Why I take the Bible literally

[muhammad_isa]

the thing that still gets me about it is if heat and light are gathered in the interior of the atmosphere, than how come i can block heat and light just by standing in the shade (immediately cooler and darker. If the heat and light were all distributed under the atmosphere than there should be no shadows when someone or something stands in between the sun and the ground. I hope I worded that well enough and expressed my views clearly enough.

The particle density in you is much greater than the particle density in the atmosphere.

 

[RJM]

the thing that still gets me about it is if heat and light are gathered in the interior of the atmosphere, than how come i can block heat and light just by standing in the shade (immediately cooler and darker. If the heat and light were all distributed under the atmosphere than there should be no shadows when someone or something stands in between the sun and the ground. I hope I worded that well enough and expressed my views clearly enough.

SOME heat and light are trapped by the atmosphere. It's hotter in direct sunlight than under an umbrella.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

Thank you for the input

 

[wil]

i only hold that there should be rays between the earth and sun so if they go to space, closer to the sun there should be rays between it and the earth such as light particles . Otherwise, as some hold, the light is on the sun, then magically appears on the ground with no path to get there in between. I know that's not what they teach in school but it just doesn't seem to make sense.

Um...err...there is.

What "on earth" makes you think there isn't.

Again...you can't "see" a light ray until it hits something. But they light up every object in space....and travel until they hit an object.

Hence why you see stars.

I am currently gobsmacked as to your apparent confusion.

 

[rocala]

I am currently gobsmacked as to your apparent confusion.

What astounds me is not the lack of knowledge, we all have our shortcomings, but as to how somebody with such a lack of knowledge feels qualified to tell us that we are brainwashed, implies that all pilots and astronauts have got it wrong, refers to "lying scientists" and has the audacity to tell another poster that he "feels sorry" for him and his "ridiculous beliefs." I find this to be a breathtaking level of arrogance.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

What astounds me is not the lack of knowledge, we all have our shortcomings, but as to how somebody with such a lack of knowledge feels qualified to tell us that we are brainwashed, implies that all pilots and astronauts have got it wrong, refers to "lying scientists" and has the audacity to tell another poster that he "feels sorry" for him and his "ridiculous beliefs." I find this to be a breathtaking level of arrogance.

I'm glad I wasn't filled up with falsehood before I ever got a chance to think for myself.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

question: how come the wandering stars (the planetoi, or as you call the 8 planets) when looked at from the ground look no different from any other star, just don't follow the same course, being clearly light, allegedly they are no longer emitting light the closer you get to them? Don't objects emitting light tend to get brighter as you get closer to them?

I like to think and brainstorm before I accept any beliefs, including religious ones too, although I do trust the ancient prophets and sages far more than modern liars pushing idiotic beliefs like dinosaurs, evolution, sphere shaped earth going round the sun, time travel, aliens, other dimensions, atomism, cellular biology, germ theory and other likewise idiotic beliefs that we all have shoved down our throats by modern schooling, media, word of mouth before we even think to ask a question.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I like to think and brainstorm before I accept any beliefs, including religious ones too, although I do trust the ancient prophets and sages far more than modern liars pushing idiotic beliefs like dinosaurs, evolution, sphere shaped earth going round the sun, time travel, aliens, atomism, cellular biology, germ theory and other likewise idiotic beliefs that we all have shoved down our throats by modern schooling, media, word of mouth before we even think to ask a question.

Science is a gift from God. Religion without God becomes superstitions built upon our own ignorances.

Regards Tony

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

Science is a gift from God. Religion without God becomes superstitions built upon our own ignorances.

Regards Tony

True science is absolutely a great gift from God but modern pseudo science most certainly isn't. I have some great books on science myself, including Avicenna's Physics, Medicine of the Prophet by Imam Jalal al Din al Suyuti and the first volume of "the History of Science" by Rene Taton.

I also love a lot of Jim al Khalili's work including his documentaries on the House of Wisdom and I've learned a lot from his lessons on chemistry on youtube. A lot of the stuff he teaches is at least on topics that are easily verifiable for a laymen. Just talking about him reminds me that I need to take more of his lessons as soon as I can.

I also hope to continue researching true science for the rest of my life. It goes great with many other indispensable topics, all of which are extremely important and are also interrelated to one another, such as language (alphabet, vocabulary, etymology, grammar, rhetoric, poetry and literature), theology, psychology, philosophy (logic and metaphysics), law and anthropology (politics and the arts). I would hate to miss out on learning any of the above topics from reliable sources.

I'm very interested in chemistry and physics which I hold to be the most important and fundamental topics of science.

 

[juantoo3]

At what point does the right to lie and spread lies on the internet come up against the right of internet platforms to try to maintain their own integrity by trying to screen out deliberate misinformation -- so to keep their own members and advertisers?

Do people have the right to lie and spread deliberate false information on the internet?

I have no dog in this hunt, it is a waste of time to me.

However, I feel the need to address this argument. If these platforms censor, then they editorialize. If they editorialize, they are responsible directly for the content and do not deserve the legal shield they have been given ostensibly to protect Freedom of Speech.

In other words, either speech is free - including lies (which the gummint uses routinely anyway and cajoles platforms to play along...), or the basic human right is denied - upon which the legal defense platforms rely on fails.

People have a right to speak up and make a fool of themselves. The catch is, I don't have to listen.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

I have no dog in this hunt, it is a waste of time to me.

However, I feel the need to address this argument. If these platforms censor, then they editorialize. If they editorialize, they are responsible directly for the content and do not deserve the legal shield they have been given ostensibly to protect Freedom of Speech.

In other words, either speech is free - including lies (which the gummint uses routinely anyway and cajoles platforms to play along...), or the basic human right is denied - upon which the legal defense fails.

People have a right to speak up and make a fool of themselves. The catch is, I don't have to listen.

Even though you may not want to listen to me I appreciate your point of view here and this was how I thought, in the first place, freedom of speech was supposed to be, with rare, understandable, exceptions like inciting a riot or character defamation.

 

[juantoo3]

Even though you may not want to listen to me I appreciate your point of view here and this was how I thought, in the first place, freedom of speech was supposed to be, with rare, understandable, exceptions like inciting a riot or character defamation.

Correct. You don't have the freedom to shout "fire!" in a crowded movie theater (if there is no fire).

Further, you are responsible for what you say. That is where the platforms get carte blanche - by editorializing they are responsible, and if they are responsible they do not need and do not deserve legal protection. I would say - especially if the gummint is demanding them to validate propaganda without any challenging voice.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

last two questions: why do planes not get further up in the sky gradually as they go along straight over a curved earth (as you claim)? Gravity will not be a reasonable response.

Also why do we not fill the earth spinning 1 entire revolution every twenty four hours at a thousand miles an hour, shouldn't it fill at least as noticeable as a carousel or a roller coaster?

Also need answer for other here:

question: how come the wandering stars (the planetoi, or as you call the 8 planets) when looked at from the ground look no different from any other star, just don't follow the same course, being clearly light, allegedly they are no longer emitting light the closer you get to them? Don't objects emitting light tend to get brighter as you get closer to them?

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

Correct. You don't have the freedom to shout "fire!" in a crowded movie theater (if there is no fire).

Further, you are responsible for what you say. That is where the platforms get carte blanche - by editorializing they are responsible, and if they are responsible they do not need and do not deserve legal protection. I would say - especially if the gummint is demanding them to validate propaganda without any challenging voice.

I want to apologize also for posting too much here, if I interrupted you as please pardon me and I do appreciate your input as freedom of speech and freedom of religion are right that I cherish regardless of which nation goes by them

 

[RJM]

question: how come the wandering stars (the planetoi, or as you call the 8 planets) when looked at from the ground look no different from any other star,

Have you looked at them through a telescope?

allegedly they are no longer emitting light the closer you get to them? Don't objects emitting light tend to get brighter as you get closer to them?

Stars emit light. Other bodies reflect light. Why do you keep repeating the same question?

last two questions: why do planes not get further up in the sky gradually as they go along straight over a curved earth (as you claim)? Gravity will not be a reasonable response.

They fly a curved path at a set altitude above the ground

Also why do we not fill the earth spinning 1 entire revolution every twenty four hours at a thousand miles an hour, shouldn't it fill at least as noticeable as a carousel or a roller coaster?

You only feel G-force during acceleration or deceleration, and the earth spins at a constant rate -- the atmosphere spins with the earth, so you don't feel a constant wind of air passing you.

I'm very interested in chemistry and physics which I hold to be the most important and fundamental topics of science.

No you really are not. You aren't at all interested in whatever does not tally with your religious beliefs.

You keep repeating the same questions, and ignoring the responses you get.
No more answers from me ...

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

how do you account for these?

 

[RJM]

View attachment 3940View attachment 3941
how do you explain these?

Light reflected by dust and water vapour in the lower atmosphere. Shake out a dusty cloth or boil a kettle in front of a window when the sun's coming in.

There's always some water vapour in the air. Air is always mixed with a little water, as water is always mixed with a little air. The dust and water particles in the air reflect light

 

[juantoo3]

Orwell wrote a warning, not a blueprint.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

I'm satisfied with that for now. Thanks for the input.

 

[abuyusufalshafii]

I reviewed most of what has been said here by other members and it sound's true, and I have revised my beliefs accordingly.

Much of it is intrinsically verifiable and measures up according to my own experience.

I agree that the world spinning (hypothetically) would not be felt (only acceleration and deceleration) as that is affirmed in my experience, like millions of others, of being in a car.

I'm open to learn much more about modern science. I still do believe in much of what flat earthers say and it's seems the truth lies somewhere in between modern science and flat earthers.

Anything interesting you could teach me, on similar topics would be great (especially chemistry and physics).

Anything that i can verify from my own experience at least upon some contemplation would be very appreciated.

I refuse to blindly follow unverifiable claims of modern scientists but anything i could verify by my own experience would be accepted so your statements aren't falling on deaf ears, I'm open to learn and revise some of my views.