What, you want me to explain how e.g., 1) gravity can be repulsive and 2) why this is important for Flat Earthers? I think this is going a bit too far into the weeds for this thread, in which I just wanted to chat about general rhetorical techniques instead of the particulars. The short answer is that:
general relativity
many Flat Earth models require that gravity do not behave the same way as Newtonian gravity because that implies that the Flat Earth will collapse into a ball.
More details require me to spend more time on an answer ā I used to spend hours talking to these Flat Earthers at a time.
Because I have a day job in the academia; I canāt just take an hour or two off to to write pages of physics at your whim.
Maybe in the future I can write some detailed explanations. I have done so in this forum in the past for other topics. I canāt do it at your pleasure. This is not because I want to be secretive or anything. I will repeat
Flat earthism is a cult. Building trust is certainly a good step in dealing with people trapped in cults. The debate for them is not about facts, itās about their unwillingness to discern the difference between facts (observational science) and assumptions/speculations. Theyāve mostly been indoctrinated into a caricature of proper biblical interpretation, and as a result they feel they must dig in their heels regardless of the evidence.
I like the approach the bald guy uses in this debate - essentially in the QA ask the flat earthier to explain basic terms and to show knowledge of basic concepts. The idea being to show that they donāt fully understand the concepts they are using
What a coincidence. Thatās exactly the same thing as Young Earth Creationism, a cult indoctrinated into a scientifically disproven narrow biblical interpretation and who are impervious to facts.
How should the Young Earth Creationist cult be approached?
I have a very hard time understanding flat earthism as a ācult.ā As far as I know, it is not associated controlling and oppressive community that punishes doubt and excludes skeptics. They have very low institutional power. For example, I am unaware of any situation (other than historical examples) where someone has felt their was job was at risk because they disagreed with a flat earth. I am unaware of any institution that has āflat earthā in their belief statement.
Rather than ācult,ā flat earthism is better described as conspiracy thinking, similar to COVID denial, but with deeper historical roots.
The contrast with YECism is quite striking. I know of several people who have lost their jobs for disputing YEC. Many (not all) YEC communities are very controlling over a personās whole life, and they police personal beliefs with belief statements all the time. See for example, Bob Jones University, Bryan College, and Answers in Genesis. YEC is a minority in some contexts, but it is very institutionally strong, and it uses institutional power to supress dissent.
Though this does not apply to all YECs (e.g. YECs in China and India, and many YECs Iāve worked with in the US), YECism is much better described as a ācultā than flat earthism.
Itās educational to look at how FE and YEC take the same scripture and draw very different conclusions. If you want to start a fight, post an FE video to a YEC group on FB.
Interestingly I heard one prominent YEC indicate that if we approached the bible from a pre-scientific viewpoint (i.e. before being taught about the world and the sky) we would come to a YEC perspective.
Hilber mentioned pre-scientific cultures still around today in his book, and they believed in a solid sky. āIn addition to studies in cognitive science, anthropological studies of prescientific peoples are also relevant. Paul Seely summarizes the work of early anthropologists on the mental pictures of these peoples about their natural world.198 The almost-universal mental model includes a solid skyā
Hilber, John Wā¦ Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach . Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. loc 1571
If we apply the same test then we ought to come to a view of a solid sky, one of the things that a lot of flat earthers believe in
EDIT: I missed this relevant point from Hilber
Although the notion of water above it is rare, the sky is positioned over a flat-disc earth surrounded by, if not floating on, the ocean, as Seely points out: Thus it is that all over the world we find the belief in the earth as a flat circular disc floating in the middle of a single circular sea.
Hilber, John Wā¦ Old Testament Cosmology and Divine Accommodation: A Relevance Theory Approach . Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. loc 1571
This is an internet cult, not a traditional āinstitutional cultā. If you want to see how the exclusion happens, just peruse the comments section of any flat earth video on YouTube. Itās very obvious.
I canāt comment about any specifics, but in general religious institutions have to make sure their employees actually support the views of the institution. Thatās not being a cult. But based upon this criterion, would this not make all the Darwinist institutions (including public universities) that fire people for embracing any kind of creationism ācultsā as well? I think it would.
It is not merely the belief statements. I experienced the controlling side of YEC very early on. There is no parallel in flat-earth ism. Iām unaware of any one who has defined an āinternet cult.ā
There is no such thing as a Darwinist institution. But public universities do not have belief statements. They do not enforce any restrictions on personal beliefs and have no mechanisms for determining or policing them. In fact, we have a tenure system that protects established professors from being fired if they express very controversial ideas. This tenure system is not in place at YEC institutions.
Evolutionists might be wrong about evolution, and they might be prejudiced against creationists, but they do not have the hallmarks of a cult.
. Donāt scare him off!
)