The original topic (you know, the one we were discussing about 5 pages ago), was not whether the earth is flat (which it isn't) or whether it has gone horribly pear shaped (which it has), but the question of what is the difference between believing in a flat earth and believing that Jesus is alive, the idea behind the question, if I understand correctly, being that neither can be proved, so both have to be accepted by faith, which basis is not entirely correct, since although there is no absolute proof, beyond the shadow of a doubt, of either belief, there is considerable evidence in both cases, so neither one has to be believed based only on blind faith, but can base their beliefs on the evidence, said evidence being, in the case of the belief that Christ still lives, personal experience of the one believing as well as the testimony of others, both of those presently living and of those who have gone before us, as well as historical evidence, such as the resurrection or the lives of the early Christians, but in the case of the belief that the earth is flat, the evidence is pretty much all in the other direction, that is to say, it points to the earth not being flat, examples of such evidence being the obvious curve of the earth's surface when looking at a flat horizon, such as the ocean, or when seeing the earth from an airplane (in the air, of course, since the view from airplanes on the ground is not much different from the view from the ground itself), so we see that one belief (the belief that Christ is alive) has considerable evidence supporting it, while the other belief (the belief that the earth is flat) has considerable evidence against it, and as a side note, I think that rather than report me to the grammar police, I should receive a prize for composing a run on sentence that puts even Charles Dickens to shame (three hundred fifty one words comprised of one thousand nine hudred forty seven characters).
The TOG