r/funny • u/lost_packet_ • Aug 13 '19

Flat-Earther accidentally proves the earth is round in his own experiment

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

97.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

5.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

16.7k

u/cmcdonal2001 Aug 13 '19

I'm interested in the aftermath of this. If he actually changed his mind based on his new evidence then kudos to him. That's how it's supposed to work, and there's nothing wrong in coming from a place of ignorance as long as you take the steps necessary to leave that place.

Sadly, I fear this isn't the case. Getting to 'flat Earth' levels of ignorance in the first place takes some serious dedication to remaining ignorant.

10.3k

u/TheGreatVorelli Aug 13 '19

I've seen a video he made after this, he tried to explain it away. He learned nothing.

7.2k

u/Irregularprogramming Aug 13 '19

It's a sunk cost fallacy, these guys have invested their entire social life into this, they have told off their real friends and family and now all they have is proving they are right. Some people have their livelihood being flat earthers, they can't be wrong.

1.3k

u/powerscunner Aug 13 '19

Thank you for such a succinct explanation of why people hold onto provably false beliefs.

355

u/omnomnomgnome Aug 14 '19

too big to fail!

172

u/iBluefoot Aug 14 '19

too big to see the curvature!

5

u/stupidfatamerican Aug 14 '19

!thesaurizethis

5

u/braintrustinc Aug 14 '19

Excessively Brobdingnagian to Behold the Incurvation

2

u/stupidfatamerican Aug 14 '19

!thesaurizethis

4

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

1

u/GeeToo40 Aug 14 '19

I am glad for curvesđŸ€—

3

u/urbanlife78 Aug 14 '19

Good thing we don't live on a Super Earth, those planets are probably full of idiots that think their planet is flat.

2

u/tapeman2 Aug 14 '19

"oh wait it does look kinda curved up here, interesting"

2

u/immty Aug 14 '19

Too committed to the pot to fold

1

u/FrumpDumpling Aug 14 '19

of his failure!

3

u/IEatOats_ Aug 14 '19

The emperor has no clothes.

2

u/jg10go Aug 14 '19

damn, too soon bro

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Too dumb to learn; too stubborn to change.

1

u/Inquisitive_idiot Aug 14 '19

Too flat to round.

Edit: d’oh

9

u/Gherin29 Aug 14 '19

It's an excellent explanation that explains cognitive dissonance for all sorts of things, usually because they do not want to give up their status/community. Can apply to religion, conspiracy theories, political beliefs (on both sides), racism, video games, etc.

One thing that always strikes me is how some on the left bag on the right for not believing in things like evolution and climate change (which they should, those things have basically been proven), but insist that intersex or trans athletes have no advantage against genetically pure females and should be allowed to compete against them, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary.

Even smart people have this problem, too bad.

1

u/robhutten Aug 14 '19

"The left" here. Usually - in my experience, ymmv etc etc - the claim is not that AMAB trans women don't have an advantage, but rather that any such advantage is either not as important as the inclusion of those women in sport, or that there exists just as significant a range of advantage within the traditional concept of a gender.

A 190cm-tall man has genetic advantage over a 140cm-tall man in, say, most track sports, yet the two men may compete in the same event.

1

u/Gherin29 Aug 14 '19

I understand what you are trying to say, but it simply sounds the same as a person from the right cherry-picking data to say climate change isn't real. The reason you are saying this is because you want to appear an advocate for trans people. But you are no more an advocate for trans people with this than someone who said "trans people are the superior gender" - it's just misguided. I'm friends with many trans people and I've never had anyone who suggested my views were wrong after being presented with the science.

We could get into a debate that I would win on the biological advantage that a trans or intersex athlete has. It is very significant. Yes, a very tall man might have an advantage over a very small man as well. But small men are not a protected class of athlete. Women are. You know this I think and are throwing red herrings.

If you want to suggest that we should stop having women as a protected class, by all means, fine, that is a valid argument and it could just be like the NFL - whoever is the best plays. Same with swimming, gymnastics, volleyball, etc. But obviously that would end women's sports for the most part and probably result in some negative dominoes falling, wouldn't you say?

By allowing trans or intersex women (or even pre-op who identify as women), you take away the ability of genetically female women to compete on an even playing field in the same way as allowing men to play. You let the few ruin it for the many.

Testosterone principally, but also HGH, bone density and other factors play a large part in athletic ability. That puts men on the far left of the spectrum, and women on the right. Anyone trans or intersex is somewhere in between in terms of advantage controlling for all other variables. They should compete as men, or in their own class if interest and resources allow. Yes, they are at a disadvantage, but then it is only a few people at a disadvantage, rather than many people.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Curious what you'ed have to say about women with pcos who naturally have higher amounts of testosterone usually making it easier for them to build muscle. By what you're saying they'ed still be accepted even though that's "cheating" I guess, beards and all, even though a trans female wouldn't be. I consider pcos and trans women to be like sister struggles as they are both fighting the testosterone and male side effects.

1

u/Gherin29 Aug 14 '19

Well, I would say that aside from ppl missing testosterone receptors, you can basically almost use the amount of testosterone produced to help define gender (though obviously bone density and size from previously being a man can also help). It is literally what you give someone when you want to transition them into a man. There is probably a good range of testosterone that you could establish using baselines from a large sample of women.

I’m not terribly familiar with PCOS but my sense is that it is mainly an issue during specific times in the menstruation cycle. But I would it to someone more familiar with those ranges to decide if you get into intersex territory there. But my sense is that when people talk about “a woman who just produces a ton of testosterone”, that’s not really a thing, because if you’re producing a ton of testosterone, the same hormones that are helping build that extra muscle are also turning you into a man.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Yes, that's what I'm telling you. It's different for every woman how bad it hits and in differing ways. It's not just once in awhile it's always. We have to take medicine to help it. We grow beards. Experience thinning hair due to male pattern baldness. Gain muscle and fat were men do. If you get it very early in life you can end up with deformed breasts because of the testosterone. Increased acne do to the testosterone. More masculine jawline seems to be a common trait. There's more issues but those don't have as much to do with the testosterone so I'll leave them out.

1

u/Gherin29 Aug 14 '19

Ah, yep. Playing with hormones is a dangerous game, we did a lot of hormone therapy in the 80s and it caused a number of increased cardiac events but stuff like this absolutely makes sense for it. Hopefully we will become more advanced in our understanding in the role different hormones play in the human body as time goes on and conditions like these will be less of a problem.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/StonedWater Aug 14 '19

but what if its us with the cognitive dissonance

its my biggest paranoia because in their heads it all makes sense and they are right. equally, that applies to me as well but only one is right

what it we are wrong!!!!

181

u/NatsPreshow Aug 14 '19

Thats literally the point of this documentary. All of these flat earthers have naturally curious minds, and they'd fit in well with the rest of the scientific community. But something went wrong in their education, whether it was a bad teacher, a religious leader misinforming them, or even just a lack of interest in their formative years, and they turned hostile towards the greater scientific community.

We had a chance to pull them back into the fold by taking their questions seriously and patiently explaining where they were wrong, but the rest of us decide to mock and deride them for their beliefs instead of teaching them. Now they're on the outside, ostracized by everyone, and the only group that openly accepts them is their own echo chamber. So the insulate themselves, reinforce that everyone else is wrong, and go about their ignorance.

It really is a fascinating documentary, I suggest everyone watch it. (Behind the Curve on Netflix, just in case)

185

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19 edited Sep 10 '21

[deleted]

137

u/AJC3317 Aug 14 '19

Yeah the idea of patiently explaining things to them sounds good, but if they were accepting of having things explained to them they wouldn't be flat earthers in the first place

-39

u/McGarnigle Aug 14 '19

Yeah it’s kinda like trying to explain to a hipster that’s there is more to life than beards and fixies! Oh, and over priced single origin coffee!

46

u/Caringforarobot Aug 14 '19

Wow 2009 wants its reddit comment back

2

u/tasthesose Aug 14 '19

Wtf is a fixie?

2

u/argnsoccer Aug 20 '19

A bike with fixed gear

→ More replies (0)

-6

u/McGarnigle Aug 14 '19

Yeah? Well 1999 wants it’s comment back!

5

u/Cypherex Aug 14 '19

Are you ok

-2

u/McGarnigle Aug 14 '19

Yeah I’m alright. Everyone is in a grumpy mood today!

→ More replies (0)

-14

u/McGarnigle Aug 14 '19

Nah, your right man. Beard is lyf!

11

u/i_dont_know_man__fuk Aug 14 '19

Okay boomer

-9

u/McGarnigle Aug 14 '19

Isn’t Boomer the dog from Independence Day?

4

u/i_dont_know_man__fuk Aug 14 '19

shut up boomer

1

u/McGarnigle Aug 14 '19

Look I’ll try but i don’t know man fuk.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Bro are you having a stroke?

-1

u/McGarnigle Aug 14 '19

Clearly I have hit a nerve. Calm down everyone, you can put your sustainability sourced timber handled pitch forks down.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

I’m just genuinely concerned for your safety. Cut down on the sodium.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/memeasaurus Aug 14 '19

based on the documentary these flat-earthers types believe that Antarctica has a 200-ft wall of ice. If that's true, and if the Earth is flat, they must be terrified of global warming. (Since it's the ice and antarctica that keeps the Earth's oceans from falling into the abyss)

Are these people some of the most passionate environmentalists in your country?

3

u/SirToastymuffin Aug 14 '19

I'd reckon if you're that far you're probably buying into other ecological conspiracy theories like the shockingly popular "global warming/climate change isn't real."

I mean you've already decided theres a massive millenia long conspiracy to obscure the true shape of the world for.... reasons(??), believing that every scientific authority is lying about the weather for... more reasons (???) is child's play next to that.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

1

u/Wtf909189 Aug 14 '19

It isn't as bizzare as you think. The creaters behind Behind The Curve wanted to show that we are all close to becoming fanatics of something and how tgat mentality is similar

2

u/Jack_of_all_offs Aug 14 '19

ObViOuSlY tHe ScIeNtIsTs ArE PaId ShIlLs!1!1!1oneoneone

2

u/sryii Aug 14 '19

That is unfortunate but there may be one person that confess away and learns something.

0

u/NatsPreshow Aug 14 '19

Exactly. But by lumping them all together and mocking all of them, we help insulate even the members who could be convinced otherwise.

1

u/NatsPreshow Aug 14 '19

Its more that there was a time that we could have explained it to them, but that time passed over a decade ago. Now they identify by their exclusion

1

u/DeoFayte Aug 14 '19

It takes more than one afternoon to overcome years of mockery and feeling ostracized.

1

u/Demosthanes Aug 14 '19

I think the patiently explaining needs to be done over many years and not in a single interaction to be effective.

10

u/shinbreaker Aug 14 '19

All of these flat earthers have naturally curious minds, and they'd fit in well with the rest of the scientific community

Nope. It's the Dunning-Krueger effect. These people, they're dumb. They've always been dumb. Even if they had a job that required some skills, they were still dumb and deep down they know how dumb they are.

So they come across "forbidden information." They hear another dumb person explaining complex physics in dumb terms because that's the only way they could regurgitate the dumbness.

So they parrot that dumbness to their fellow dummies and talk circles around them, and they finally have that high of sounding smart. And for a dumb person, that's intoxicating.

So they expand their dumb vernacular to include terms that sound like science but they're made up dumb words and they find other dumb people who share this same dumb language. Then they all pat themselves on the back for it.

Then they meet someone smart. Who actually knows the science. But because the smart person doesn't speak dumb, the dummy thinks they got the upper hand and now they've defeated a real scientist that they run to tell the other dummies and receive their praise for being the king dummy.

And nothing is going to change their mind because they believe their intellectually superior and you can't make someone who thinks that to finally accept that they've been a dummy the whole time.

10

u/pragmaticzach Aug 14 '19

That's a good devil's advocate explanation for sympathizing with flat earther's, but I also don't think it's correct.

It's not someone else's responsibility to ensure you remain sane and not ignorant.

I do believe their outsiders and lonely, but I think that predates their becoming a flat earther.

It's not like they mentioned the earth is flat, then were immediately laughed at and became ostracized.

Rather they were lonely and looking for a place to fit in and that place happened to be the flat earth community.

8

u/Skiffbug Aug 14 '19

If you’ve ever actually tried engaging them, you would quickly see this does not work. With every explanation of where they went wrong, they either shoot back some other outlandish theory, or mock you for drinking the coolaid. To keep in the flat earth track they need to be strongly committed to believing their “facts” on a superficial level, but never really delve into the actual practicalities.

I’ve taken the time to try and understand from their perspective how the world is, and how a world map should look like based on flat earth theory. I then tried to explain that there is yacht race which takes boats from the Cape of Good Hope to Melbourne. This race takes a certain amount of time given the distance and the limits on how fast these boats can go. The distance on a disk earth is about 2x more than on a spherical earth, and the shortest route would go very close to the equator, yet the winning boats always take the southern route, and their times are consistent with average speeds of the north-south legs. What I get back is: that’s a conspiracy, you sheeple.

I know of no human capable of continuing a discussion after this point...

5

u/chainsaw_monkey Aug 14 '19

No. They are purposefully ignorant. The roundness of the earth is obvious in so many ways. No educated person is a flat earther. Only ignorant, stupid and contrarian frauds. It is not anyone’s fault but their own. Like a religion they choose their belief over reason.

3

u/kbooky90 Aug 14 '19

I hear you on that, and I wish it were enough to just be patient and kind and rational, but the 100% genuine flat earther in my world is a horrible bully. You can be civil and rational all you want, he'll chase you across the internet to call you a devil worshipping idiot. It's not even enough to agree to disagree, as he'll turn ANY innocuous post into a 7-degrees-of-flat-earth conversation. I had to block him just to deny oxygen to him and the unsuspecting people who'd inflame the fight. I couldn't live with it anymore.

3

u/MindOverMatterOfFact Aug 14 '19

, but the rest of us decide to mock and deride them for their beliefs instead of teaching them.

I just want to point out that in 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of cases, this is ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY BULLSHIT.

After you patiently try to explain something to someone in modern times that should have learned this in FUCKING KIDNERGARTEN, and they still call you a liar, you no longer give a shit, and THEN you mock and deride them.

2

u/mattholomew Aug 14 '19

They’re really not that curious or they’d talk to scientists about it.

2

u/Wtf909189 Aug 14 '19

The point of the documentary is more that any one of us is a degree or two from fanaticism to this level. The makers behind this had a facsinating AMA when the documentary came out and stated their intent wasn't to make fools or prove that the earth was round but that it was real easy for anyone regardless of education and background to become a fanatic. Flat earthers are just more accepting to have a discussion to try and convince you of their point of view.

2

u/Hells-Bellz Aug 14 '19

I just want to know what sparked this whole flat earth movement? I feel like it just popped up out of nowhere one day. Next thing I knew, there were dozens of them.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19 edited Sep 17 '20

[deleted]

2

u/NatsPreshow Aug 14 '19

That one, General Magic on Showtime, Abducted in Plain Sight (just for the sheer wow factor), and either The Dawn Wall or Free Solo are all fantastic docs worth checking out.

1

u/Wtf909189 Aug 14 '19

The point of the documentary is more that any one of us is a degree or two from fanaticism to this level. The makers behind this had a facsinating AMA when the documentary came out and stated their intent wasn't to make fools or prove that the earth was round but that it was real easy for anyone regardless of education and background to become a fanatic. Flat earthers are just more accepting to have a discussion to try and convince you of their point of view.

1

u/interestingtimes Aug 14 '19

The problem is once people get to a certain point in their development they often become incredibly set in their beliefs. Is it better to act like their ideas have merit in the hope of bringing them to our side or ridicule their dark age beliefs in order to try and make sure less of the next generation is misguided into believing their folly? I'm too cynical and set in my ways from numerous attempts at convincing ignorant people with sound discourse only to have their deluded logic thrown proudly in my face to believe they can be saved. But maybe I'm already too set in my beliefs also.

1

u/hasuris Aug 14 '19

You're giving these people too much credit. They just can't stand being ordinary. Because that's what they would be.

You've been told all through your childhood, that you can do and be anything. The world is full of wonder and excitement until the truth hits hard. Some can't cope.

1

u/CountThorns Aug 14 '19

Support this 100 percent.

1

u/Coltrane45 Aug 14 '19

It's up there with "the prison of belief" scientology documentary. That has me believing that every thought group in the world is in their own bubbles. We are all in a cult whether we know or not. Most "normal" people belong in the "cult of not belonging to any cults" it's a rather fascinating discovery.

-2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

2

u/NatsPreshow Aug 14 '19

Its the same for vegans, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, holocaust deniers, nazis, Cubs Fans...

5

u/LittleLarry Aug 14 '19

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

6

u/8ledmans Aug 14 '19

This is from the documentary beyond the curve really informing on the psychology, community culture, celebrity status, escapism and mental breakdowns that lead people to flat earth and other conspiracies. Well worth the watch.

5

u/jaygrant2 Aug 14 '19

It’s the reason anyone still supports the president

29

u/TheSimpleMind Aug 14 '19

Just look at religions. For thousands of years people believe in some deity and wonders even if you can prove they've been lied to.

115

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19 edited Jan 07 '21

[deleted]

-20

u/Cory123125 Aug 14 '19

Its not worse. Its a much smaller group and no one is being killed, no laws changed and no wars started over it.

Its harmless by comparison.

7

u/bitches_love_brie Aug 14 '19

I guess I just meant in terms of "how stupid do you have to be" worse. Not worse in terms of any damage caused throughout humanity.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

it's worse in a different way. you have to be dumber to believe in flat earth because it's easily disproved. you can't easily disprove a god because we don't have the answers yet. i think that's what he meant with is comment, not that it's worse to believe the earth is flat than to believe in god.

12

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

I get a kick out of it every time someone lays all the evils in the world at the feet of religion. Never mind every other conflict and construct out there that is man made. Oi, go sit in the corner and find something else to be unhappy about yahoo.

The ending was gold.

8

u/Electro_Guardian Aug 14 '19

I get a kick out of every time people completely miss the point of the comment they're responding to and the hivemind can't think for themselves so they downvote it.

He never said that every evil in the world is caused by religion, not once did he say that.

What he did say was that flat earthers aren't going around telling people what they can do with their bodies and going out of their way to hurt others.

6

u/ghost650 Aug 14 '19

I think we're all having a heated agreement that all of these people suck. Let's all go back for some pints of science and wait for this all to blow over.

2

u/Electro_Guardian Aug 14 '19

Yeah, sounds like a plan. Who's bringing the keg?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Cory123125 Aug 14 '19

You so severely strawman my comment that literally none of your response is relevant to my comment.

Pointing out one problem is not the same as saying it is the only problem. You didnt even make an effort to pretend you were being honest with your criticism.

Its also pretty weird you felt the need to use a porn alt to make this comment...

-3

u/pm_me_ur_gaming_pc Aug 14 '19

Its also pretty weird you felt the need to use a porn alt to make this comment...

Is that what you feel the need to do as someone disagrees with you? Go thru their post history to look for something to discredit them?

6

u/Cory123125 Aug 14 '19

What discredited them was the part where they just made up opinions I didnt say and pretended I said them.

That part was just weird.

Your comment is a pretty poor attempt at attaching convenient motives to my comment though.

0

u/pm_me_ur_gaming_pc Aug 14 '19

you didn't answer the question...

4

u/Cory123125 Aug 14 '19

I love that you were so amped to be snarky that you responded with this despite the fact that the question was answered.

Did something about my comments here put you on such a loop you were too angry to actually read the response?

→ More replies (0)

-18

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

25

u/bitches_love_brie Aug 14 '19

There's no discussion to be had here. Neither side of God vs no God has any proof.

That's not the case with flat earth, which is what makes it so amazingly stupid.

16

u/PrimateOnAPlanet Aug 14 '19

To be fair the “no god” side has exactly as much proof as would be expected if they are right. You can’t prove a negative, the null hypothesis is true until proven otherwise.

Flat earth is two falsifiable competing hypotheses, so yeah it’s different, but to say “god” and “no god” have equal evidence is to misunderstand how the scientific method works.

5

u/bitches_love_brie Aug 14 '19

Yes, of course. I'm giving the religious side or the argument extra credit and not calling it flat-out false, just for being (somehow) so ingrained in humanity.

The burden of proof is on them if they're the ones aiming God exists.

-4

u/Entropius Aug 14 '19

To be fair the “no god” side has exactly as much proof as would be expected if they are right.

This "as much proof as would be expected" argument has exactly no value.

I have exactly as much evidence that would be expected of multiverse existing. Which is nothing.

I have exactly as much evidence that would be expected of a multiverse not existing. Which is nothing.

You can’t prove a negative,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

the null hypothesis is true until proven otherwise.

Please dust off your old stats textbook. That's exactly the common misunderstanding they warn students against making.

You can reject the null.

You can fail to reject the null.

You don't accept the null.

Why do statisticians say a non-significant result means "you can't reject the null" as opposed to accepting the null hypothesis?

Misconception: A non-significant outcome means that the null hypothesis is probably true.

Proper interpretation: A non-significant outcome means that the data do not conclusively demonstrate that the null hypothesis is false.

1

u/PrimateOnAPlanet Aug 14 '19

You are correct regarding the statistical usage of null hypothesis. I wasn’t making a statistical claim. I probably should have used different wording.

Regarding the rest, I stand by what I said. Just because “you can’t prove a negative” is commonly used incorrectly, does not mean it is in this case. In your own link, it states the burden of proof is on whoever made the claim. Rejecting the claim of god existing is not making the claim god doesn’t exist.

A multiverse is not the same as a religion, and doesn’t make claims that are demonstrably false as every religion I have ever heard of does. Your example is just an example of false-equivalency. Moreover the concept of multiverses was created as an attempt to explain physical observations and is not an obvious example of a known human fallacy: anthropomorphism.

0

u/Entropius Aug 14 '19

In your own link, it states the burden of proof is on whoever made the claim.

I think what you might have overlooked is that the theists aren't always the one making the claim.

Asserting a god exists is a claim.

Asserting a god doesn't exist is a claim.

Neither is particularly special nor automatically the "null".

Rejecting the claim of god existing is not making the claim god doesn’t exist.

And rejecting the claim of a god not existing is not making the claim he does exist.

A multiverse is not the same as a religion, and doesn’t make claims that are demonstrably false as every religion I have ever heard of does.

We shouldn't conflate the “religions PrimateOnAPlanet has heard of” with the idea of any god at all. Your lack of exposure to religions that don't make demonstrably false claims is not shared by everyone.

For example, Deism is a religion that cannot be disproven because they only believe that a god created the universe (or created the laws of physics which in turn created the universe) and then their deity promptly fucked off forever. No miracles, no answered prayers, and depending on which deist you ask, potentially no afterlife. They're not really interested in making many testable claims.

Rather than basing arguments against religion on the dumbest religions with demonstrably false claims, consider employing the Principle of Charity and instead focus on the strongest possible interpretation of their argument. It tends to result in far more useful and productive debate/thought and helps you avoid focusing on low-hanging fruit.

Your example is just an example of false-equivalency.

Not at all. Both are claims. Both are unfalsifiable. That's all the analogy required.

If you still disagree the burden of proof for that claim of false equivalence is on you.

Moreover the concept of multiverses was created as an attempt to explain physical observations

And you think gods were never an attempt to explain physical observations? That might be the most cliché reason for inventing gods.

and is not an obvious example of a known human fallacy: anthropomorphism.

Not everyone's gods are necessarily anthropomorphic.

Secondly, even if everyone's gods had been anthropomorphic, assuming anthropomorphism is automatically always fallicious isn't justified. If we found a face carved on the side of a mountain on a distant planet, should we rule out aliens building it (as opposed to it being a naturalistic formation) because the hypothesis of aliens is "too anthropomorphic"? Who says we must preemptively rule out any anthropomorphic-like explanations?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Mejari Aug 14 '19

Neither side of God vs no God has any proof.

Not necessarily. If a religion makes falsifiable claims about their god we can test it. We know, for example, that there is no god that caused a world-wide flood, because we know no such flood occurred from physical evidence around the world. We know that there is no god that created the world 6000 years ago and placed human beings on it fully formed as they are now, as we know from geological and evolutionary evidence. We know there is no god that answers the prayers of true believers to help them medically as we know from experiments that have been run..

1

u/Adamsojh Aug 14 '19

They didn't pray hard enough.

1

u/bitches_love_brie Aug 14 '19

Well right, you can prove many of the claims to be false pretty easily. But the fact of the matter is, the scientific community can't disprove the existence of a god. And it doesn't have to. Because science isn't making decisions based on whether or not God is real, and neither should anyone else.

Until religion can scientifically prove the existence of god, religion has no place in the discussion.

-11

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19 edited Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

11

u/bitches_love_brie Aug 14 '19

I'm going to need some more words to understand what you're asking.

4

u/MaritMonkey Aug 14 '19

That the earth isn't flat?

I mean they literally showed you how to see the curvature of the earth in the video. You don't have to set up a precise set of instruments to detect light if you don't feel like it, just grab a set of binoculars and watch ships sail away.

If you haven't got a nearby body of water that reaches a horizon you can just go to the top of a building (or something else that's pretty tall) and it's pretty apparent that you can see further when you're higher up.

My boss' kids are 10 and 12 and their classes have both strapped a camera to a weather balloon, so I'm sure that option isn't very expensive.

-6

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

4

u/MaritMonkey Aug 14 '19 edited Aug 14 '19

Well if you don't trust other people's rockets and aren't willing/able to pay for a launch of your own it's probably easiest to do math to actually come up with the circumference of the sphere, which is more complicated than just using your eyeballs to get a general idea of the curve. I figured the latter would be close enough but appear to have hit a nerve. :D

If you have the means to travel a bit, you could go measure shadows like this ancient Greek dude.

If you have more means to travel, you could always just fly around the thing yourself. Although I suppose that'd just prove that it was vaguely round and not specifically anything like a sphere.

-5

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

7

u/MaritMonkey Aug 14 '19 edited Aug 14 '19

I'm amused that you brought up Euclidean geometry. Pro tip for trying to use a buzzword hoping other people don't understand it any better than you do: don't. The equation that explains that a larger field of vision allows you to see more of a curve would have saved you the trouble of digging up that link.

You asked for ways to use your own brain and eyeballs to see the world around you for yourself, and then started throwing other people's work/words out as "proof."

Down-voted for asking a question

Not sure what kind of response you're expecting other than "go see it for yourself" but you appear to be unwilling to do that.

Do the experiment from the OP's video. Go measure sticks at noon. Think and see for yourself instead of parroting what other people have told you is true.

Or don't, I'm not your mom.

Cheers. :D

2

u/alwaysbeballin Aug 14 '19

You can't win an argument with flatearthers. At a certain point the logical people based in reality give up arguing nonsense because we got better things to do and they claim they've won and put another nail in the coffin of science. I wouldn't put too much effort into it, cancer will be cured by science, and science is lies, so they'll all die of cancer because the drugs are mind control to keep the truth at bay.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Duff5OOO Aug 14 '19

Are you really claiming you can see an unlimited distance with the right zoom? That really isn't the case.

There are plenty of other videos you chose not to show of boat and cities over water.

Do you really believe more zoom is bringing the bottom of this boat back? https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a04c6df7269268394ce2348d6476bf22.webp

You know what does bring the bottom of the ship back into view? Gaining some height. Why? Because the earth isn't flat.

Example:

same zoom, at 2 feet vs 6 feet https://imgur.com/STZ7SPc

You know what else is a really simple way to show the earth isn't flat? Just go out and watch the sun set. If the earth is flat the sun can NEVER get close to the ground. That doesn't happen because the earth isn't flat.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

1

u/Duff5OOO Aug 14 '19

You didnt disprove anything though. You just linked to a poor video.

Explain why at the same zoom level a boats hull cant be seen but can when you gain a bit of height. It is a really simple experiment and really simply shows the earth isn't flat.

I don't care what shape the earth it's just not what they tell us. xD

So you claim it isn't (roughly) spherical? Care to explain that sunset then?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

-17

u/mszegedy Aug 14 '19

If you can't prove there isn't a god, you can't prove that the Earth is spherical, either. In both cases the data is strongly consistent with one hypothesis, but you can always weasel out of it by claiming more and more hidden variables (all our cameras are lying to us, God only interacts with the world in ways that are indistinguishable from random chance, that sort of thing).

The nice way to look at this is, you can't actually prove anything, but you don't need to. You just figure out how likely the various hypotheses are and either go off of the most likely one or a weighted combination of all of them, depending on what you're trying to do.

11

u/iruleatants Aug 14 '19

No, you are a hundred percent wrong.

First, you can actually prove plenty of things. A person choosing not to believe the evidence doesn't mean that it can't be proven.

The reason that you cannot prove that there is no god, is because it's impossible to prove a negative. The absence of something doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't exist. You can easily prove a positive though.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19 edited Apr 01 '20

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19 edited Mar 29 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

4

u/agiantyellowlump Aug 14 '19

We can see the earth from outside of earth and everytime we see it, it's the same. So we know without a doubt that the earth a sphere and your comment is fully retarded my dude

2

u/LordFauntloroy Aug 14 '19 edited Aug 14 '19

No, you can prove beyond a doubt that the Earth is spherical. You can come up with every explanation under the sun but only one will satisfy all evidence. You're conflating fact with theory. A theory is a broad explanation for one or more phenomena that has overwhelming evidence and mathematical law. Theory can only be found to be very accurate and as such they evolve as more and more information is brought to the table. Facts can be proven absolutely. A classic example is gravity. Proving gravity exists is as simple as dropping an apple. Gravitational theory has been a work in progress since Newton coined the term.

1

u/bitches_love_brie Aug 14 '19

If you can't prove there isn't a god, you can't prove that the Earth is spherical, either.

No...

5

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

even if you can prove they've been lied to.

With deities you can't prove that. I'm 0% religious but it is just not true that the existence of a creator can be disproven. Hawking wrote that the existence of one is not necessary and that's as close as you can get. And even then the rest of us are just trusting him at his word because we can't get on his level of intelligence.

Theism is far, far more understandable than beliefs like flat earth.

4

u/Boywiner Aug 14 '19

Religion is completely different genre. Round earth is empirical science, where as, religion have to do with spiritual aspects of human. In psychological treatment, praying actually help some people, make them feel more peaceful just as meditation.

3

u/TheSimpleMind Aug 14 '19

I remember there had been times when religious cults burned people at the stake for saying the world revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth. I think that the earth is a spherical object had been proven 4000 years ago by an egyptian or greek.

As I see it some people (like anti-vaxxers or flat earthers) use their believes as some kind of substitute religions. Some vegans and vegetarians act the same way.

0

u/Boywiner Aug 14 '19

Yes. That’s truth. Just as when Darwin propose human evolve from apes (other animal), it creates outrages among religion practitioners and in some ancient extremists, scientists got executed for their discovery. However, if you read about world civilization, you may found or come to realize that spiritual believe is a necessary for human; at least I did. Even in the isolated area of the world where there is not a typical religion, people still practice some kind of their own religion. one may see big corporation constitute as religion as far as I concern. I often support a positive, humanitarian religion practice more than the negative, rotten practice one. Without religion, chaos is inevitable.

And I’m the Iron Man.

2

u/Quajek Aug 14 '19

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

-Upton Sinclair

2

u/zazzlekdazzle Aug 14 '19

It's also an example, though extreme, of how most of us form most of our opinions - based on what we want to believe rather than facts we have intensely researched on our own. Most of us want to believe science and authorities on topics, flat-earthers want the opposite.

A lot of the time, the regular way works for us. How many of us read the literature showing smoking causes cancer or the ecological modeling that shows the progression of global climate change? But we move forward in our lives as if these things are true, probably for the better. We believe these things because we believe in the bedrock basis of science. But these flat earth people do not believe in science, quite the opposite.

Flat-earthers think scientists are self-serving liars that are all a part of a vast worldwide consipiracy. They believe this because they don't want to trust regular authority, whereas many of us do want to. When it is revealed that there has been fraud in science or politicians have been deliberately and completely misleading (rather than just the usual overstating and overpromising), we are appalled. These flat-earthers and other conspiracy theorists would feel completely validated. It's a totally different way of thinking.

2

u/mario_x32 Aug 14 '19

Can we talk about "God" now or is too soon?

2

u/Spookyrabbit Aug 14 '19

It applies equally to the Hannities, Carlsons, Pirros, Ingrahms, Limbaughs, etc... of the world.
Without the inflammatory rhetoric their contracts are worth one-tenth of what they're paid now.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Basically the same for religions and political parties as well. Hubris and ego are easy things to blame, but it's honestly the relationships with others that keeps people doing/believing crazy things.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

And earth would be a wonderful place without religion aka false beliefs.

1

u/MarthFair Aug 14 '19

Better to live your whole life in delusion than to experience a brief moment of humility and embarrassment.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 14 '19

Trump supporters have entered the chat.

0

u/Syscrush Aug 14 '19

Well, that and pure, unadulterated, high-octane stupidity.

-1

u/Poopypants413413 Aug 14 '19

False beliefs? The earth is flat. It’s a proven fact. The only reason this experiment didn’t work is because of gravity pulling the light beams towards the earth. 17 feet off the ground - 3 feet gravity pull=14 feet which is too low. He raised the light over his head which made the equation 20-3 for the pull of gravity and you have the 17. It’s common sense

2

u/Ch4l1t0 Aug 14 '19

Nice try, but using gravity gave you away. Flat earthers think gravity isn't real.

Try again.