Talk:Flat Earth

Do flat earthers accept that spacecraft has landed Mars or the Moon?
If so why don't they note how flat the landscapes look on those surfaces, similar to how flat Earth looks if you're on its surface? 18:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is my impression that flat-earthers in general think the moon landings were a hoax.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know they believe moon landings are all photoshop. I've seen one of them saying that Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo 11 landing lol. GeeJayK (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Most flat-earthers I've seen believe that space isn't real, that the Earth is covered in a magic, impenetrable dome, and that the sun, moon, planets, and stars are just spots on the dome that magically move around in different ways depending on your latitude because magic (something about "personal domes", whatever the fuck that means.) So naturally, they are moon landing deniers.  — 12:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Gravity would pull a disk that big into a spherical shape!
Sure, maybe if the flat Earth were accelerating at a constant rate, but why is it that gravity is measurably weaker at altitude? Even a tall building, by no means a record-setter, is sufficient to see differences in mass? I think we can troll them better. --38.145.144.111 (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha! You believe in this "gravity" myth! Obviously you have swallowed the "Spherical Earth" hook line and sinker!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How long has this been going on?
How common were modern Flat Earthers before Internet usage became mainstream in the mid 90s? Have they been around the whole time, or is this another case of the Internet making a stupid idea more widespread?

My POV is that most Flat Earthers are just trying to make a point about how we "can't trust science" or something like that and those kinds of things are trendy now because of the Internet. --Vital Forces (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure it's in large part due to the internet. My uncle for a long time was a rational dude, but now he's a QAnon nut who's drunk the Kool-Aid. He tried telling me Antarctica isn't real in our last conversation. I told him there are tourism boats one can take to go to Antarctica if they can afford it, but reason doesn't work with these types of people. Vee (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The biblical literalists have been spewing this bullshit on radio for a very long time. I remember hearing flat earth nonsense on the shortwave in the 1990s, and the fringe groups that promoted such nonsense have been around since at least the 1980s. The internet has just given them a bigger horn to blow their hot air into. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 04:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think flat earth has less to do with genuine belief in a flat earth and more to do with contrarian nonsense. Vee (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a New York Times article on these folks from 1979. Not directly the same, but related, Harper's published an essay in 1964 about the "paranoid style" in American politics. The general deal been around for a while (not just in America either). Essentially, usually it boils down to some mix of fear of change, distrust of institutions, and a receptive attitude towards the often Z-grade Hollywood-esque conspiracy theory "alternative" plotlines. "Flat earth" is one of the sillier conspiracies, but unlike the Commie moral panic and anti-Jesuit / Mason shit mentioned in the paranoid style essay (to say nothing about some of the more violent nationalist / racist movements and QAnon's pedophilia / transgender obsessions), "flat earth" at least is mostly harmless to others. BobJohnson (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Flat Earth Society was active in the 1970s but by the early 2000s it was dormant and considered by most to be satirical. FairDinkum (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When I was a kid way back in the 60's I came across a book which was old even then. It was an absolutely serious flat-earth tome. It included arguments about railway lines being straight, how sailing ships disappear over the horizon, how a cannon ball shot straight up in the air would come back down vertically, and the suggestion that if the earth were spinning we would all fly off the surface. Thinking through the arguments was actually quite a good introduction to what we would now call "critical thinking".  Unfortunately I lost it years ago.  But sincere flat-earthers evidently existed and were organized enough to produce at least one book at that time.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Non Inverse stopped clocks "Common counterarguments that do not refute Flat Earther claims"
In the "Common counterarguments that do not refute Flat Earther claims" section they are presented as inverse stopped clocks both Aristotle's and Eratosthenes' proves of a round Earth, but they are actually quite solid if presented correctly like "flatearth.ws" does.

The first argument "The shadow the Earth casts on the Moon is round!" is sound since most flat earthers belive that the Sun and the Moon are tiny lights over the firmament, so lunar eclipses can't be caused by Earth's shadow in their, often using some imaginary thing that blocks light or whatever nonsense they can come out. But even if true, only a sphere can always cast a perfect circle shadow, while a disk cast eliptical shadows depending on the location of light source.

The second argument does indeed asumes big Sun far away that their rays are esentially parallel, but this can be show to be the case by satellite photos and the phenomenon of anticrepuscular rays. Most importantly, as flatearth.ws said, "we can easily modify his experiment by making measurements in three or more places, and the flat-Earth model is instantly proven wrong". https://flatearth.ws/eratosthenes --Artistosteles (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Curious about the slight Muslim apologist tone?
This is an extraordinarily well-written and thoroughly explored article. I particularly enjoyed the lengthy and often humorous rebuttal against the tiresome Bibilical/Christian fundamentalist arguments for a flat Earth. However, the comparatively shorter and arguably less disparaging section discussing similar Islamic arguments, along with the notable effort to soft pedal the quote by Abd al-Aziz Ibn Baz (a man of significant power and influence who called for punishment for those refuting his Qur’anic interpretation), seem to perpetuate an admittedly insufficiently sourced theme I’ve observed on Rationalwiki—to present any negative aspects of Islam with kid gloves or an excess of sensitivity. The net result from reading this laudable piece left me with a flavor of bias that I’m sure wasn’t consciously intended, but nevertheless implied that employing the same delectable condescension towards Christian fundamentalist tropes towards their Islamist counterparts is somehow inappropriate, prejudicial or taboo.

As someone who aligns with progressive principles and disdains bigotry of any kind, I get the principles behind this (and again I freely admit that I don’t have rigorous evidence for my observations). It would be contrary to the mission and values of this site to give any fuel for Islamophobes. However Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all descendants from the same Abrahamic texts, and when any of them are interpreted to the extreme and weaponized to discourage free thought or social progress, the net harm is the same. And I don’t think that flat earth beliefs are any less idiotic or worthy of ridicule and scorn if they come from a someone considered marginalized in our country (the cleric above is certainly not marginalized in Saudi Arabia) than they would be coming from a bigoted alt-right Republican in Mississippi. Organized religions have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities and obstacles to progress throughout history, and to deny how they continue to threaten and pillage human rights in countries such as Nigeria or Iran out of a hesitation to cause offense makes ridiculing silly Christian megachurches a bit less intellectually honest in my view.

Affiliating with any of the organized religions and defending their ancient texts written out of ignorance and superstition remains a choice—it isn’t always an easy choice in other parts of the world (or even here), but it is still a choice. Pointing out the inanities and arguments against what is written in those texts and how they are misinterpreted today is one of our only strategies to overcome their ongoing harms. In this regard, there can be no sacred cows—Islam should be as open to criticism and ridicule as any other, without any suggestion that doing so is an act of bigotry against its adherents. Similarly, the history of oppression and atrocities towards Jews should not shield the Torah and its interpretations from criticism either. When learning about the religious justifications for flat earth beliefs, I want to hear all the examples from all religious groups with uncensored, equal rigor, and no attempts to apologize for them or lessen their significance. This is one of the few sites I turn to for such frank depictions, and I hope that I’ve misjudged the author’s intent. If I have, my apologies. Srkbear (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Gold
What would this article need to reach gold? I'm thinking it's missing largely its present-day connection to QAnon, but that's about it. Moon Sock (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)