All of these are major stretches and blatant sophistry.
Your "All or nothing" approach to religion is just plain silly. Very few people believe in the literal truth of every word of their scriptures.
And even fewer define it as purely believing in a single monotheistic entity without defining what that entity is, and nothing more — which is what necessitates your thesis by your implication that any “mainstream religion” can only be disproven by disproving the existence of “God”.
Meanwhile, you do hold
Flat Earth to such standards and hold the belief to a rigorous interpretation of perfect mathematical flatness it seems in your arguments to disprove it.
It's not just a matter of different stars being visible from different places. It's how they move, how the sun moves, how Mars moves.
All of these things can be reconciled with a flat surface around which the sun and mars orbit to the extent that it can be seen with the naked eye.
There's no justifiable explanation of the geometry besides that the Earth is roughly spherical. You'd only have to fly around the world in two directions to prove it's spherical and not cylindrical
Certainly not — it could be a cube, but with two circular trenches cut into it that lie across the two directions one flew.
and measure how much distance you covered. And you'd have to be really reaching and stretching for technicalities as you just were, and in addition to that believe that millions of people have acted in perfect secrecy to preserve the conspiracy.
Conspiracy?
Are millions of people keeping a “conspiracy” about most major religions? Or do they just foolishly believe what they are raised with?
It is not at all implausible that a million men believe a falsehood; it has happened and shall continue to happen — a man believes what he is raised to believe. It has little to do with malice.
Yes, believing the Earth is flat is *way* more ridiculous than not believing in climate change or evolution. The roundness of the Earth is something physical and observable directly in front of you.
Is that why the common man believed the earth to be flat well into the 1600s with only the learned knowing otherwise? until popular education became mandatory? Because he could observe it so easily?
Of course not. Deducing that the earth is roughly sphærical is something that takes rather advanced understanding and observation — it is not at all as obvious as you claim it is.
Evolution and climate change require referring to data most people don't know how to understand and using lots of inductive reasoning to link cause and effect.
That evolution happens is a simple consequence of lineal transference of traits — it happens under two obviously true assumptions A) children take after their parents. B) some traits will cause one to have more children.
That God did not talk to Muḥammad
viā Gabriel is also quite easy to deduce — let us place ourselves in the shoes of God shall we: “
I am an omnipotent being who is trying to spread message of my existence and will onto the little men below whom I created. I've tried so before but they corrupted my message... ah I know that I shall do! I shall send down one of my messengers onto that little man in a cave; he shall write down my message, and then spread it to others and hopefully convince them — what splendorous idea from little old me who is omnipotent and can make said message appear in the sky for all to see.”
It's an extremely implausible story of course that God, who so wishes that man understand and receive His message, would operate so, instead of making the very clouds move such that they relay His Divine Message, the moving of said clouds being instant proof of the power of God.
This story is infinitely more implausible than that the Earth one sees before one's very eyes be flat, which certainly looks rather flat to the naked eye on first inspection because the curvature is so large it cannot easily be observed by the naked eye.
No, there is nothing more reasonable about it — what you rather mean to say is that a million fools create a truth and the simple reason that one is accepted and the other is not, is because one is common enough and some men dare not step on the toes of the many, but only of the few.
