Behind The Curve (Documentary on Flat Earthers)

[Bernie]

Maybe I wasn’t clear - the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
If religious people think there is a god then they need to prove it.
Imagine that someone claimed that they could levitate, you’d ask them to prove it.

Why do they need to prove it?

 

[DavidDetroit]

While I agree with the sentiment, your reasoning is backwards.
The existence of a god has never been proved yet, so there is nothing to disprove.

I was simply pointing out that the two ideas were not in the same category--one is tangible. I make no claims or arguments for or against the intangible.
While on the subject, I find the scientific theories (scientific definition of theory) on our beginnings fanciful and difficult to believe. Something that occurred by chance should have been duplicated in a lab by now.
I'm trying to stay out of hot water here regarding the rules.

 

[chopps]

They don't 'need' to prove it.
People can believe in whatever they want.
Freedom of thought, belief or religion. Also Article 9 of the Human Rights Act.

Levitation, little green men, water divining, god, fairies. Entirely their business.

If they insist on telling me about it in the street, at my door or online in order to gain something - money, friends, a sense of superiority, a new member of their clan, then I'm going to want them to prove it with some facts.

Or they can walk on without bothering me, and continue to enjoy their freedom of thought, belief and religion.

 

[Tanglefoot]

Adding a little Star Wars to the mix...

 

[marshbrewer]

Maybe I wasn’t clear - the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim.
If religious people think there is a god then they need to prove it.
Imagine that someone claimed that they could levitate, you’d ask them to prove it.

Probably me not being clear to be honest.

Let's image a scenario where you have a theoretical physicist proposing a theory. They may not be able to prove it (it's a theory) but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. However, you and I, being jolly clever scientists that we are, one day devise an experiment that disproves the theory. From that moment, it's disproved.

Now, nobody has devised a 'proof' that there is no God, or whatever, so we cannot say with absolute certainty that it's nonsense. But, we have absolute proof that the world is not flat. Now, this isn't an ideal analogy, as the theoretical physicist would have to have a damn good theory at least referencing known facts for it to be taken seriously. I'm not sure any religion has that.

 

[jceg316]

I saw the documentary on the subject yesterday. According to it, a great many people believe the Earth is flat and that folks who believe it's round have been being fooled for centuries. It was very interesting to hear the arguments in favor of the Earth being flat.
What I observed that was most revelatory about Flat Earthers was that in two instances, Flat Earthers did experiments themselves to prove the Earth was flat and in each case the experiment supported the fact that the Earth was round (one with a super fancy gyroscope and one with light using distance). In spite of the tangible data, they still were not willing to concede the Earth was round.
I don't know if we have any HBFErs or not. Personally, I do not know any Flat Earthers.
View attachment 51314

I love a good conspiracy theory so I watched this documentary and really enjoyed it. The experiments were really clever and, of course, ended up proving the earth is round. That scene when they went to that Nasa museum and thought the machine was broken

 

[Clint]

Elvis was a god.
For proof just watch his live performances...

 

[ChrisR73]

Why do they need to prove it?

Because without proof there is no reason to take their claims seriously.

 

[DavidDetroit]

I love a good conspiracy theory so I watched this documentary and really enjoyed it. The experiments were really clever and, of course, ended up proving the earth is round. That scene when they went to that Nasa museum and thought the machine was broken

Conspiracy theory docs are hard not to watch for me. Just fascinating. That NASA scene was when I kind of felt sorry for the guy (and the gal). Edit: and the experiment with they expensive gyroscope that disproved their theory? They totally tried to come up with some other reason. Amazing how they were read to switch gears. They also tried to keep it hush-hush from everyone earlier.

 

[ChrisR73]

I was simply pointing out that the two ideas were not in the same category--one is tangible. I make no claims or arguments for or against the intangible.
While on the subject, I find the scientific theories (scientific definition of theory) on our beginnings fanciful and difficult to believe. Something that occurred by chance should have been duplicated in a lab by now.
I'm trying to stay out of hot water here regarding the rules.

No I get that, but i don’t think that either of these claims have any evidence to support them.
Problem with our beginnings is that the evidence may be never fully uncovered - plus of course it isn’t all down to chance, time is a big factor too. Given enough time many highly improbable things can occur, like people winning the Euromillions.

 

[ChrisR73]

Probably me not being clear to be honest.

Let's image a scenario where you have a theoretical physicist proposing a theory. They may not be able to prove it (it's a theory) but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. However, you and I, being jolly clever scientists that we are, one day devise an experiment that disproves the theory. From that moment, it's disproved.

Now, nobody has devised a 'proof' that there is no God, or whatever, so we cannot say with absolute certainty that it's nonsense. But, we have absolute proof that the world is not flat. Now, this isn't an ideal analogy, as the theoretical physicist would have to have a damn good theory at least referencing known facts for it to be taken seriously. I'm not sure any religion has that.

Problem with your reasoning is that a scientific theory is a framework which describes observations so it has proof already. Theories are overturned when more evidence is uncovered, or better and more complete theories are developed such as Einstein updating Newton’s work on gravity.
As for the second point, how can you prove a negative? If Zeus never existed, how could you ever prove that?

 

[Clint]

Regarding science...I have always felt that it exists only as we know it on our planet and our current knowledge.
One of the most interesting things I watched was about Nikola Tesla and his experiments with harvesting the earth's electricity to provide limitless,free power for everyone...and his mysterious death and disappearance of his papers..

 

[Chippy_Tea]

If religious people think there is a god then they need to prove it.

Why do they need to prove it it is their belief and they are entitled to it.

Imagine that someone claimed that they could levitate, you’d ask them to prove it.

Religious people are not saying they are God (as your person is saying he can levitate) they are saying they believe there is a God.

 

[Brew_DD2]

Why do they need to prove it it is their belief and they are entitled to it

They're entitled to believe it, but they'd sure as hell better provide me with some good evidence if they want me to believe it.

 

[Clint]

Why do they need to prove it it is their belief and they are entitled to it.



Religious people are not saying they are God they are saying they believe there is a God.

Yeah..but you would like to see levitation though.

 

[Clint]

Would believers believe if someone popped up and said they were "god"? Or would they ask for proof?

 

[ChrisR73]

Why do they need to prove it it is their belief and they are entitled to it.



Religious people are not saying they are God (as your person is saying he can levitate) they are saying they believe there is a God.

Agreed - and I take both claims just as seriously.

 

[ChrisR73]

Regarding science...I have always felt that it exists only as we know it on our planet and our current knowledge.
One of the most interesting things I watched was about Nikola Tesla and his experiments with harvesting the earth's electricity to provide limitless,free power for everyone...and his mysterious death and disappearance of his papers..

Which sounds like a too-good-to-be-true conspiracy story.
It would never be free because infrastructure would be required to harvest, store and distribute this electricity.

 

[DavidDetroit]

I think with the Tesla thing, the idea is vested interest would squash it, not that the energy source would be completely glorious, free and a panacea. If the technology flew in the face of existing energy, I could see someone playing naughty.

 

[Clint]

Which sounds like a too-good-to-be-true conspiracy story.
It would never be free because infrastructure would be required to harvest, store and distribute this electricity.

The documentary said that's what his vision was and the powers that be didn't like it.