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).

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.

Really makes you wonder just how literal Plato's Cave really was.

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'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.

Some damn good replies coming in here, not gonna lie. Good stuff, man.

Interesting.

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.

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?

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.

Seriously. The guy didn't say anything. He implied he knew something but wouldn't even say what it is. I can do that too.

"If only you knew what was hidden in Pauly Shore's station wagon."

Post on conspiracies.win "Any takers? I think we should take this cryptic tweet seriously!"

Come on. Give me more than that.

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?

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.

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'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?

Not that you're wrong about each theory having flaws, but I think you mistake what is meant by "terrain" in "Terrain Theory."

The body itself is the "terrain." The conditions within the body itself and all the pollutants/infections it contains. "Terrain Theory" isn't "people in nice climates don't get sick."

Nature cannot create (something out of nothing)

I'm sorry....did you think I was actually implying that and thus, you felt a need to correct me?

Suggested "doing nothing" (don't) cannot exist within perceivable being done (living) within everything (process of dying).

Yeah I'm not sure you're the right person to reply to me on this topic.

Consent to suggested right (want) vs wrong (not want) tempts one to ignore the need to adapt to perceivable change. Motion doesn't communicate right or wrong...it sets free will of choice into balance (need/want). Balance represents the momentum of motion aka the perceivable, ever changing moment-um of "now"

Yeah that confirms it. Someone else who's not high right now wanna take a stab at this for me? First time posting on this forum. Getting the feeling it might be my last.

This is definitely something that has always bothered me. Three conflicting positions:

1. The virus was created by nature. The vaccine was created to stop it.

2. The virus was created in a lab to justify selling the poison mRNA shots.

3. Viruses don't exist. It was simply this year's reaction to the cold/sunless winter that was hyped on the news as a virus to justify selling the poison mRNA shots. The lab leak theory is to keep pushing the idea that viruses are real and can be created in a lab when they don't exist at all.

Am I to understand these three positions correctly?

And if so, where does this community generally stand on the subject? Or is there a fourth position you've adopted, or have I gotten one of three above grossly wrong?

For argument's sake, let's say it's flat. What's the motive behind the lie?