They don't have a clue.)
A theory.
Meanwhile, this manifestly obstreperous nescience only goes to defame the Church when such lunatics say they are "Catholic."
Interesting accusation.  This is the lament of a modernist who worries that truth will defame the Church.  Kind of funny that in this admission, there is the seed of truth about the manner in which false science has trumped the Church in men's minds, leading them astray for fear of being mocked.  
All answered.  Repost.

.
Every post you make ridicules the Church because you pretend to be Catholic.
.
You have yet to name a single priest in the Church who says you're doing the right thing.
.
Have you ever brought this topic up to a priest?
.
Would you even listen to what he has to say to you in regards to your flat-earthism?
.
Or would you be honest and throw it back at him demonstrating the same obstreperous nescience you show here?