Full disclosure: My own personal conspiracy inkling is that flat earth theory is a deep state psyop created for the express purpose of discrediting more valid and damning theories (because it's certainly used that way) but I won't argue that point because at this point it's just an inkling. I'm always open to hearing all viewpoints on a subject until my mind is completely made up. Admittedly I've only watched a few videos and read a few comments on the topic so I won't press my theory too hard. But that's the truth about where I lean at the moment. I'm always open to more evidence.
I'm open to that as a possibility. I have to admit though, I personally like the idea of space. Just watched every single Star Trek movie every made (including Star Trek 4, the whale one, unfortunately) and I sure love the idea of there being a federation of planets we can join one day. Traveling the stars. Idea makes me happy. Not sure what reality is really like but I admit it's possible that my affinity for this construct could make it more difficult for me to see the truth if in fact something else is the truth.
Space is merely distance between two objects. Space is objectively real. What's beyond "the ice wall" who knows, but it's just more space for things to fit in. Go above or below, within or without, and you find infinite space. Maybe the thing we see in the sky is not the thing we think it is, but saying space is fake has to be confined to that construct only (assuming the FE construct is true in the first place).
SPACE, noun (Latin spatium, space; spatior, to wander)
A'LIEN, adjective (Latin alienus, from alius, another)
Being "one" able to "wander" implies wandering (space) among another (aliens) and since flow (inception towards death) doesn't identify form (life)...since IDEN'TITY, noun - "sameness" ; while form implies difference...form (life) within flow (inception towards death) represents an unidentified flying object (UFO).
As for "black holes" and "big bang"...written by the same perverts who suggest "nuclear bombs" (from NU'CLEUS, noun [Latin a nut.]) between "fat-man" and "little boy"...
My own personal conspiracy inkling is that flat earth theory is a deep state psyop created for the express purpose of discrediting more valid and damning theories (because it's certainly used that way)
That is a good instinct. It is certainly used that way, but it is not the psyop’s primary purpose - it’s a fringe benefit of it due to its success.
The primary purpose of the psyop is to prevent any earnest discussion or research into the valuable subject. It does this a variety of ways, perhaps chief among them falsely conflating contrived offensively stupid ideas with it and those who would dare to study it. In my view it is a case of “the woman doth protest too much”, because there is no other reason to spend so much money on an advertising campaign (i.e. psyop) to convince people an already ostensibly stupid idea (the world is flat) by default is too stupid to ever bother looking into...
I'm always open to more evidence
I encourage you to join us on flatearthresearch to discuss such evidence, methodology, and generally exchange our views!
Thank you for a less emotional flat earth post, my mind isn't made up eather, but when people don't understand the theory, and just attack it, it pushes me farther to flat earth
Great points. How do we really know what we think we really know? A LOT of what we assume we just assume someone smarter than us figured it out and we accept their word as authoritative rather than saying "Wait, prove that to me. Don't talk down to me. Prove it to me. Or show me how to prove that to myself."
It could be really exhausting to do that for every little thing we learn but honestly it's starting to feel like if we don't learn to start doing that, we'll never get out of this hole we're in (or this plane ;) ).
I like the way that sounds, usually, but I struggle with this one because, even if it's true, but it's used to discredit dare I say...more critical truths, is it worth the energy?
If the earth is flat...then it was indeed created by a space sky daddy. Also makes "science" less believe able. Because that means all the "space" shit all the funding has been going to is a lie.
The Earth being a big ball spinning left to chance and slime turning into primates, then to us. Is how Atheists shit over the God theory.
I dont know about flat earth. I dont care about the shape of this fucker we are on to be honest.
I get it man. I do not trust the narrative. But to me. I am more after spiritual growth, and pursuing knowledge on how to better myself, and heal myself and the Earths energetic fields.
I already understand there is controllers of knowledge. Those who want to keep us dumb and blind.
I watched a few FE videos. Watched some crater earth videos which all made sense.
To me....i'd rather know ju jitsu, than the shape of this shithole we are on.....
So you're implying the spinning ball theory was created to like...fund NASA and to get people to stop believing in God?
Maybe the latter but seeing as how NASA didn't create that theory I struggled to see the plausibility of the former, seeing as how it was an idea that first became popular in the 1500s. Not sure how "they" were making money on that notion way back then. But if they were, I'm open to hearing about it.
*Edit - or are you saying it's a desperate attempt by theists to discredit the arguments of atheists?
I guess I don't personally see how a spinning ball and the Big Bang denotes a lack of divine intervention. Perhaps that's why I struggle with understanding the need for this theory.
LOG'IC, noun [Latin id; Gr. from reason, to speak.]...reasoning (wanting vs not wanting) over the spoken suggestions by others will keep both sides within perpetual conflict.
Agreement vs disagreement or want vs not want or belief vs disbelief or true vs false or flat vs heliocentric...whatever side one chooses, one is stuck reasoning against the opposition. That's the mental prison the many put themselves into when consenting to the suggestions of the few.
Meanwhile...perceivable nature doesn't speak; it doesn't utter words; it doesn't brand anything; it doesn't reason...it represents order; balance; sound; differentiation; flow etc.
Admittedly, i dont know where we are or what put us here, why we are here or even what we are.
How could one discern self if one (singular) thinks in suggested terms like "we" and "us" (plural)?
Giving that up
Can one give up reality or is one struggling with the temptation to want to hold onto things within reality? What if ones struggle to resist "want" represents "need"?
that cuts us from our truth
What if one (perceiving) can only exist within need (perceivable); while ones choice to want (truth) or not want (lies) suggested, shapes a layer of ignorance around oneself? Within this ignorance, the conflict of reason (want vs not want) tempts one to feel as if lies are cutting one off from truth; because whatever truth one holds onto is being constantly contradicted by more and more lies? Meanwhile, those who utilize lies are getting more and more agitated by the fanatical obsession of the opposition to hold onto truths, no matter how often they are being contradicted.
Both sides within reason are feeding upon each other.
I cant offer answers, just the truth i know
a) a question implies ones want for suggested outcomes, hence a "quest" forwards aka the allegory of the hero's journey to save the day. An answer represents both ones want for more than the quest and the power of others to direct quests with suggested outcomes. It's the hero's want to journey that gives the villain the power to set up the tribunals along the way, hence exploiting temptation (want) by suggesting more and more and more....
b) the process of dying represents the perceivable offer; living within represents the perceiving response-ability (choice).
But wait...OF'FER, verb [Latin offero; to bring.] - "to bring to or before; hence, to present for acceptance or rejection"...if one hold ones breath and chooses to accept (want) or reject (not want) breathing...does that prevent the need to adapt to the process of dying forcing the living to breathe?
Just because one has the free will of choice to want or not want an offer, doesn't mean one can shirk response-ability within need without consequences. The many keep ignoring that perceivable need for suggested offers by the "happy merchant" few.
c) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists" + TRUTH, noun - "conformity of words to thoughts, which is called moral truth"...are you really perceiving words or are others tempting you with suggested words to ignore perceivable sound? Does nature really CONFORM, adjective - "assuming the same form" or does it differentiate whole (process of dying) into each partial (living)?
but people don't want it
Hence reacting within the conflict of reason (want vs not want) to what you want from them. Neither of you considers "need" when reasoning about want vs not want.
Both sides reasoning have consented to suggested moralism, hence suggested rules of behavior based on reasoning aka agreement vs agreement; good vs bad; true vs false; belief vs disbelief etc. What both are willingly ignoring is ones free will of choice in-between both the conflict of reason (choice of wanting versus choice of not wanting suggested) and before that...as choice in-between need (perceivable) or want (suggested).
What both sides within reason are trying to do is to get others to choose their side over the other. What neither sides comprehends is that consent to reason over suggested binds both sides against each other within reason until each one within chooses to resist consenting.
They oppose the obvious truth with such ignorant veracity
a) VERAC'ITY, noun [Latin verax, from verus, true.] - "habitual observance of truth"...are they really opposing the obvious truth or do they view as obvious truth what you view as obvious lies?
b) are the few reasoning about true vs false with the many? Ever heard a rothschild reasoning about obvious truth vs obvious lies with anyone? Listen to jacob rothschild talk and you'll notice that he suggests with solemnity and as a merchant he dictates the prices for the information he sells. Haggling over prices (reasoning) is for those who already consented to the offer and they're haggling among themselves, while the merchant gains the profits.
c) perceivable change (need) contradicts every suggested truth (want) and lie (not want)...are you ignoring this? If you hold onto a truth, change will change aka loosen up your hold. Try holding onto life and notice what the change from inception towards death will do to it...
it makes me lose hope
Both hope (want) and fear (not want) represent reactions to suggested outcomes, which tempt one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin. When was the last time you chose to invest hope or fear into breathing? Now hold your breath and wait until you notice that the death you fear and hope to avoid is only ever a moment away.
Ones fear to loose represents ones ignorance about being growth (living) within loss (process of dying). You will loose everything, but until that moment you represent the free will of choice to grow within everything. Others tempt you to ignore this by suggesting you to be afraid of loss, while investing hope in suggested growth outside your reach, outside the perceivable moment (um of motion).
we are all on the same side.
That represents the suggested inversion of each different one (form) being at the center (choice) of sides (balance) within sameness (flow). For life (choice)...inception and death (balance) represent the sides and those aren't in conflict with each other.
In short...you represent one not we, partial not all; different not same; and center not side. Use implication (if/then) to discern that for yourself. Only if one comprehends this, can one further comprehend that partial represents whole; that difference represents sameness, that center represents sides (balance) and that togetherness (want) represents the choice to ignore oneness.
TOGETHER aka TOWARDS GETTING tempts one to ignore being within everything already in existence.
We know the cabal refuses entry to actual atheists. Public facing atheists belonging to the cabal are likely lying in order to recruit more atheists away from the theist camp--more specifically the Christian theist camp. The cabal is deeply religious in the most horrific sense. The cabal wants to create atheists to fight against Christian theists. They want us to think the atheists are the enemy. The atheists are the victims of the lie. They know not what they do or for whom they do it.
Let me ask you this: was FE the first conspiracy theory you came to believe in? If that was the first conspiracy theory someone presented to you, would you have believed it, or were you open to it first because you became convinced of other less crazy sounding (initially at least) theories over time?
I guess I just see how people respond to this one and I think: even if it's true, why start there? Why hammer that drum when that drum is used to discredit all these other drums and all these other drums, being easier to swallow (perhaps I should refer to them as pills) will open the mind to that great last drum?
Basically I'm asking: do you think it's wise to push the meat before the bread?
-Evolution, relativity, big bang would all be disproven.
-Atheism would be impossible and all moral implications that go with thinking you are a cosmic insignificant accident.
-People would have to know God is real.
-People would quit putting faith is scientism priests and politicians. In fact they would be proven liars and psychopaths.
-People would question War, media narrative, academia, financial system, Hollywood propaganda, history etc...
-Law would greatly be effected because people would hold God's law higher than the evil legal systems we accept now.
-I think an enormous revival in Christian faith would break out, although not all flat earthers follow Christ.
-Knowledge, wisdom, truth, morality would all increase.
-Also it would be much harder to scam populations on taxes and fund psyops like NASA.
If the earth is a domed terrarium how the hell did it occure naturally? That would prove a creator rather than big bang and evolution. I don't see what you mean?
If a flat, domed earth was created by aliens, or its actually a digital simulation, then who created those creators? All you are doing is trying to make creation more remote, just like the big bang theory.
You are right, it wouldn't prove the specific God I believe in. But it would make atheism ridiculous. And if you can't see how a flat, domed earth would eliminate big bang, relativity, and evolution then I think you are one of the few people in the world who would see it that way.
Hate to break it to you but big bang, evolution, relativity are all theories. You take them on faith from the likes of Neil degrassi tyson and the guy in the wheel chair with a robot voice.
tthe motive is quite simple. They had to create distance between people and religion. all throughout the middle ages religion ran the show. But with everything, it served its purpose and they had to get ride of it. enter the industrial/scientific age. They no longer needed peasants and farmers. They needed mindless workers who worshiped the system.
Its way easier to believe that we mean nothing and theres no point to this when theres billions of other places like ours.
know im not religious, I don't believe in some almighty god... and thats a dark place my friend.
true be told, it wouldn't benefit anyone to know this. it would cause chaos. people loos faith in everything and everyone. they would then turn to god... and that could be worst.. people do strange things when there confused and vulnerable.
look how they reated to the Vax... people sacrifice there selves for the system. imgine what they would do when they find this out..
2 3 questions for those who subscribe to flat earth theory:
There is no “flat earth theory” in a scientific context (nor could there ever be, just like there isn’t and can’t be a “round earth theory”). Even in the colloquial [incorrect] definition of the word theory, there is no singular or unified “flat earth theory” of which to speak. Most every earnest flat earth researcher has their own particular/unique view.
I would say, “flat earth posit” to be more precise.
What do you believe the motive is for the lie? and
What lie? Humanity is merely stupid and wrong, as it historically always is.
There may be some liars in the group who push a particular view for personal gain (the reason people lie), but the vast majority simply repeat what they were taught. For an example, most aren’t lying when they say “the vaxx saved the world from covid and got us back to normal”, they are just wrong.
Even if you're right, what do you believe would be the benefit of everyone learning the truth about it? How would the world knowing the truth benefit from this knowledge?
A very common question, with many possible answers and perspectives. I’ll provide my answer, but you may want to consider also asking these questions over on flatearthresearch to hear some of the others.
Assuming someone knows better and is lying about it (a large and unnecessary assumption), the reason is almost certainly topography/cartography and control of the slave populous [citizenry]. What did many europeans choose to do once they learned the maps they had were wrong and there was a “new world” available to escape their hideous lots?
On the other hand, if people are just wrong - as is my view - then one benefit is the same as above (the potential ability to go somewhere else and escape the tyranny/slavery), and another is correctly understanding reality better / discarding incorrect mythology masquerading as science (which both pay extreme dividends in countless ways).
How would you rank the importance of knowing this truth compared to other truths that have been dubbed "conspiracy theories?"
“Knowing this truth” is certainly important, but not nearly as important as recognizing you could be wrong/ignorant and pursuing truth (writ large). Flat earth research is perhaps the most valuable and rewarding subject that exists to study (and in so doing, learn how/refine your ability to study and think independently), which is fundamentally why there is such an extremely well advertised (i.e. funded) psyop to suppress and ridicule it. Counterintuitively, It has very little to do with the shape of the earth.
Why spend your energy trying to convince your fellow man of this theory as opposed to others?
You shouldn’t spend you time trying to convince [manipulate] others of anything. Like argument, another form of manipulation, it is a fools errand.
Instead you should try to share your views and genuinely help encourage/foster/kindle curiosity.
I encourage you to ask as many such questions as you can/want, as long as you are earnestly interested in the answers/discussion! Flatearthresearch might also be a good place to ask such questions.
I'll throw in a third question too: How would you rank the importance of knowing this truth compared to other truths that have been dubbed "conspiracy theories?" Why spend your energy trying to convince your fellow man of this theory as opposed to others?
Primary it is a attack on the legitimacy of the Bible. The Bible was translated to the common tongue during the reformation, and finished in 1611, by the committee put together by King James. Part of the counter reformation was establishing the heliocentric model, so people would not take the Bible serious, even as they now have access to it with their thumbs on their smartphones.
The Bible is clear, earth is fixed and stationary. If people think we live on a spinning ball flying through space, then they think the Bible got something wrong, and the Bible no longer is holy (whole): people in the past must have been primitive and uncivilised, not reliable when they witness what God has told mankind, and the coming judgment that we will face; is things you might hear from modern day atheists, doing their best to destroy the faith of the Bible being the perfect preserved word of God, made available to all generations.
Satan is placed in charge of the world, he is the king over the children of disobedience. Satans job is to cast doubt over what the word of God says, so that is what he does. Maybe Satan thinks that through sheer number of lost souls filling up the bowls of hell, he will be saved: God reproves him on this though, in his perfectly preserved word, being the same today as it was 2000 years ago.
personally, i'm open to the idea. there's alot of fair points i don't see adequately refuted.
as far as benefits to widespread knowledge of "the truth", it would totally revamp the way we understand science and especially space leading to tech innovations. those that tried to withold such fundamental truths would be removed from power, if not life, and, for a little while anyway, we'd be a freer people. there's certainly a fuckton of religious/philosphical dogma humans wouldn't waste any more energy on sustaining.
edit: imho, saying "so what" to flat earth being provably, incontrovertibly true is like saying "so what" if actual, decent-res, video recording of GWB in Deally Plaza during the Kennedy assassination was found.
4D earth is flat. 3D earth is not. If 3D earth were flat (even if appearing round) light would bend around earth enabling us to see all the way around (spherical geometry). Light does not bend all the way around earth, we don't perceive spherical geometry when we look outside, therefore, the 3D earth is not flat.
I wanna know how GPS works if the earth was flat, but all I hear are irrelevant religious mumbling (btw bible doesn't clearly state earth is flat) and deflections.
to hide how old life is. to hide the accomplishments of the white race. to hide the atrocities against the white race. if you believe something that stupid instead of trust your own senses, you are the perfect slave for the rich pedos to use and abuse
If you are being lied to on such a scale, why would you continue to "believe" the suggestions of others?
knowledge
KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists"
a) could the suggestions of others tempt you to ignore perceivable? How?
b) which one do you perceive and which one is being suggested to you....PLANE + PLANET?
Bonus...if they just added a "T"; where did they took it from? If you add a T to NASA, you could shape S A T A N, but how did they got the T from NASA?
*edit: Ok that wasn't fair. Honestly there's no reason, if the earth is a plane, that they couldn't have played with the letters like that. Kind of a neat idea actually.
if the earth is a plane, that they couldn't have played with the letters like that
a) did the perceivable plane exist before one can suggest the letters "PLANE" as a description thereof?
b) what if suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound?
Could the few suggest "insane person" to tempt the many to ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound)?
c) does perceivable nature brand itself or do those within nature suggest brands to each other to gain control over the definitions of those brands? What if those who adapt to perceivable sound represent PHONETICIANS (from phonics; sound), while those consenting to suggested definitions (words) represent DEAF PHONETICIANS?
d) what if consenting to suggested (words) over perceivable (sound) gives those suggesting the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested definitions at will?
there's no reason
a) No implies versus Yes...a conflict of reason.
b) what if the few suggest no, not, nothing...to tempt each perceiving one of the many to ignore perceivable everything?
Full disclosure: My own personal conspiracy inkling is that flat earth theory is a deep state psyop created for the express purpose of discrediting more valid and damning theories (because it's certainly used that way) but I won't argue that point because at this point it's just an inkling. I'm always open to hearing all viewpoints on a subject until my mind is completely made up. Admittedly I've only watched a few videos and read a few comments on the topic so I won't press my theory too hard. But that's the truth about where I lean at the moment. I'm always open to more evidence.
I'm open to that as a possibility. I have to admit though, I personally like the idea of space. Just watched every single Star Trek movie every made (including Star Trek 4, the whale one, unfortunately) and I sure love the idea of there being a federation of planets we can join one day. Traveling the stars. Idea makes me happy. Not sure what reality is really like but I admit it's possible that my affinity for this construct could make it more difficult for me to see the truth if in fact something else is the truth.
Space is merely distance between two objects. Space is objectively real. What's beyond "the ice wall" who knows, but it's just more space for things to fit in. Go above or below, within or without, and you find infinite space. Maybe the thing we see in the sky is not the thing we think it is, but saying space is fake has to be confined to that construct only (assuming the FE construct is true in the first place).
Being "one" able to "wander" implies wandering (space) among another (aliens) and since flow (inception towards death) doesn't identify form (life)...since IDEN'TITY, noun - "sameness" ; while form implies difference...form (life) within flow (inception towards death) represents an unidentified flying object (UFO).
As for "black holes" and "big bang"...written by the same perverts who suggest "nuclear bombs" (from NU'CLEUS, noun [Latin a nut.]) between "fat-man" and "little boy"...
That is a good instinct. It is certainly used that way, but it is not the psyop’s primary purpose - it’s a fringe benefit of it due to its success.
The primary purpose of the psyop is to prevent any earnest discussion or research into the valuable subject. It does this a variety of ways, perhaps chief among them falsely conflating contrived offensively stupid ideas with it and those who would dare to study it. In my view it is a case of “the woman doth protest too much”, because there is no other reason to spend so much money on an advertising campaign (i.e. psyop) to convince people an already ostensibly stupid idea (the world is flat) by default is too stupid to ever bother looking into...
I encourage you to join us on flatearthresearch to discuss such evidence, methodology, and generally exchange our views!
Thank you for a less emotional flat earth post, my mind isn't made up eather, but when people don't understand the theory, and just attack it, it pushes me farther to flat earth
Great points. How do we really know what we think we really know? A LOT of what we assume we just assume someone smarter than us figured it out and we accept their word as authoritative rather than saying "Wait, prove that to me. Don't talk down to me. Prove it to me. Or show me how to prove that to myself."
It could be really exhausting to do that for every little thing we learn but honestly it's starting to feel like if we don't learn to start doing that, we'll never get out of this hole we're in (or this plane ;) ).
Really makes you wonder just how literal Plato's Cave really was.
If it can be destroyed by truth it deserves to be destroyed by truth
I like the way that sounds, usually, but I struggle with this one because, even if it's true, but it's used to discredit dare I say...more critical truths, is it worth the energy?
If the earth is flat...then it was indeed created by a space sky daddy. Also makes "science" less believe able. Because that means all the "space" shit all the funding has been going to is a lie.
The Earth being a big ball spinning left to chance and slime turning into primates, then to us. Is how Atheists shit over the God theory.
I dont know about flat earth. I dont care about the shape of this fucker we are on to be honest.
I get it man. I do not trust the narrative. But to me. I am more after spiritual growth, and pursuing knowledge on how to better myself, and heal myself and the Earths energetic fields.
I already understand there is controllers of knowledge. Those who want to keep us dumb and blind.
I watched a few FE videos. Watched some crater earth videos which all made sense.
To me....i'd rather know ju jitsu, than the shape of this shithole we are on.....
Get what I mean?
So you're implying the spinning ball theory was created to like...fund NASA and to get people to stop believing in God?
Maybe the latter but seeing as how NASA didn't create that theory I struggled to see the plausibility of the former, seeing as how it was an idea that first became popular in the 1500s. Not sure how "they" were making money on that notion way back then. But if they were, I'm open to hearing about it.
*Edit - or are you saying it's a desperate attempt by theists to discredit the arguments of atheists?
Nah I am saying the spinning ball is currently being used to fun NASA. I believe Athiests use this to discredit God. The Church.
IF The Earth is flat that would 100% mean divine intervention.
BUT IF the Earth is flat all the flight plans, all the data, all the "space photos" are a lie......NASA is in charge of the lie.
As I said I dont have any skin in the game. As I dont give a shit what shape we are on. :D
I guess I don't personally see how a spinning ball and the Big Bang denotes a lack of divine intervention. Perhaps that's why I struggle with understanding the need for this theory.
LOG'IC, noun [Latin id; Gr. from reason, to speak.]...reasoning (wanting vs not wanting) over the spoken suggestions by others will keep both sides within perpetual conflict.
Agreement vs disagreement or want vs not want or belief vs disbelief or true vs false or flat vs heliocentric...whatever side one chooses, one is stuck reasoning against the opposition. That's the mental prison the many put themselves into when consenting to the suggestions of the few.
Meanwhile...perceivable nature doesn't speak; it doesn't utter words; it doesn't brand anything; it doesn't reason...it represents order; balance; sound; differentiation; flow etc.
How could one discern self if one (singular) thinks in suggested terms like "we" and "us" (plural)?
Can one give up reality or is one struggling with the temptation to want to hold onto things within reality? What if ones struggle to resist "want" represents "need"?
What if one (perceiving) can only exist within need (perceivable); while ones choice to want (truth) or not want (lies) suggested, shapes a layer of ignorance around oneself? Within this ignorance, the conflict of reason (want vs not want) tempts one to feel as if lies are cutting one off from truth; because whatever truth one holds onto is being constantly contradicted by more and more lies? Meanwhile, those who utilize lies are getting more and more agitated by the fanatical obsession of the opposition to hold onto truths, no matter how often they are being contradicted.
Both sides within reason are feeding upon each other.
a) a question implies ones want for suggested outcomes, hence a "quest" forwards aka the allegory of the hero's journey to save the day. An answer represents both ones want for more than the quest and the power of others to direct quests with suggested outcomes. It's the hero's want to journey that gives the villain the power to set up the tribunals along the way, hence exploiting temptation (want) by suggesting more and more and more....
b) the process of dying represents the perceivable offer; living within represents the perceiving response-ability (choice).
But wait...OF'FER, verb [Latin offero; to bring.] - "to bring to or before; hence, to present for acceptance or rejection"...if one hold ones breath and chooses to accept (want) or reject (not want) breathing...does that prevent the need to adapt to the process of dying forcing the living to breathe?
Just because one has the free will of choice to want or not want an offer, doesn't mean one can shirk response-ability within need without consequences. The many keep ignoring that perceivable need for suggested offers by the "happy merchant" few.
c) KNOWL'EDGE, noun - "perception of that which exists" + TRUTH, noun - "conformity of words to thoughts, which is called moral truth"...are you really perceiving words or are others tempting you with suggested words to ignore perceivable sound? Does nature really CONFORM, adjective - "assuming the same form" or does it differentiate whole (process of dying) into each partial (living)?
Hence reacting within the conflict of reason (want vs not want) to what you want from them. Neither of you considers "need" when reasoning about want vs not want.
Both sides reasoning have consented to suggested moralism, hence suggested rules of behavior based on reasoning aka agreement vs agreement; good vs bad; true vs false; belief vs disbelief etc. What both are willingly ignoring is ones free will of choice in-between both the conflict of reason (choice of wanting versus choice of not wanting suggested) and before that...as choice in-between need (perceivable) or want (suggested).
What both sides within reason are trying to do is to get others to choose their side over the other. What neither sides comprehends is that consent to reason over suggested binds both sides against each other within reason until each one within chooses to resist consenting.
a) VERAC'ITY, noun [Latin verax, from verus, true.] - "habitual observance of truth"...are they really opposing the obvious truth or do they view as obvious truth what you view as obvious lies?
b) are the few reasoning about true vs false with the many? Ever heard a rothschild reasoning about obvious truth vs obvious lies with anyone? Listen to jacob rothschild talk and you'll notice that he suggests with solemnity and as a merchant he dictates the prices for the information he sells. Haggling over prices (reasoning) is for those who already consented to the offer and they're haggling among themselves, while the merchant gains the profits.
c) perceivable change (need) contradicts every suggested truth (want) and lie (not want)...are you ignoring this? If you hold onto a truth, change will change aka loosen up your hold. Try holding onto life and notice what the change from inception towards death will do to it...
Both hope (want) and fear (not want) represent reactions to suggested outcomes, which tempt one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable origin. When was the last time you chose to invest hope or fear into breathing? Now hold your breath and wait until you notice that the death you fear and hope to avoid is only ever a moment away.
Ones fear to loose represents ones ignorance about being growth (living) within loss (process of dying). You will loose everything, but until that moment you represent the free will of choice to grow within everything. Others tempt you to ignore this by suggesting you to be afraid of loss, while investing hope in suggested growth outside your reach, outside the perceivable moment (um of motion).
That represents the suggested inversion of each different one (form) being at the center (choice) of sides (balance) within sameness (flow). For life (choice)...inception and death (balance) represent the sides and those aren't in conflict with each other.
In short...you represent one not we, partial not all; different not same; and center not side. Use implication (if/then) to discern that for yourself. Only if one comprehends this, can one further comprehend that partial represents whole; that difference represents sameness, that center represents sides (balance) and that togetherness (want) represents the choice to ignore oneness.
TOGETHER aka TOWARDS GETTING tempts one to ignore being within everything already in existence.
We know the cabal refuses entry to actual atheists. Public facing atheists belonging to the cabal are likely lying in order to recruit more atheists away from the theist camp--more specifically the Christian theist camp. The cabal is deeply religious in the most horrific sense. The cabal wants to create atheists to fight against Christian theists. They want us to think the atheists are the enemy. The atheists are the victims of the lie. They know not what they do or for whom they do it.
Fascinating.
Let me ask you this: was FE the first conspiracy theory you came to believe in? If that was the first conspiracy theory someone presented to you, would you have believed it, or were you open to it first because you became convinced of other less crazy sounding (initially at least) theories over time?
I guess I just see how people respond to this one and I think: even if it's true, why start there? Why hammer that drum when that drum is used to discredit all these other drums and all these other drums, being easier to swallow (perhaps I should refer to them as pills) will open the mind to that great last drum?
Basically I'm asking: do you think it's wise to push the meat before the bread?
People believed that the earth was round long before space programs or the theory of evolution.
Your timeline makes no sense
That is complete and utter nonsense.
Which academics theoriezed a flat earth in the 20th century?
They never proposed a flat earth. Why are you lying?
Provide a quote or admit that you are a fucking liar.
So, is there any scientist from the 20th century who proposed a flat earth model?
Yes or no?
-Evolution, relativity, big bang would all be disproven. -Atheism would be impossible and all moral implications that go with thinking you are a cosmic insignificant accident. -People would have to know God is real. -People would quit putting faith is scientism priests and politicians. In fact they would be proven liars and psychopaths. -People would question War, media narrative, academia, financial system, Hollywood propaganda, history etc... -Law would greatly be effected because people would hold God's law higher than the evil legal systems we accept now. -I think an enormous revival in Christian faith would break out, although not all flat earthers follow Christ. -Knowledge, wisdom, truth, morality would all increase. -Also it would be much harder to scam populations on taxes and fund psyops like NASA.
None of these depend on a round earth.
Try again.
If the earth is a domed terrarium how the hell did it occure naturally? That would prove a creator rather than big bang and evolution. I don't see what you mean?
Earth could have been created by an alien civilization or we could live in a computer simulation.
If one believes in magic like you do, there are as many possibilities as one can imagine, why would it have to be the specific god you believe in?
It still would not rule out evolution or the big bang.
Your argument is an old and tired Creationist argument: "if Evolution is not true then the God of the Bible is Real."
This is not how it works.
If a flat, domed earth was created by aliens, or its actually a digital simulation, then who created those creators? All you are doing is trying to make creation more remote, just like the big bang theory.
You are right, it wouldn't prove the specific God I believe in. But it would make atheism ridiculous. And if you can't see how a flat, domed earth would eliminate big bang, relativity, and evolution then I think you are one of the few people in the world who would see it that way.
Evolution. A mechanism we don't know. Who can say?
Of course, religious nutcases like you and the other Creationists have as only answer GOD DID IT.
Your thinking is stuck in the stone age. For everything you don't know or where you perceive doubt, your answer is GOD DID IT.
How utterly pathetic.
Hate to break it to you but big bang, evolution, relativity are all theories. You take them on faith from the likes of Neil degrassi tyson and the guy in the wheel chair with a robot voice.
tthe motive is quite simple. They had to create distance between people and religion. all throughout the middle ages religion ran the show. But with everything, it served its purpose and they had to get ride of it. enter the industrial/scientific age. They no longer needed peasants and farmers. They needed mindless workers who worshiped the system.
Its way easier to believe that we mean nothing and theres no point to this when theres billions of other places like ours.
know im not religious, I don't believe in some almighty god... and thats a dark place my friend.
true be told, it wouldn't benefit anyone to know this. it would cause chaos. people loos faith in everything and everyone. they would then turn to god... and that could be worst.. people do strange things when there confused and vulnerable.
look how they reated to the Vax... people sacrifice there selves for the system. imgine what they would do when they find this out..
There is no “flat earth theory” in a scientific context (nor could there ever be, just like there isn’t and can’t be a “round earth theory”). Even in the colloquial [incorrect] definition of the word theory, there is no singular or unified “flat earth theory” of which to speak. Most every earnest flat earth researcher has their own particular/unique view.
I would say, “flat earth posit” to be more precise.
What lie? Humanity is merely stupid and wrong, as it historically always is.
There may be some liars in the group who push a particular view for personal gain (the reason people lie), but the vast majority simply repeat what they were taught. For an example, most aren’t lying when they say “the vaxx saved the world from covid and got us back to normal”, they are just wrong.
A very common question, with many possible answers and perspectives. I’ll provide my answer, but you may want to consider also asking these questions over on flatearthresearch to hear some of the others.
Assuming someone knows better and is lying about it (a large and unnecessary assumption), the reason is almost certainly topography/cartography and control of the slave populous [citizenry]. What did many europeans choose to do once they learned the maps they had were wrong and there was a “new world” available to escape their hideous lots?
On the other hand, if people are just wrong - as is my view - then one benefit is the same as above (the potential ability to go somewhere else and escape the tyranny/slavery), and another is correctly understanding reality better / discarding incorrect mythology masquerading as science (which both pay extreme dividends in countless ways).
“Knowing this truth” is certainly important, but not nearly as important as recognizing you could be wrong/ignorant and pursuing truth (writ large). Flat earth research is perhaps the most valuable and rewarding subject that exists to study (and in so doing, learn how/refine your ability to study and think independently), which is fundamentally why there is such an extremely well advertised (i.e. funded) psyop to suppress and ridicule it. Counterintuitively, It has very little to do with the shape of the earth.
You shouldn’t spend you time trying to convince [manipulate] others of anything. Like argument, another form of manipulation, it is a fools errand.
Instead you should try to share your views and genuinely help encourage/foster/kindle curiosity.
I encourage you to ask as many such questions as you can/want, as long as you are earnestly interested in the answers/discussion! Flatearthresearch might also be a good place to ask such questions.
Some damn good replies coming in here, not gonna lie. Good stuff, man.
I'll throw in a third question too: How would you rank the importance of knowing this truth compared to other truths that have been dubbed "conspiracy theories?" Why spend your energy trying to convince your fellow man of this theory as opposed to others?
Interesting.
To reject the globe is to start trusting your own senses. That's why it's important
Primary it is a attack on the legitimacy of the Bible. The Bible was translated to the common tongue during the reformation, and finished in 1611, by the committee put together by King James. Part of the counter reformation was establishing the heliocentric model, so people would not take the Bible serious, even as they now have access to it with their thumbs on their smartphones.
The Bible is clear, earth is fixed and stationary. If people think we live on a spinning ball flying through space, then they think the Bible got something wrong, and the Bible no longer is holy (whole): people in the past must have been primitive and uncivilised, not reliable when they witness what God has told mankind, and the coming judgment that we will face; is things you might hear from modern day atheists, doing their best to destroy the faith of the Bible being the perfect preserved word of God, made available to all generations.
Satan is placed in charge of the world, he is the king over the children of disobedience. Satans job is to cast doubt over what the word of God says, so that is what he does. Maybe Satan thinks that through sheer number of lost souls filling up the bowls of hell, he will be saved: God reproves him on this though, in his perfectly preserved word, being the same today as it was 2000 years ago.
personally, i'm open to the idea. there's alot of fair points i don't see adequately refuted.
as far as benefits to widespread knowledge of "the truth", it would totally revamp the way we understand science and especially space leading to tech innovations. those that tried to withold such fundamental truths would be removed from power, if not life, and, for a little while anyway, we'd be a freer people. there's certainly a fuckton of religious/philosphical dogma humans wouldn't waste any more energy on sustaining.
edit: imho, saying "so what" to flat earth being provably, incontrovertibly true is like saying "so what" if actual, decent-res, video recording of GWB in Deally Plaza during the Kennedy assassination was found.
4D earth is flat. 3D earth is not. If 3D earth were flat (even if appearing round) light would bend around earth enabling us to see all the way around (spherical geometry). Light does not bend all the way around earth, we don't perceive spherical geometry when we look outside, therefore, the 3D earth is not flat.
I wanna know how GPS works if the earth was flat, but all I hear are irrelevant religious mumbling (btw bible doesn't clearly state earth is flat) and deflections.
Fake
to hide how old life is. to hide the accomplishments of the white race. to hide the atrocities against the white race. if you believe something that stupid instead of trust your own senses, you are the perfect slave for the rich pedos to use and abuse
If you are being lied to on such a scale, why would you continue to "believe" the suggestions of others?
a) could the suggestions of others tempt you to ignore perceivable? How?
b) which one do you perceive and which one is being suggested to you....PLANE + PLANET?
Bonus...if they just added a "T"; where did they took it from? If you add a T to NASA, you could shape S A T A N, but how did they got the T from NASA?
"T minus 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1..."
I...no words.
*edit: Ok that wasn't fair. Honestly there's no reason, if the earth is a plane, that they couldn't have played with the letters like that. Kind of a neat idea actually.
a) did the perceivable plane exist before one can suggest the letters "PLANE" as a description thereof?
b) what if suggested words tempt one to ignore perceivable sound?
Could the few suggest "insane person" to tempt the many to ignore "in sanus" (within sound) + "per sonos" (by sound)?
c) does perceivable nature brand itself or do those within nature suggest brands to each other to gain control over the definitions of those brands? What if those who adapt to perceivable sound represent PHONETICIANS (from phonics; sound), while those consenting to suggested definitions (words) represent DEAF PHONETICIANS?
d) what if consenting to suggested (words) over perceivable (sound) gives those suggesting the power to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) the suggested definitions at will?
a) No implies versus Yes...a conflict of reason.
b) what if the few suggest no, not, nothing...to tempt each perceiving one of the many to ignore perceivable everything?
How does one sell nothing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI By choice (suggestion) towards choice (consent) contract law.
So NASA is producing the show about nothing!? I think you may have something here.
Do you know why...because people like to say NASA. https://pic8.co/sh/nrEXy1.jpg