Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
starlight

Does Disney believe in flat Earth theory?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, 313 Seeker said:

Actually to me it is not vague. Imagine if you were a clean slate and had no idea about anything from any of the TV movies, schools, media, parents and education. If you read the Qur'an and somebody asked you to map out the Earth, you'd definitely make it flat with 7 layers, and 7 heavens and lamps and firmament and angels flying up and down with God's commands, and the shooting stars targeting Jinn who try to listen, etc.

It's just confusing with what we have been taught. To me anyway, I think the Qur'an, Bible and hadiths are clear on this issue. They are described with multiple words used to describe the same thing, in multiple contexts and no real contradictions. To me anyway. 

Now this is what I call a great shaitani deception and a conspiracy theory. The idea that we must act off a clean slate and pretend that we only know of Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt. This is 100% not the message of the Qur'an or Ahlul-Bayt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Now this is what I call a great shaitani deception and a conspiracy theory. The idea that we must act off a clean slate and pretend that we only know of Qur'an and Ahlul Bayt. This is 100% not the message of the Qur'an or Ahlul-Bayt.

Qur'an tells us not to believe things just because our parents told us. Or just because the majority, or even everybody says so. During Noah everybody was living in a lie, and literally everybody except him and a few family members. To be unbiased and objective, we must shake off preconditions and not mix what we were taught outside of Islam with Islam. And you will find that everything that you were taught correctly will automatically be in tune with Islam anyway, so there isn't a problem there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 313 Seeker said:

Qur'an tells us not to believe things just because our parents told us. Or just because the majority, or even everybody says so. During Noah everybody was living in a lie, and literally everybody except him and a few family members. To be unbiased and objective, we must shake off preconditions and not mix what we were taught outside of Islam with Islam. And you will find that everything that you were taught correctly will automatically be in tune with Islam anyway, so there isn't a problem there. 

Great, keeping moving the goal posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Great, keeping moving the goal posts.

I don't know what you mean by those words, but I think we spoke enough about this today. Maybe we can continue our conversation some other time. Thanks and all the best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

No I am saying that pictures can be doctored.

I see, every picture ever of the Earth is doctored. Did you watch any of those videos that Guest Wag1 posted? I only watched that Neil de Grasse Tyson video, and in it he shows other proofs aside from pictures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

I don't know what you mean by those words, but I think we spoke enough about this today. Maybe we can continue our conversation some other time. Thanks and all the best!

Because you're not willing to acknowledge that Qur'an and Science are seperate. You're acting like galaxy brain Zakir Naik, except he misuses the Qur'an to prove that it is 100% in line with modern science without a doubt.

Not following the people is in relation to the deen. 

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

I see, every picture ever of the Earth is doctored. Did you watch any of those videos that Guest Wag1 posted? I only watched that Neil de Grasse Tyson video, and in it he shows other proofs aside from pictures.

You and I didn't see if for ourselves and yes pictures can be doctored since a long time. Both sides of any argument has proofs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Because you're not willing to acknowledge that Qur'an and Science are seperate. You're acting like galaxy brain Zakir Naik, except he misuses the Qur'an to prove that it is 100% in line with modern science without a doubt.

Not following the people is in relation to the deen. 

Yes I believe science is pursuit of truth. Measuring what is there. Islam is the same. It is describing what is there and describing reality and truth. That is me. I believe both are compatible and the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Both are compatible because they are seperate.

Truth = Truth

OK now I really want to go, although you didn't answer me about conspiracy theory alternative. what to call conspiracy theories that would not upset you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 313 Seeker said:

pictures can be doctored since a long time

It's not about how long ago the pictures are. It's about the extreme quantity of videos / pictures from totally different sources & the overwhelming scientific consensus, how we use this knowledge to interact with everything on a daily basis, how we are communicating right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

It's not about how long ago the pictures are. It's about the extreme quantity of videos / pictures from totally different sources & the overwhelming scientific consensus, how we use this knowledge to interact with everything on a daily basis, how we are communicating right now.

us communicating now is no proof for ball Earth. And so I think we arrive at the destination. You and I differ that I believe it's possible to have such a huge conspiracy, while you think it's too big to be a conspiracy. I think everybody can be wrong, and that all the systems and info we are given could be wrong. I have done research and found alternative explanations for everything that convinced me personally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 313 Seeker said:

I have done research and found alternative explanations for everything that convinced me personally

Did you research into your way of thinking? I.e. Self-critique.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Truth = Truth

OK now I really want to go, although you didn't answer me about conspiracy theory alternative. what to call conspiracy theories that would not upset you

The problem is I thought you weren't willing to debate academically. I thought you were upset because the Mercator projection is rooted in Colonialism from a post-structuralist perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

The problem is I thought you weren't willing to debate academically. I thought you were upset because the Mercator projection is rooted in Colonialism from a post-structuralist perspective.

Didn't I say you can debate me on the "Islamic Cosmolgy" thread? I don't understand what you are saying about Colonialism and stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

What is that supposed to mean? My way of thinking? You mean my ability to think and reason? I don't get it

No. I mean why did your way of thinking lead you to personally accept that. I'm not criticizing you, I should do this too. It's hard to explain, here's an example:

Now, I'll leave the discussion. Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 313 Seeker said:

Crowley pretended to follow the religion of ancient Egypt by claiming that an entity called Horus came to him and dictated to him his holy book inside the "Kings Chamber" of the great pyramid of Gizah. Of course we know now that it's not a tomb, but anyway. This book he wrote, and the religion he followed did not have anything to do with ancient Egyptian religion, which does not encourage people to do as they want. They get judged after dying in front of a balance, just like Islam. And if their heart is heavier than a feather, then they're doomed. So the state of the heart determines our success in both Islam of our time and the Islam of the ancient Egyptians. 

Same goes for the ancient native Americans:

This is a very rough estimate of major tribes of native Americans ..

native_american_map.thumb.jpg.244602340aed17dcfd7e6cc37e3d538a.jpg

We know from the Qur'an that Allah sent Prophets to all people. The Americas were like a world in of itself, so you had probably a majority of bad people like all other places, sacrificing and eating children, while there were good people who held on to the rope of Allah. Each Prophet and setting has a unique twist to it. In the native American Islam I feel it was connectedness to spirits, ancestors and animals/nature. So they definitely were very strict about respecting boundaries of respect of others and nature. They had strict codes of honor, and actually they still do today. Just look at the protests happening in Canada because of those polluting pipelines being built through their holy lands. They have/had mujahedeen just like us, and very respectable people full of wisdoms.

Listen to this Native American Scholar who talks about end times and religious obligations from Hopi perspective. It's definitely not "do as thou wilt"


The "Do as thou" wilt culture that was so propagated, and still is, by modern media and education, is purely Satanic Culture and Religion. Adam was told you can't do as thou wilt. You can't come close to that tree. The culture of Satan was to tell Adam "no, do as thou wilt". See the difference?

The funny thing is - actually it's not funny at all - is that for some reason all Satanics usually also worship the sun. (I suspect this could be a main reason why they push the heliocentric model that makes us look extremely tiny orbiting the sun like a speck of dust around it as if we go around the Kaaba or something) The way they operate is that they usually let the 'peasants' worship the sun, because that is easy for them to understand and follow without thinking. They see the sun and its benefit and greatness. So now also the Europeans up till recently used to work hard to pay for holidays in the sun. 

Then the higher level priests used to think that the dog star sirius is their God. This star is very important for many reasons. It is the brightest star in the sky, and all calendars and fertility are linked to it. In ancient Egypt it represented ISIS in gemeni (hence the obsession with twin towers), while being a straight line from the belt of Orion. Anyway, so the higher level satanics in certain hierarchies of secret societies, and ancient satanic societies would worship stars this way. And then the highest levels would worship Satan directly. (So in this case the higher level echelons know about the flat Earth, and are on purpose deceiving us 'peasants' under specific orders) Satan lingers in the dark. In the shadows. He sees you from where you don't see him. So only very few initiated people from among his family and soldiers deal with him and his generals directly. Even they are being tricked by the way. So, anyway Alister Crowly fell in that trap and basically went mad! 

And this man is basically the base of todays' mainstream science, culture and religion. 

Crowley's beliefs played a role in inspiring Tim Leary's role in the civil rights movement. I wasn't saying it was comparable to Islam. Islam is about submission to a higher power, which is at odds with the luciferian doctrine.

The dominant culture of the Western empire is based on Christo-fascist beliefs like the ones observed in America and in Germany in the early 20th century. They believe in God, but they also claim that their imperialism is God's will, and the heathens need to be subjugated and burned alive. This was the idea behind the crusades, inquisitions, holocaust, Jim Crow era, slavery, Iraq war and beyond, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

why did your way of thinking lead you to personally accept that

I investigate every point that made me think the Earth was a ball, and listened to the arguments from both sides. Then I felt personally that one side has a much stronger evidence base. Then I checked the Qur'an hadiths Bible etc and felt the same way there.

 

Ok all the best bye

Edited by 313 Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MuhammadFreeman said:

Crowley's beliefs played a role in inspiring Tim Leary's role in the civil rights movement. I wasn't saying it was comparable to Islam. Islam is about submission to a higher power, which is at odds with the luciferian doctrine.

The dominant culture of the Western empire is based on Christo-fascist beliefs like the ones observed in America and in Germany in the early 20th century. They believe in God, but they also claim that their imperialism is God's will, and the heathens need to be subjugated and burned alive. This was the idea behind the crusades, inquisitions, holocaust, Jim Crow era, slavery, Iraq war and beyond, etc

I think that is what the peasants believe. But the higher ranking folk were always into paganism and Satanism from what I see. Crowly revolutionized the thinking of the lower class and moved them away from the basic tenants of Christianity that they thought they were implementing. Now so a result most Americans don't even go to church or care about Chastity etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article I posted earlier was 'stolen' (likely?). This is the original article: https://www.iqraonline.net/how-shaykh-Yusuf-al-baḥrani-argued-for-a-flat-Earth/

Credit where credit is due.

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@313 Seeker Points 3 and 8 address my adversity to accepting conspiracy theories as worthwhile discussion. But, I would just like to tack on my own sentiment here that I can't prove in any meaningful way that I know of. This discussion does not look at secular agendas through an overarching academic theory. It's simply pseudo-science and conspiracy for the sake of possibility. This type of speculation doesn't lead us anywhere.  On the contrary, for example, a discussion on International Relations would include arguments from theories of Realism(s), Liberalism(s), Constructivism(s), Post-Structuralism(s), etc. This allows for meaningful deliberation on the reasoning behind agendas. In this case, we learn something. Flat Earth allows for contrived arguments that lead us nowhere. Anyways, on with my actual post:

1) Faking videos (unlike photographs) is incredibly difficult. My generation has a good grasp of video production & editing, and it's limits. Your generation thinks it's magic, and have fantastical ideas of what it's like [Apologies, but this is true by and large]. Youngers' immediately spot fake videos, and bad photoshops. When I test older folks, they always fail to see it. They lack a solid frame of reference for what is or isn't doctored pictures/videos.

2) How do you explain Weather Balloon videos (especially the homemade ones)? Search it on Youtube. There are 360 degree videos too, where you can pan the screen around.

3) Global 'conspiracies' are largely impossible, whereas Global 'agendas' are largely possible. Why would there be a spherical Earth conspiracy? What is there to gain? What purpose does it serve? Global agendas, however, may serve elitist (e.g. UN), statist, corporatist, imperialist, globalist, etc., goals/interests. And in such scenarios, it is reasonable to think that scientists are being paid off, thus ruining the findings of others (I explain myself better here). Note that when I say this, I don't mean that the fringe scientific journals are paid off. I also don't mean that there is only an agenda once it penetrates mainstream scientific journals.

4) How would all types of scientists, mathematicians, and academics have independently reached the spherical Earth conclusion. How come lay people are able to observably tell for themselves that the Earth is spherical using their works?

5)

On 3/26/2020 at 6:30 PM, 313 Seeker said:

You and I differ that I believe it's possible to have such a huge conspiracy, while you think it's too big to be a conspiracy.

It isn't just too big, it's impossibly big.

6) 

On 3/26/2020 at 6:30 PM, 313 Seeker said:

I think everybody can be wrong, and that all the systems and info we are given could be wrong.

This is useless. It allows for the possibility of any contrived argument to be taken as the truth.

7) The annoying thing about flat earthers, is that the arguments often call for reverse burden of proof. E.g. "Satellites don't necessarily prove a round Earth". But, we don't know of any way they would work without a round Earth, and they were designed for a round Earth in mind. The onus is on you to explain satellites in a flat Earth model. [I think I am explaining this poorly still, haha]

8) As an aside, please tell me that you do not mention your belief to non-Muslims and non-Shias.They'll be mocking us  :discussion:

9) Back to business, please read this, it unintentionally reflects the way I am thinking surprisingly closely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_Earth_is_not_flat. I guess I'm "academically conservative" like Wikipedia. I also guess I'm insulting myself by saying that :grin:

Please read the whole thing (I read it all) but I would like to highlight a few quotes... Edit: Ok, I basically ended up posting the 10 arguments verbatim, though I did bold some stuff. Oops :worried:. I will post it in two different posts, so that this one isn't too long. Note: This is in no way an authoritative source. It is a talk page made by laypeople. Although it's addressed to Wikipedia editors, there are parallels with this discussion as well.

Quote

Wikipedia is not worried per se about whether the theory that the Earth is flat is true. There must be current, reliable and independent sources substantiating claims that the Earth is flat. But there are no such sources that are current (almost no scientists have thought the Earth was flat since about the fourth century BC), that are reliable (reliable sources are reviewed for accuracy), or independent (a journal published by a Flat Earth Society would not be independent. [An independent source is one that has no interest, ideological, financial or otherwise, in preferring one view over another].)

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents.

[...] Some marginal theories are fringe science and some are pseudo-science, but Wikipedia is not in the business of calling the shots as to where these stand except where reliable sources clarify those differences. Thus, Wikipedia is academically conservative, as is fitting for a standard reference work. 

Quote

Occasionally, civic-minded Wikipedia editors must act to mitigate, redesign, and sometimes destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular 'breakthrough' or 'notable' or 'controversial' idea or theory deserves more consideration than it has received in the academic world. Since Wikipedia is an open project that "anyone can edit", good editors don't take such encounters personally. They do not automatically view supporters of fringe theories as "the enemy". They know that sometimes these fallacies are propagated not out of malice, but ignorance. Humans are fallible creatures, and there are many more ways to be wrong than right. Science is stodgy, typically not glamorous, and entails hard work.

By contrast, speculation on "amazing new ideas" is stimulating, easy, and fun. It's more exciting to see yourself as a re-discoverer of ancient truths or in the vanguard of a revolutionary scientific breakthrough. Belonging to a small club with a particular belief can be very fulfilling. [...] In addition, popular culture can often confuse the general public with uncritical or credulous presentations of such concepts on the internet, in books, radio talk shows, TV, news, and films. It's little wonder that Wikipedia attracts individuals who feel the encyclopedia should include sympathetic coverage of these types of subjects.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ten types of arguments:
1. Personalisation 
Examples... Your bias against the Earth being flat is too strong to be objective. Your arguments against the flat Earth theory so resemble the arguments of editor X that you must be their sockpuppet. The flat Earth article is being degraded by those who don't like the flat Earth theory. Ignoring users with differing opinions does nothing to help the further development of this page.
How to recognise...
Personalisation is easily the most common form of attack on neutrally-minded editors. Personalisation is ignoring the basis for inclusion altogether, and making the argument personal. For example, they argue that an editor is biased towards the mainstream, or that editors are ganging up because their arguments are so similar (even though they would be similar – the main argument against the Earth being flat is topographical, and it is hard to argue against it without repeating the argument). Or they may claim that to disagree with an editor with a fringe agenda is claimed to be uncivil, a personal attack (violation of No personal attacks), a violation of Do not bite the newcomers or a violation of Assume good faith. It may even be claimed that sources that disagree with the fringe point of view cannot be used if they reflect poorly on any living people who are proponents of the fringe point of view (such as critical book reviews, etc).
How to reply...
Ignore any personal attack altogether – and particularly do not make a personal attack yourself, however tempting it may be. Also try to ignore the arguments and reasons used by mainstream science itself. Your opponents will love this and turn the talk page into a battlefield of competing claims and counterclaims. Simply stick to the principles: if mainstream science holds that the Earth is round, and there are reliable sources establishing this as a fact, that is sufficient.

2. Sourcing
Examples... Essex local authorities trained employees in flat Earth theory in 1993. The statement that the Earth is flat is reliably sourced from Flat Earth magazine, which is peer-reviewed by top flat Earth experts. There are published sources (including PubMed) that back up the view that people use Flat Earth theory as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses. How do you explain the excellent [sic] results which the US Army gets by using techniques which are talked about in Flat Earth literature? If it's a bunch of hogwash, then the TRADOC's results should be in shambles. Instead, we have the most successful, motivated force on the planet. Since established scientists attended a flat-Earth conference, it follows they take the theory seriously.
How to recognise...
After you have insisted on the use of reliable sources, supporters of the marginal view will then try to exploit the definition of 'reliable source'. They will argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think-tanks rather than from the scientific literature. Occasionally, they will discover that they can get more attention if they make appeals to authority by presenting supporters who have academic credentials. Typical pseudoscience sources include: Dedicated websites. Dedicated periodicals. Self-published sources. Publications made outside the typical scientific presses. In-house journals (The Flat Earth Institute's Journal not to be confused with academic journals). Occasional peer-reviewed articles – often in more obscure journals.
How to reply...
The best sources to use when describing fringe theories or determining their notability and prominence are independent reliable sources. It's impossible to write a balanced article or describe a fringe theory in an objective way if the sources being used have a stake in promoting a specific fringe theory. Independent sources are also necessary to determine the relationship of a fringe theory to mainstream scholarly discourse. And arguments for inclusion of fringe theories based on a proponent's credentials alone are unwarranted. Attempts to insert language that showcases a proponent's academic degrees or honorification should be treated as promotionalism.

3. Balance
Examples... You must not say 'the Earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat Earth theory, the Earth is not flat'. There should be no criticism of the flat Earth theory in the introduction to the article. There is already criticism of the theory in the article, section 94. So what if the article on flat Earth theory is 250k, and the round Earth article only 8k? The answer is not to fix the balance by writing less about the flat Earth, that only makes Wikipedia worse, but to add more information about the Earth being round. Is this an encyclopedia for academics or for the general public? Criticism of the flat Earth theory should be balanced by criticism of the round Earth theory. The article lead should begin with a pure definition. Criticism should come second, e.g.:"Flat Earth refers to the Earth's flat shape. Skeptics say the Earth is round."
How to recognise...
Even when supporters of fringe viewpoints recognise the mainstream view as mainstream and established, and agree that Wikipedia may state the mainstream view without qualification, they will still challenge the relative prominence accorded to the mainstream over the fringe viewpoint, and make all sorts of arguments about balance. It is often seriously claimed that the "N" in NPOV (Neutral point of view) means that no negative or critical or mainstream material can appear at all in the article, since it is not neutral, or that Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and so advocates of 'scientific points of view' should not overstate their case. It is claimed that the reader will not understand the idea unless it is described without criticism, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public, not a technical journal. Reversing this argument, they will state that readers are smart enough to know that fringe ideas are nonsense without including any negative or critical material or sources. They will propose that negative material be forked off into another article, or relegated into a "criticism ghetto" or criticism section or removed from the Lead section. They may argue that one must always state the idea first before criticizing it, or that any sources that disagree with the fringe point of view cannot be used since they violate the Neutral point of view. They may claim that any critical or negative material cannot appear in an article since it is biased. Or that any negative or critical material is unusable since it is just opinion and not fact. Some of them will even claim that there are no facts, arguing that if a fringe minority, not present in any reliable sources, disagrees with a widely accepted fact, it violates Neutral point of view to state it as a fact in the article. They may demand that every statement of fact should be attributed, no matter how universally accepted.
How to reply...
At the root of these arguments are intentional (or unintentional) misinterpretations of Neutral point of view, particularly undue weight, although certain kinds of deliberate pettifogging can also be a sign of gaming the system. See #6 below, "Gaming".

4. Conspiracy
Examples... The flat Earth theory has been marginalised by the scientific establishment in order to protect its interests. Any scientist who tried to study flat Earth theory would lose his research funding. Dissent is being suppressed by the scientific establishment. Rosencrantz was tremendously rude about scientists who claimed the Earth was round. If the scientific establishment has marginalized him this is not really surprising. As a professional astronomer you have a clear conflict of interest. X, Y and Z are hard-line skeptics about flat-Earthism. They often publish in skeptics magazines and take a hard line with any approach to any theory which is not empirically verified. The scientific establishment (peer-reviewed journals, universities) are trying to suppress the Truth about flat Earth theory; they refuse to allow flat Earth papers at conferences and will not publish flat Earth research.
How to recognise...
The next tactic is to appeal to your ideas about free speech and distrust of censorship and the establishment. All theories that are not generally accepted have a part of the theory devoted to explaining why this is. Fringe theories are no exception. They will claim that the scientific establishment is afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the truth. This is classic conspiracy theory. Their theory is not accepted because the black suits in the Scientific Establishment are not concerned about the pursuit of truth, but are much more concerned about not rocking the boat in order to protect their vested interests. The round-Earth theorists have the backing of the major media who also have vested interests which they must protect. This explains why the discoveries of 'edges' round the Earth into which planes have gone missing, reports of travelers who have looked into the abyss, are receiving no coverage whatsoever by the major newspapers or the major TV networks. Thus, it is claimed that trying to balance positive content with negative content for due weight is censorship. It is claimed that there is a conspiracy against the fringe position and anyone who opposes an uncritical article about the fringe position is in on the conspiracy, has been bought off, is breaking the rules of Wikipedia, is just plain evil, etc. It is claimed that any source that has not written articles that are supportive and uncritical of fringe positions are not suitable as tertiary sources. For example, recently at a controversial article, it was once argued 'Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because (to my knowledge) they haven't written anything pro-X, and hence really can't be considered third party.'
How to reply...
The easiest reply to these arguments is to humour them. You can agree to their ludicrous claims, but point out that Wikipedia is not here to right wrongs, or address grievances. Point out (see above) that if Wikipedia had been around at the time of Galileo, it would have had a duty to report the claims of the Catholic church as fact, without qualification, despite the conspiracy that undoubtedly existed.

5. Reversed burden of proof
Examples... X's paper on 'scientific fallacies' contains only passing reference to the 'flat Earth fallacy'. WP:NPOV says "Even with well-sourced material ... if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research." "You are taking lack of discussion of whether the Earth is flat as evidence an author picks a side on the issue.... The evidence we should consider are those who consider the Earth is flat, and those who explicitly reject this view. Sources that remain silent on the issue should be discarded." There is no reliable source for the statement that 'flat-Earthism has entirely been ignored by reliable sources'. The statement 'there is no scientific consensus for the flat-Earth view' has no scientific consensus. There has been no serious study of whether the Earth is flat since 1493.[Yes, as all pedants know, they already knew the Earth was round before 1493.] Therefore we cannot claim in Wikipedia that Earth is not flat, only that a study in 1493 came to this conclusion. X's statement "Informal soundings amongst scientists revealed an almost total absence of awareness of the flat Earth theory" is mere opinion. X is using personal experience as evidence. This is not a scientific evidence and is therefore mere opinion. You can't say "modern geologists reject Rosencranz's theories." Very few scholars have even read Rosencranz or care, so don't extrapolate that to the whole field as if they have rigorously investigated his work as a group. (recently from Ancient astronauts) "Prove that there are no ______." You can't prove that there are none, only that we haven't found one yet.
How to recognise...
We move to the most powerful weapon in the fringe armoury: the argument from reversed burden of proof. Instead of them having to prove that their view is supported by reliable and independent sources, they will shift the burden of proof over to you, so you have to prove either that their view is not supported, or even that it is refuted by reliable and independent sources. This is difficult for two reasons. First, it is always difficult to prove a negative existential statement (which is in effect a claim about everything there is). Second, because science generally ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific.
How to reply...
This argument is often difficult to address. However, you should always recognise the shifting of the burden for what it is, the second that ball comes thundering down the court at 80 mph. Slam it back. Insist that the burden is theirs. "When two or more theories are in competition, it is common for one of them to be treated as the established position – the default option, as it were – and the others to be treated as challengers. A challenging theory is normally expected to bear the burden or onus of proof. In other words, advocates of the challenging theory are expected to provide highly convincing evidence and arguments before the theory can be taken seriously. To use a different metaphor, it is assumed that the established theory has jumped over a very high hurdle to gain its leading position and that any challenger must jump over an equally high hurdle before being in contention for the remainder of the race."[6]. Also, in such cases it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources. Although most of these sources will not be peer-reviewed simply because science tends to ignore pseudoscience, they are still independent. Thus, the following are reliable sources for describing pseudoscience: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. Skeptic's Dictionary. Skeptical Inquirer. talk.origins archive. Bad Astronomy. Quackwatch. Mainstream media reports. Skeptical scientists speaking extemporaneously (whether it be in person, letters, personal websites, blogs, etc.). Statements from scientific societies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

6. Gaming
Examples... The statement 'The Earth is round' has reliable sources in scientific literature. The statement 'If the X is round, X is not flat' is a valid inference that can be sourced from any reliable logic textbook. But 'The Earth is not flat', while a conclusion validly yielded by these two reliably-sourced premises, is a violation of WP:SYNTH: "Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research". One should use only primary sources. Relying on secondary sources is POV. Words like "alleged", "supposed", and "purported" when used to describe the characteristics of the Flat Earth are WP:WTA and unduly prejudice the reader against the subject. Words that can be interpreted ambiguously by the reader (such as "apparent") are better suited to a neutral presentation.
How to recognise...
You have kept the marginal and fringe viewpoint at bay for some months or years. But now they have got wise, and expert in the ways of Wikipedia. They have read the policies carefully, and have worked out the various loopholes in it, and the endless games they can play with it. They now claim that only the proponents of the FRINGE position understand NPOV or NOR or RS, not the experienced editors with tens of thousands of edits, and FAs and GAs to their credit. They will 'wikilawyer' to try to redefine a FRINGE position as nonFRINGE, or the mainstream position as the FRINGE position instead. They will attempt to use mainly primary sources, and to reject secondary and tertiary sources, or to redefine the preferences for secondary and tertiary sources in policy. Worst of all, it is now many months since you tidied up the article. You have no inherent interest in the Flat Earth theory, and you have moved on to another area of pseudoscience (let's say the Geocentric theory). But the Flat Earth supporters are interested in nothing else than their pet theory. They will come back when you are gone and revert when you do not notice. The arguments that you successfully rebutted and dismissed, sometimes with extensive references, will be repeated over and over and over, sometimes just with a cut and paste approach. Sometimes they will be presented by the same person dozens and dozens of times over days and weeks and months. They will try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that 'it is verifiable, so it should be in'. They repeatedly use the talk page for soapboxing, or to re-raise the same issues that have already been discussed numerous times. They hang around forever wearing down more serious editors and become expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They will make a series of silly and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration again to try to wear you down. They will add [citation needed] tags repeatedly to well-known material, or material that is fully referenced on wikilinked articles that discuss that point in more detail. Assorted templates branding the article are thrown on the article repeatedly, such as the claim that an NPOV dispute is going on, when it is more accurate to describe the discussion as revolving around some editor's idiosyncratic interpretation of NPOV to satisfy their own personal agenda. Accusations that a group editing the article own the article since they will not change the consensus to satisfy one malcontent are common.
How to reply...
If you are unable to discourage a fringe advocate from willfully and knowingly misusing policy you might seek support from the community via mediation or arbitration. However, many fringe advocates thrive on the increased attention and actually welcome these forums as a soapbox from which to further argue their viewpoint. Finding themselves in the spotlight, it is not unusual for dedicated fringe advocates to suddenly disavow any former or present interest/connection with the subject of their advocacy ("Gosh, I don't believe the Earth is flat, I'm just here to uphold NPOV") and profess that they are only fighting "for the good of Wikipedia". The risks of continued involvement with disputes that escalate to this level should be carefully considered, especially if accompanied by obsessive/compulsive behavior.

7. Amenability
Examples... The flat Earth theory is not amenable to scientific approaches and methods. Flat-Earth theorists are pragmatic. They are not interested in what is 'true', they are interested in 'what works'. Rosencrantz never claimed nor explicitly stated that the Flat Earth Theory is a 'science'. 
How to recognise...
Another way of evading NPOV is to avoid the requirement for reliable sourcing altogether. They will claim that the view in question is simply not amenable to scientific treatment. Source X was from a scientific journal, it attempted to address the Flat Earth theory in a way that science could deal with it. But Flat Earth theory is not amenable to scientific treatment. Source X misunderstood what the theory was really saying. The Flat Earth theory is not something that is really a 'fact' in the scientific sense. (See the archived talk pages of the article Neuro-linguistic programming for endless repetitions and varieties of this argument). Or they claim that writing material using facts in the same context as in reliable sources violates NPOV since they are following a "narrative", and we must instead choose facts which no source describes as relevant to allow our readers to decide which "narrative" should be chosen.
How to reply...
Stick to your guns. This is merely a philosophically naive means of evading justification and substantiation. All theories make claims of some sort, otherwise they would not have 'proponents' (a proponent literally 'puts forward' a certain view that is susceptible of truth or falsity). The Flat Earth theory claims that the Earth is flat, not round. That is a statement with a binary truth-value. And it is capable of confirmation or refutation, it is verifiable. For example, topography (measuring the distances between defined points on the Earth's surface) shows the shape of the Earth. Therefore, the theory is amenable to scientific treatment.

8. Special pleading
Examples... Scientist X, who claimed the flat Earth theory was nonsense, clearly had not read the literature on the flat Earth theory. Scientist X was not trained in flat Earth theory, and therefore could not make an expert judgment. The criticisms made by scientist X were valid only against Rosencrantz' version of the flat Earth theory, long since outmoded. They fail to address Guildenstern's improved version of the theory. Your arguments assume there is a mainstream flat Earth view. There is no mainstream 'flat Earth' view, therefore your criticisms are misplaced. You haven't read any of Rosencrantz' work. 
How to recognise...
Special pleading is when the advocates of a fringe viewpoint argue that you have no expertise in the theory (which may, they argue, take years to fully master). You do not understand the theory, and therefore you cannot make your claims. Another version of this argument is to claim there are many different types of the theory, and that while version X and version Y are clearly nonsense, the most recent version Z (which of course you have never heard of) is scientifically impeccable. They may even claim there is no such 'version' of the theory, and that you are attacking a straw man.
How to reply...
The only people qualified enough to understand flat Earth theory are those who just happen to support flat Earth theory? Ridiculous. Advocates, promoters, and self proclaimed "flat Earth theory experts" are not independent, objective sources of fact about whether or not the Earth is flat, or whether or not flat Earth theory is valid. Also bear in mind that any "new and improved" versions of flat Earth theory must be notable enough to have attracted review and comment by independent, objective sources.

9. Controversy
Examples... The flat Earth theory is clearly controversial. This is proof that scientists take it seriously. The more controversial or fringe a subject, the less the article should tell the reader what to believe. The reader should be allowed to make up his/her own mind concerning the subject. e.g.: "Flat Earthism is a highly controversial subject, and its scientific validity is often questioned."
How to recognise...
Although supporters of the marginal view cannot overcome Wikipedia policies, they will try to distort and alter an article's language in a way that represents their view as less marginal. The most well-known and often-used tactic is to claim that their viewpoint is 'controversial', as though there were a minority but substantial view held by serious scientists or academics, actively engaged by the mainstream, and which is reported as controversial by reliable source. They will try to exploit equivocation in the description of pseudoscience. For example, instead of simply stating: "the Flat Earth theory violates the known laws of geometry", a proponent may argue for the equivocal statement: "some geometers claim that the Flat Earth theory violates the known laws of geometry", perhaps adding "but there is considerable controversy over the matter."
How to reply...
Pseudoscience should not be described on its own terms. The goal of writing an article on pseudoscience should be to present the ideas that are most commonly seen in relation to that pseudoscientific idea. This means that when writing an article on pseudoscience, popularity of ideas is a major rationale for inclusion or exclusion. Obscure iterations of pseudoscience should be eliminated, even if so-called "experts" in the subject believe such ideas to be of the utmost importance. The best way to write an article on pseudoscience is to approach it from the perspective of what topics are most prevalent in the popular culture about the subject. All claims that are made about observable reality which are directly contradicted by mainstream science must be represented as such. Per the rules of reliable sourcing and not unduly weighting fringe opinions, an article about a mainstream topic should marginalize all related pseudoscience topics relative to the prominence seen in secondary and tertiary sources about the mainstream topic. A pseudoscientific topic should not be mentioned in an article about a mainstream topic unless there are independent mainstream sources that connect the topics. For example, there are plenty of mainstream sources which describe how astronomy is not astrology, and so a decent article on the former may mention the latter. However, there are no mainstream sources about special relativity which also mention autodynamics, and so a decent article on the former should not mention the latter. This approach is outlined in the guideline WP:ONEWAY. If it is deemed necessary to exclude pseudoscience from a certain article, there should not even be a link through a see also section. Often pseudoscience articles must link to science articles. Rarely will science articles link to pseudoscience articles. That is the principle of one-way linking.

10. But some of the theory is true
Example... Rosencrantz claimed many times that the sky is blue, that grass is green. These facts are well-established by reliable sources. 
How to recognise...
The last weapon in the pseudoscience arsenal is something you cannot deny: parts of the theory may be true. Proponents will ignore the many bogus and patently untrue claims of the theory, and perhaps not even mention them in the article, but will go on at length about the parts of the theory that are true. Often these are platitudinous, or are statements that are better and more clearly covered in reliable sources. Worse, they will cite reliable sources which make these true claims, but which do not mention the fringe theory, as though they supported the theory.
How to reply...
Rosencrantz may have said that the sky is blue and grass is green but he most likely isn't considered an authority or reliable source for such information. Attention to such details is only warranted if there is significant third-party coverage of them.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maddal Ard

Madad: He drew it;pulled it;strained it; extended it by drawing or pulling; stretched it.

http://lexicon.quranic-research.net/data/24_m/040_md.html

 Mountain: landform that rises prominently above its surroundings. Very rarely do mountains occur individually.In most cases they are found in elongated ranges or chains. When an array of such ranges is linked together it constitutes a mountain belt. A mountain belt is many tens to hundreds of kilometers wide and hundreds to thousands of kilometers long.

Rivers: Most rivers begin life as a tiny stream running down mountain slope. They are fed by melting snow and ice, or rainwater running off the land. The water follows crack and folds in the land as it flows downhill.

All the following verses in the Qur'an describe how the mountains were established and rivers were formed  over the land in the Earth.

All verses below  indicate the  relationship between the ‘Maddal Ard” and setting up of the mountains

It is he who stretched out the land and placed in it firm mountains and rivers.. 13:3

And the land we stretched out it and cast in it firm mountains… 15:19

And the land, We stretched  it out  and cast in it firm  mountains and We have made to grow therein of all beautiful kinds 50:7

So the mountains were placed in a stretched out land.

What I understood from the above verses  is that  Initially total land spread over the Earth was having the plain surface.Then gaps  were formed by stretching out  of the land  from two sides of the size of the length and width of the mountain belts and in those gaps  mountains were set from the top.

And he placed in it (Earth) mountains from above it. 41:10

When the excitement of water subsided under the Earth's sides and under the weight of the high and lofty mountains placed on its shoulders, Allah flowed springs of water from its high tops and distributed them through plains and low places and moderated their movement by fixed rocks and high mountain tops. Then its trembling came to a standstill because of the penetration of mountains in (various) parts of its surface and their being fixed in its deep areas, and their standing on its plains. Sermon 91, Nahjul Balagha.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't this sum up flat-earthers well? :

This is implicit in all flat Earth claims...

Quote

Modern proponents of flat-Earth cosmology (or flat-Earthers) refuse to accept any kind of contrary evidence, dismissing all spaceflights and images from space as hoaxes and accusing all organizations and even private citizens of conspiring to "hide the truth". They also claim that no actual satellites are orbiting the Earth, that the International Space Station is fake, and that these are lies from all governments involved in this grand cover-up.

What they believe...

Quote

Adherents of the modern flat-Earth model propose that a dome-shaped firmament encloses a disk-shaped Earth. They may also claim, after Samuel Rowbotham, that the Sun is only 3,000 miles above the Earth and that the Moon and the Sun orbit above the Earth rather than around it. Modern flat-Earthers believe that Antarctica is not a continent but a massive ice flow, with a wall 150 feet or higher, which circles the perimeter of the Earth and keeps everything (including all the oceans' water) from falling off the edge.

Flat-Earthers also assert that no one is allowed to fly over or explore Antarctica, despite contrary evidence. According to them, all photos and videos of ships sinking under the horizon and of the bottoms of city skylines and clouds below the horizon, revealing the curvature of the Earth, have been manipulated, CGI, or somehow faked. Therefore, regardless of any scientific or empirical evidence provided, flat-Earthers stubbornly conclude that it is fabricated or altered in some way.[42]

When linked to other observed phenomena such as gravity, sunsets, tides, eclipses, distances and other measurements that challenge the flat Earth model, claimants replace commonly-accepted explanations with piecemeal models that distort or over-simplify how perspective, mass, buoyancy, light or other physical systems work.[43] These piecemeal replacements rarely conform with each other, finally leaving many flat-Earth claimants to agree that such phenomena remain "mysteries" and more investigation is to be done. In this conclusion, adherents remain open to all explanations except the commonly accepted globular Earth model, shifting the debate from ignorance to denialism.[44]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Flat_Earth

Edited by AmirioTheMuzzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to consider:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Quote

The earliest documentation of a spherical Earth comes from the Ancient Greeks (5th century BC).[4][5] Since the 600s AD,[6] scholars have supported that view, and by the Early Middle Ages (700-1500 AD), virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint.

[...] According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[8] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[9]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 12:45 AM, MuhammadFreeman said:

Crowley's beliefs played a role in inspiring Tim Leary's role in the civil rights movement. I wasn't saying it was comparable to Islam. Islam is about submission to a higher power, which is at odds with the luciferian doctrine.

The dominant culture of the Western empire is based on Christo-fascist beliefs like the ones observed in America and in Germany in the early 20th century. They believe in God, but they also claim that their imperialism is God's will, and the heathens need to be subjugated and burned alive. This was the idea behind the crusades, inquisitions, holocaust, Jim Crow era, slavery, Iraq war and beyond, etc

No it most definitely is not. The current West is a million miles away from the Legion of the Archangel Michael in Romania in the 1920s and 1930s, and very far removed from the Salaazar regime in Portugal which lasted into the 1970s. Evangelical Protestants by the way do not have the power that a lot of people ascribe to them- just look at their utter failure to overturn the Roe versus Wade decision on abortion. The dominant culture today in the West is nihilistic capitalist greed which is why you have things like "gay marriage" which could not be dreamed of under actual "Christo-Fascism". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Celtic Twilight said:

No it most definitely is not. The current West is a million miles away from the Legion of the Archangel Michael in Romania in the 1920s and 1930s, and very far removed from the Salaazar regime in Portugal which lasted into the 1970s. Evangelical Protestants by the way do not have the power that a lot of people ascribe to them- just look at their utter failure to overturn the Roe versus Wade decision on abortion. The dominant culture today in the West is nihilistic capitalist greed which is why you have things like "gay marriage" which could not be dreamed of under actual "Christo-Fascism". 

Nihilistic capitalist greed is not at odds with the Christo-fascists though. The key conflict with regards to understanding US foreign policy in the Middle East is the Palestine-Israel conflict. Here, I've talked to missionaries myself who cite Israeli foreign policy as proof of Biblical predictions coming to fruition. Biblical arguments are indeed at the center of the colonization of Palestine, the plunder of their resources, and the displacement of thousands of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Arab residents.

George Bush himself stated that he had the okay from God to invade Iraq, costing a million lives. No man in America has ever become President by claiming a religion other than the faith of the crusaders. Even Barack Obama with his Muslim ancestors had to distance himself from the faith out of fear, to be accused of being a Muslim in America is similar to being accused of being a Jew by the Gestapo: You will never become President unless you defend yourself from such a heinous accusation. Again, this has roots in the crusades and Christo-fascism.

Many American corporations like IBM, Bayer, etc as well as key American idols like Henry Ford (whom several hospitals here in Michigan are named after), were more than just sympathetic to the Nazis, encouraging them. After WW2 Nazi scientists and propaganda artists were rescued from the Nuremberg Trials and given a home in America under Operation Paperclip, where the Americans could learn from their practices and which is also why around this time period Hollywood starts being notoriously anti-Muslim and anti-Russian. The Zionist state was actually pushed at the same time America was denying entry to Jewish refugees and refusing to give them visas, because the West didn't want the Jews in the West, they wanted to send them somewhere far enough. Again, rooted in Christo-fascism. The British national newspaper The Daily Mail also supported Nazis for the longest time. They were fine with Nazi propaganda leading to hate crimes against Jews in America and the rest of the west, like mob violence, but when the Japanese struck them it was war with the "Japs".

It's more okay to be Jewish than it is to be Muslim in America, but at the end of the day, neither religion finds favor in the eyes of the Christo-fascists. I have personally heard American boomers say that Palestinians are being punished for not following the right religion.

Oh yeah, another key point: Vicarious Redemption. A very Christian concept where you can be redeemed vicariously. You are absolved of personal sin through human sacrifice of another. This has been central to a lot of American policy, mainly use of collective punishment, like Agent Orange or nuclear weapons on foreign countries to make sure the DNA of their offspring is mutated. The word Holocaust actually comes from the Bible, it's a Hebrew word meaning sacrificial burnt offering, used in the context of the Cain and Abel story. This is why if you look at Bartelome des Casas paintings about how America dealt with the Natives, and also later with the African Americans, when they tied them up and burned them alive. It's a form of sacrifice. Genesis itself says that God finds the smell of burning flesh pleasing to the Lord (Gen 8:21). Of course, we know the real God doesn't like any of this, but the Christians had to justify that it is the case through a comedy of mistranslations, giving colonizers the green light.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...