He is Risen - The Evidence

[nPeace]

You are cherry picking scholarship. The argument is historicity vs mythicism. While many scholars are moving to a mythicist position it does not matter. Those who believe historicity still know the gospel narratives are fiction.
You are using scholars who do not believe the religion is true in a dishonest way.




There are no extra biblical sources that can be shown to be corroborating the gospel narratives. They are simply sourcing what Christians believe based on the gospels. Notice in another place you claim nothing in scripture can be proven to be false. You like to use that logic when it suits you. But when we obviously cannot determine what sources a historian is using suddenly you are fine with assumption and speculation? More cherry picking.



Now everyone who disagrees with the Bible being true are some form of "Bible hater". This is cult language and cult tactics.
Instead of allowing people to evaluate facts and evidence and simply come to a conclusion based on evidence they are framed as using some sort of hate.
It can't be that the evidence demonstrated that these stories are likely to be like all other myths, nope, it's always because the person is "bashing" or undermining.
Look at all the hate speech you just used in ONE SENTENCE against anyone who may come to a different conclusion?
Extremely cult-like.



I know it's great right. Also the Mormons have all the facts thanks to Moroni. Islam also has all the facts as do Jehova's Witnesses. So does Scientology. And Baha'i and the girl on Personal Development For Smart People forum who was channeling Jesus.
You all have all the facts, wow! All different facts. But at least you are all correct.




Most Biblical narratives are also not in agreement:

"The empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances are never directly coordinated to form a combined argument."
Vermes - The Resurrection

The theory of humans and other hominids has fossil records over millions of years? We see a slow evolution from an early hominid who walks a small amount to our closest ancestor Heidlbergensis who made tools, buried their dead and looked mostly human. In the same area we see the emergence of homo sapien.
Even if you believe that Yahweh magic powered humans from nothing that doesn't erase the fact that there were hominids slowly evolving closer and closer to homo-sapien? Do you just not know about hominid fossils or believe it's a trick by some demonic force to trick you?

Sorry. Your scholarship and scholars do not know anything. Those scholars sit and form opinions.
They know only that they believe what they decide to. It may not even be what they say, as they are not infallible and some do lie to themselves... and others, for their own purposes.

I'm not here to say who is a liar, but sometimes we ourselves don't even know why we lie.
Some do understand later though.

The idea that all life evolve from one common ancestor, is the engine of the body of "evidence" you mentioned.
Just take the idea away, and the body of evidence is empty.
Now taking a look at the body, place an engine in that fits.
The body of evidence is there - hasn't gone anywhere, but it takes a different road. It tells a different story.

Would you be surprised if another hypothesis becomes a contender to the one that's currently reigning champion?
I wouldn't. That's how it goes, when ideas are proposed, and you have no option but to go with the one you think is best...
Unless... Hmm.

If you believe that forming ideas about what happened, by making assumptions, and forming conclusions, based on those assumptions, makes something factual or believable, then can you please explain why you are against people who do the same thing, where the Bible is concerned?

In other words, why are you against those who don't accept your ideas and opinions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let’s not go on to a new subject, but you have answered for another member, have falsely said I called God a liar, have falsely said my conversion was confirmation bias. This seems to me that you are placing yourself in the position of an all knowing god who can judge the hearts and minds of people. And I will end with that

We can see that you call your god a liar. I even tried to go over the basics of science with you so that you would understand how you are calling your god a liar. And you are the one that tells us that all you have is confirmation bias. One does not need to be all knowing to understand this.

 

[Jose Fly]

This should answer you...
The Grave & Tomb of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (The Sacred Chamber)

Yes, the graves are there. Tell you what, let's see if we can ask an actual Muslim about this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the graves are there. Tell you what, let's see if we can ask an actual Muslim about this.

At least there is a tomb for Mohammad. I don't see anyone listing the tomb of Jesus as a vacation destination.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

No need buddy. I don't mind digging up loads of facts. They make for light work.

Then go for it.

 

[nPeace]

Then go for it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am not a Jew, it is my understanding that the Messiah they await is to be one like David.

Thanks, I think I heard that before. I do not know what David was like, do you know?

 

[pearl]

Thanks, I think I heard that before. I do not know what David was like, do you know?

From what little I understand, King David's reign represented the high point in Israel's history.

 

[blü 2]

Your whole argument rests on what you and others don't believe.

Indeed, as far as I can tell have not the slightest reason to believe.

Should I stop knowing or believing what I do, on the basis of what you don't believe?

That's a matter for you. The problem is that your belief is based on the supernatural, a quality of things that are not known to exist outside of the concepts / things imagined in an individual brain.

I'm saying to you, show me that what you don't believe is not reality.

Not my problem. Not history, not science, not reasoned enquiry of any kind, accepts the reality of the supernatural. The reality of the supernatural is YOUR claim, YOUR assertion, so give me a satisfactory demonstration that what you claim is real, has objective existence.

I am showing you that A) based on what persons claimed to be true - that they witnesses an extraordinary event;

No you're not. Instead all you have is six accounts,

none of them by an eyewitness
none of them within 20 years of the purported event
none of them independent
all of them contradicting the other five in major ways and
all of them stories of supernatural events and beings,​

Any historian will tell you you're not dealing with facts. But since you claim you are, I'm happy to hear you out, once you demonstrate that what you claim is even possible, that's to say, once you demonstrate the reality of the supernatural,

B) based on the fact that I do not, like you, tell myself, on a basis of 1) ignorance - since you clearly do not know, one way or other, 2) bias - since you seem to be in favor of one system of belief, or worldview, but against the Bible, and its adherents

Come now, old friend, paranoia is not an argument. You're not being asked for anything that other people making your claims would not be asked.

3) unreasonableness - since you seem unwilling to consider the already presented evidence

I have considered the evidence, and obviously considered it a lot more closely than you have, since you can't even see the points I keep mentioning that show it's worthless.

but insist on evidence you expect to get, as though the evidence must be centered around you, and what you want.

Isn't that the nature of any conversation, any interrogation of a claim?

What you really seem to be complaining about is your inability to respond to the points I keep raising, starting with the absence of the supernatural and magic from reality, and going on to the historiographical points above.

C) based on the fact that the Bible has proven itself to be reliable, trustworthy, and divinely inspired,

I've already said more than once that you're welcome to your faith; but here you're arguing that X and Y and Z are true, are accurate statements about objective reality, for no other reason than that your faith would like them to be true. No, you assert so you show us how your argument can be correct.

Start by demonstrating the reality of the supernatural, since without that you have no argument at all.

D) based on the fact that I see evidence for God all around us, and do not doubt miracles,

Not my problem. Not relevant.

E) based on the fact that evidence for the resurrection does not take the form the irrational

Yes it's irrational. And yes, I've repeatedly pointed this out.

And no, you don't address the problems I mention, you argue anywhere else but there.

Based on these, and more, I have a picture of reality, that you do not want to see

No, you have a picture of reality that you can't show me because it's a mirage. So say reasoned enquiry including science and history, and so say I.

So let me illustrate to you, where we are at this point, so that you understand why you would need to answer my question

Oh dear, not that old tactic ... I have a million-dollar bill in my pocket, no I won't show you, prove I haven't. Really, that's one more reason why apologetics has such a bad name.

stop demanding that you get to ask the questions, and demand answers

It's your argument. If you can't defend it, you can't defend it.

If a man fell off a 60 foot cliff, and felt something holding him in such a way that he did not hurt himself.
This is just one of his many experiences of things that seem extraordinary, and unusual.
Would you tell the man, that he was only imagining?

Assuming he wasn't roped, or wearing a parachute, or paragliding, basejumping or the like, I'd call for the video of his fall, and the accounts of other eyewitnesses. Also the medical reports and his psychiatric history. At the end of that enquiry we may or may not have a most-probable explanation.

Would you tell him that what he experienced is only in his imagination, and that unless science can explain it, it is not real?

See above.

And note that there is no assumption that the supernatural can serve as an explanation of physical events. I invite you to create such an assumption for the first time by demonstrating the reality of the supernatural.

Now get on with doing what you need to do before your claim can have any cred at all ─ demonstrate the reality of the supernatural.

 

[nPeace]

Indeed, as far as I can tell have not the slightest reason to believe.
That's a matter for you. The problem is that your belief is based on the supernatural, a quality of things that are not known to exist outside of the concepts / things imagined in an individual brain.
Not my problem. Not history, not science, not reasoned enquiry of any kind, accepts the reality of the supernatural. The reality of the supernatural is YOUR claim, YOUR assertion, so give me a satisfactory demonstration that what you claim is real, has objective existence.
No you're not. Instead all you have is six accounts,

none of them by an eyewitness
none of them within 20 years of the purported event
none of them independent
all of them contradicting the other five in major ways and
all of them stories of supernatural events and beings,​

Any historian will tell you you're not dealing with facts. But since you claim you are, I'm happy to hear you out, once you demonstrate that what you claim is even possible, that's to say, once you demonstrate the reality of the supernatural,
Come now, old friend, paranoia is not an argument. You're not being asked for anything that other people making your claims would not be asked.
I have considered the evidence, and obviously considered it a lot more closely than you have, since you can't even see the points I keep mentioning that show it's worthless.
Isn't that the nature of any conversation, any interrogation of a claim?

What you really seem to be complaining about is your inability to respond to the points I keep raising, starting with the absence of the supernatural and magic from reality, and going on to the historiographical points above.
I've already said more than once that you're welcome to your faith; but here you're arguing that X and Y and Z are true, are accurate statements about objective reality, for no other reason than that your faith would like them to be true. No, you assert so you show us how your argument can be correct.

Start by demonstrating the reality of the supernatural, since without that you have no argument at all.
Not my problem. Not relevant.
Yes it's irrational. And yes, I've repeatedly pointed this out.

And no, you don't address the problems I mention, you argue anywhere else but there.
No, you have a picture of reality that you can't show me because it's a mirage. So say reasoned enquiry including science and history, and so say I.
Oh dear, not that old tactic ... I have a million-dollar bill in my pocket, no I won't show you, prove I haven't. Really, that's one more reason why apologetics has such a bad name.
It's your argument. If you can't defend it, you can't defend it.
Assuming he wasn't roped, or wearing a parachute, or paragliding, basejumping or the like, I'd call for the video of his fall, and the accounts of other eyewitnesses. Also the medical reports and his psychiatric history. At the end of that enquiry we may or may not have a most-probable explanation.
See above.

And note that there is no assumption that the supernatural can serve as an explanation of physical events. I invite you to create such an assumption for the first time by demonstrating the reality of the supernatural.

Now get on with doing what you need to do before your claim can have any cred at all ─ demonstrate the reality of the supernatural.

Old times eh.
You have been given that evidence. You gave the same response - nothing has changed, has it?
You say No to the fact that persons claimed that they witnesses an extraordinary event;
That says a lot about your way of communication. It doesn't include listening, considering, being reasonable, openminded, or unbiased.

You make bold statements but when asked to support them, just parrot demands for the reality of the supernatural.
So both making unsupported claims you can't even form a sentence in support of, and asking questions you don't care to have the answer for.
Once again, this is probably the seventh time, I bid you good day, and expect you will follow with the usual declaration.
Good day.

 

[blü 2]

Old times eh.
You have been given that evidence.

But as I've repeatedly pointed out, it's difficult to imagine "evidence" of a lower quality, and I've repeatedly emphasized a number of points which you've never addressed.

You say No to the fact that persons claimed that they witnesses an extraordinary event;

Quote me one claim in any of the six accounts of the resurrection that it's an eye-witness account.

You'll have trouble, because in fact none is an eyewitness account and none claims to be.

None is a contemporary account.

Each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways.

That says a lot about your way of communication. It doesn't include listening, considering, being reasonable, openminded, or unbiased.

I'm completely open-minded. It's just that you've not once responded directly to any of the points I've made.

You make bold statements but when asked to support them, just parrot demands for the reality of the supernatural.

You wish to continue to pretend I have to prove a negative when it's your own claims we're discussing,

No, old friend, they're your claims, and they're not credible, and I've spelt out why and you haven't responded directly to anything I've said, but instead make abstract objections like this one.

And it remains the case that all your claims require the supernatural to be an aspect of reality, but since there isn't even one authenticated case of such a thing, your arguments will fail at the threshold and then go on to fail in the ways I've specified to you.

So both making unsupported claims you can't even form a sentence in support of

That's hilarious. coming from you!

At least you haven't lost your sense of humor!

Now just demonstrate the reality of the supernatural and we can move onto the problems of no eyewitness, no contemporary account, no independent account, and six accounts each contradicting the other five in major ways.

C'mon, Christians are supposed to be open and honest aren't they?

Please correct me if that's wrong,

So be open and honest and either demonstrate the reality of the supernatural, or say clearly that you can't.

 

[nPeace]

But as I've repeatedly pointed out, it's difficult to imagine "evidence" of a lower quality, and I've repeatedly emphasized a number of points which you've never addressed.
Quote me one claim in any of the six accounts of the resurrection that it's an eye-witness account.

You'll have trouble, because in fact none is an eyewitness account and none claims to be.

None is a contemporary account.

Each of the six accounts contradicts the other five in major ways.
I'm completely open-minded. It's just that you've not once responded directly to any of the points I've made.
You wish to continue to pretend I have to prove a negative when it's your own claims we're discussing,

No, old friend, they're your claims, and they're not credible, and I've spelt out why and you haven't responded directly to anything I've said, but instead make abstract objections like this one.

And it remains the case that all your claims require the supernatural to be an aspect of reality, but since there isn't even one authenticated case of such a thing, your arguments fail at the threshold and then go on to fail in the ways I've specified to you.
That's hilarious. coming from you!

At least you haven't lost your sense of humor!

Now just demonstrate the reality of the supernatural and we can move onto the problems of no eyewitness, no contemporary account, no independent account, and six accounts each contradicting the other five in major ways.

C'mon, Christians are supposed to be open and honest aren't they?

Please correct me if that's wrong,

So be open and honest and either demonstrate the reality of the supernatural, or say clearly that you can't.

He is Risen - The Evidence

 

[rational experiences]

Creation thesis human sciences.

Removes self as a human in a mind theory. Just talks creation history only.

Says O a planet I name as a God. Identified to continue to create gases ejections from its own body. Why it was said in science.

Reason. A he or man is thinking. Human.

Are you the gases arising out of the creator form? God O planet?

No. Science to theory as a human already states by science category it was a hot volcanic gas.

Why spirit thesis creation science then lied about ownership.

Your human body never owned it. A spirit mind thinker word user said the subject as a man.

To be present first a human is a whole conscious.

To think abstract is by thought a non physical ideal. Lied to self about given self aware man observation of man in science theories.

Told self was lying already as the teaching why life was sacrificed.

To assess owns a reason why as a question first.

Theists know questions existed first. To use explanations secondary.

Non science thinkers no longer rationalise a creative thesis in correct context as proven by belief of thoughts and not observation of a thought.

Relative human thought user placed human ownership by the thesis.

O God earth however owned all states as a natural evolving God planet heavens history without human claim.

Mind says O God in cosmos was an evolving body as a science relativity teaching. No status instant.

Instant is a human question first given its self an answer.

He never arose as no male owns self reference to earths natural history of gas spirit forms.

Thinking cross man imaged body was above us. Still envisioned transmitted into clouds just as taught a phenomena man effect for being machine occult designer.

The body image was above us in the heavens where it was caused as ground life was attacked.

Humans only live standing on the ground bleeding by irradiation causes.

 

[blü 2]

He is Risen - The Evidence

I'm not here to read other people's views. I want to hear you articulate your case for the existence of the supernatural as an aspect of reality.

Oh, and you forgot to tell me ... are Christians supposed to be open and honest all the time?

 

[nPeace]

I'm not here to read other people's views. I want to hear you articulate your case for the existence of the supernatural as an aspect of reality.

Listening is important. When one does not listen, they reveal a very flawed character which puts them at a sad disadvantage.

Oh, and you forgot to tell me ... are Christians supposed to be open and honest all the time?

Of course.
Are they supposed to be yo-yos? No. Not at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Listening is important. When one does not listen, they reveal a very flawed character which puts them at a sad disadvantage.

You really should take your own advice.

 

[blü 2]

Listening is important.

Then please say something.

In particular, demonstrate the reality of the supernatural.

 

[rational experiences]

Super to natural.

Natural not super.

Supernatural phenomena is artificial forced science by humans who then observe witness supernatural phenomena as first science observation.

Are not the liars.

Humans who lie try to false preach about the artificial effects science caused. As it was human chosen.

Try to claim God natural causes effect yet God never artificially forced changed its owned earth mass form.

Human scientists did.

Science blamed our planet for causing it so the teaching states humans in science conjured it so that correct reasoning was given.

As of course the planet natural changed. But it never changed by what was said a law. It was changed historic by temple pyramid false idolised sciences. Imposed laws.

Pyramids as a pretend thesis a mountain.

Why natural mountains were struck by irradiation flooding above our heads. UFO effect. As the temples using machines were sitting on the mountains transmitting to the ground temples.

Above our head flooding radiation caused out into atmosphere then high evaporation mass water leaves and then ground flooding follows the effect in cooling.

Why we are humans. And our spirit water mass entered the ark in images witnessed from the ground by humans who saw the event. Images in clouds.

That arose in the flooding above us as a God heavens cause. Whilst we died in radiation ground fallout. Beneath it.

Was known as science caused notified human reasoning.

How coercing in science was introduced to blame the natural state when humans chose to change the natural states.

Holding forcing a not natural radio wave radiation mass constant changed our gas state in the heavens that functioned voiding itself in a vacuum.

The heavens was contradicted as science did not use natural law. As machines are human built and controlled.

Natural law a human just being a human inside natural heavens without any machines. God as a planets form is natural.

 

[night912]

The resurrection - Evidence
Past
What we know : The Facts
It was the followers of Jesus who claimed that Jesus was risen.
The Bible says Jesus appeared - not to the Romans; not to the Jewish leaders, who wanted him dead, and would certainly have been happy to kill him a second time - but to his faithful followers.
Why did Jesus show himself only to his followers, and not the world? He wanted them to know that he was alive, as he promised he would be.
How did he go, undetected? Surely, if he was risen, people would know, and it would be widely reported. It would make "headline news".
No. Here is why...
(John 20:14-20) 14 After saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

Spoiler: Read further...

15 Jesus said to her: “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” She, thinking it was the gardener, said to him: “Sir, if you have carried him off, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher!”) 17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene came and brought the news to the disciples: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what he had said to her. 19 When it was late that day, the first day of the week, and the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: “May you have peace.” 20 After saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord.

Luke 24:13-43 ; John 21:1-8

The Bible shows without any doubt, Jesus could not be recognized in person. Even his own relatives, and close associates, did not recognize him.
This is because Jesus was not raised in (with) a physically body, and he did not manifest in the same body he was put to death with.
So people passing Jesus, would not have been "Look! There is that man the Romans crucified."
This is a simple fact made in the Bible. Only Jesus follower had clear proof of Jesus' resurrection.
So only Jesus' followers were in a position to record that fact. No one else knew.

nPeace comes in here claiming that the bible is evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. So I read his post with an open mind to see if the bible can be use objectively as evidence for the resurrection. I was expecting to see some arguments and/or reasons for why it should be used. What I found was astonishing. The Bible was being used as "evidence" to argue against the e

What lesson should people have learned, that keeps repeating itself?
What the Bible says, is true, but people keep denying it until they have no choice but to concede, when it is proven.

 

[joelr]

Sorry. Your scholarship and scholars do not know anything. Those scholars sit and form opinions.

HA! You could try to hide the denial a little? That's how my nephew who's 10 argues? Don't demonstrate why they are incorrect, just hand wave and shout out they don't know anything. Ha.
Oh, "sit and form opinions"... demonstrably incorrect:

excavations
"Dever was director of the Harvard Semitic Museum–Hebrew Union College excavations at Gezer in 1966–1971, 1984 and 1990; director of the dig at Khirbet el-Kôm and Jebel Qacaqir (West Bank) 1967–1971; principal investigator at Tell el-Hayyat excavations (Jordan) 1981–1985, and assistant director, University of Arizona Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus, 1991, among other excavations.[5]"

You were fine with scholars when you thought they were in your camp? Poor form. You simply do not care about what is true.

They know only that they believe what they decide to. It may not even be what they say, as they are not infallible and some do lie to themselves... and others, for their own purposes.

I'm not here to say who is a liar, but sometimes we ourselves don't even know why we lie.
Some do understand later though.

and here come the conspiracy theories. Like I haven't seen this over and over. Your religion can't possibly be a myth so what do we do about these scholars? Conspiracy theory! They are lying.
Problem is, (besides that it's illogical and crank to call entire fields of study all liars) they evaluate evidence. It isn't in secret. Everyone can see exactly what's found at what site and see why these are the most logical reasons.
Yet without looking at a case by case basis you just call them all liars. Pure delusion.

But they were not lying when you thought they supported you beliefs? Weird to see how far people have to go to protect ancient beliefs that they were led to believe was true.

The idea that all life evolve from one common ancestor, is the engine of the body of "evidence" you mentioned.
Just take the idea away, and the body of evidence is empty.
Now taking a look at the body, place an engine in that fits.
The body of evidence is there - hasn't gone anywhere, but it takes a different road. It tells a different story.

The theory was first. Over the following century evidence confirmed that the theory was correct.
This isn't a response to what I said however.
There are fossils of apes who began walking partially as the forrest turned to plains. Millions of years ago. Over many more millions of years the hominid fossils (hominid means ape who walks) slowly changed to taller, less body hair, over many species up until Heidelburgensis who look almost human, made tools, wore clothing, built shelters, had weapons.
Then homo-sapiens start showing up in the fossil record.
That happened. If you don't believe in evolution then like I said, some God magicced up humans, even though the current hominid was almost already humans? So that seems weird? Is that your theory? You said the body of evidence is empty? I do not understand?
All species have fossils of earlier forms. Going back far enough they become different species and so on. That happened.
Your idea is homo-sapien are so special God just manifested this new ape for some reason. Ok? We don't have evidence of any Gods and all religions are cultural myths so that doesn't look like a promising theory. But whatever, have fun with that.

Would you be surprised if another hypothesis becomes a contender to the one that's currently reigning champion?
I wouldn't. That's how it goes, when ideas are proposed, and you have no option but to go with the one you think is best...

If you believe that forming ideas about what happened, by making assumptions, and forming conclusions, based on those assumptions, makes something factual or believable, then can you please explain why you are against people who do the same thing, where the Bible is concerned?
In other words, why are you against those who don't accept your ideas and opinions?

I'm not putting forth my ideas. I find the Bible to a myth, violent, lacks spirituality, uses blood sacrifice, makes up a "sin-force" that everyone needs curing from or they cannot get into the afterlife. supports slavery, taking children/women as plunder, shuns freedom of religion and creates evangelical people who hate homosexuals and used to war with people not in their group before laws were put in place to prevent this.
But I'm using scholarship to back up my ideas that these stories are taken from other cultures which shows they are not inspired by a God but written by people. The claims of people speaking to Gods are no different than Muhammad claiming to speak for God
I'm not against "those who don't accept ideas". I'm putting forth evidence that helps show this religion is the same as all others. Not literal.
I'm against false claims backed up by circular logic, fallacies, denial (see above), planned ignorance (all scholars are liers??) and indoctrination using mind games, double talk and psuedo-scientific apologetics.
I would like to promote things that are true which is what evaluating evidence is for.


You are NOT doing the "SAME THING" where the Bible is concerned. Your 2 rebuttals:
1) entire field, all wrong
2)next group - telling lies
3)historian who's work I sourced = dog chewing bone

but somehow now you claim you are just doing the same thing? Evaluating evidence, looking at historical facts in a non-bias way. No that is not what you are doing. What this is is how people fool themselves into believing things that are not true.




Can you imagine arguing with a flat earther and starting with several fields of science to measure the earth, look at flight routes combined with speeds to determine if they flew over a flat surface or curved, and the flat earth person said - "science about flat earth is all wrong, flight patterns are lied about in flight logs because it's a conspiracy..". We wouldn't have flat earth if critical thinking was promoted. We also would not have the Trump conspiracy.