Burden of Proof

  • 204 Replies
  • 44872 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2008, 07:49:51 AM »
Even if you don't believe FE needs to prove itself, there is no reason not to satisfy the people asking for proof.
Well, there are always reasons.
Care to share? Or does that play into the true purpose of the website and shouldn't be readily admitted?  ;)

...Unless you are talking about invalid reasons like laziness...
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2008, 09:03:54 AM »

I believe you misunderstood my post. I am not looking for FE'ers to convince me, nor do I believe that that is their intention. Similarly, I did not come here with the intention of convincing them of a Round Earth, (although it might be a consequence of discussions). I simply want to hear how they came to believe what they believe.

Oh, why didnít you say so instead of the burden of proof stand-off?  The flat earth people are more entertaining and stimulating.  Many round earth people are boring, snide, rude and occasionally coarse and silly.  Yes, a pure, simple, beneficial social alliance put me squarely in the flat earth camp.  Others may have different explanations.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2008, 09:50:45 AM »

I believe you misunderstood my post. I am not looking for FE'ers to convince me, nor do I believe that that is their intention. Similarly, I did not come here with the intention of convincing them of a Round Earth, (although it might be a consequence of discussions). I simply want to hear how they came to believe what they believe.

Oh, why didnít you say so instead of the burden of proof stand-off?  The flat earth people are more entertaining and stimulating.  Many round earth people are boring, snide, rude and occasionally coarse and silly.  Yes, a pure, simple, beneficial social alliance put me squarely in the flat earth camp.  Others may have different explanations.
Yes, the flat earthers like myself are much more entertaining. It's because we are all as thick as two short planks and have the reasoning capability of a stapler.

Round earthers are scarey because they know stuff even after we stamp our feet!
I believe the earth is flat because I have a brain the size of a peanut.

?

Nightmare

  • 128
  • Flat Earth is gay??
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2008, 09:58:10 AM »
why don't you drive to florida and get a telescope and watch the space shuttle take off? and go to outerspace?  :D
forum browser

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #64 on: September 09, 2008, 10:03:02 AM »

Yes, the flat earthers like myself are much more entertaining.


I'm so sorry; you didn't make the cut-off.  There will be more try-outs next month, though, so keep practicing.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #65 on: September 09, 2008, 01:57:37 PM »

Yes, the flat earthers like myself are much more entertaining.


I'm so sorry; you didn't make the cut-off.  There will be more try-outs next month, though, so keep practicing.
I've been practicing getting my IQ below into the FE requirement of less than 20 for some time - you guys impress me so much with your services to numb skull studies.
I believe the earth is flat because I have a brain the size of a peanut.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2008, 02:18:40 PM »
I've been practicing getting my IQ below into the FE requirement of less than 20 for some time - you guys impress me so much with your services to numb skull studies.

"One afternoon a fox was walking through the forest and spotted a bunch of grapes hanging from over a lofty branch......"

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2008, 02:22:56 PM »
I've been practicing getting my IQ below into the FE requirement of less than 20 for some time - you guys impress me so much with your services to numb skull studies.

"One afternoon a fox was walking through the forest and spotted a bunch of grapes hanging from over a lofty branch......"
Your probably right, sour grapes - that's it, mind you I could get my electic drill out and try some trappaning, would that help?
I believe the earth is flat because I have a brain the size of a peanut.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #68 on: September 10, 2008, 06:33:38 AM »
A repost for Tom's convenience:
___________________________________________
I've never seen a Round Earth.
1. Billions of people have, myself included. I can detect a degree of curvature at some beaches with a wide enough view. I have seen the obvious curvature from planes. I believe a majority of RE'ers will agree with this assessment.

2. Have you ever seen a flat Earth, ignoring the flawed experiment of looking at a locally linear section of the Earth?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The only universal experience is that we live upon a plane.
Demonstrate this.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Your claim that NASA can do all of these amazing things is also an extraordinary claim.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

The simplest explanation is that we can use logic math to configure rockets and spacecraft. Trajectory, air resistance, effect of gravitation is all computable. Building it is a hell of a lot simpler than the complex processes and elaborate workings that a conspiracy would have to use in order to keep up the disguise of rocket launches and fool the entire world.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The fact is that the only person here making extraordinary claims here is you.
You continue to miss the last point of my post: I have not come to you telling you the Earth is round. I have come here inquiring as to why people believe it is flat.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
It's not our job to disprove your claims and prove a negative.
Not that you're correct, but it doesn't matter; you shouldn't have to... if you believe in a Flat Earth for logical reasons, then you already have. It's just a matter of posting them.
Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy
This site's primary function promotes the 'fact' that the Earth is actually flat. This is a most extraordinary claim, regardless of whether or not you are trying to convert others to your view. It is your Zetetic Duty to ensure that your alleged facts have substantial evidence to support them.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
We don't need to try to prove that ghosts don't exist.
If this was the ghost believer site, you would.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
You're making the claims here. THE BURDEN IS ON YOU TO PROVE IT
Your telling me that you are not claiming the Earth is flat?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #69 on: September 10, 2008, 06:56:50 AM »
To claim that you are not a conspiracy victim, You'd have to assert that the "Round Earth" conspiracy does not exist.

I've claimed neither.

Is it your assertion that there is not a conspiracy to convince the general populace that the Earth is round while it is in fact flat?

It is my assertion that I am unaware whether I'm a victim or not.

Are you applying this to the curvature of the horizon example, or just as a general rule to not take everything at face value without consideration?

General rule. One of the most common "proofs" upon a newcomer's arrival is their observation of a curved horizon, so the Earth must be spherical. Under logic, this is proof that it only appears curved, and that's stretching slightly. Actually physically being curved is a completely different subject and requires more evidence.

Care to share? Or does that play into the true purpose of the website and shouldn't be readily admitted?  ;)

...Unless you are talking about invalid reasons like laziness...

By what measure are you deeming a reason invalid?

Reasons could be many:

They don't actually have proof.
They fear the conspiracy.
They are unmotivated to showcase and do the necessary work to showcase the proof.
They want people to learn it for themselves.
Etc...
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #70 on: September 10, 2008, 07:39:23 AM »
Reasons could be many:

They don't actually have proof.
This scenario would be an RE win. It's illogical to believe in FE without any evidence.
Quote
They fear the conspiracy.
Discounted by their presence and claims on these forums. No?
Quote
They are unmotivated to showcase and do the necessary work to showcase the proof.
It is much more work to argue day after day for years, than to post something that would prove FE.
Quote
They want people to learn it for themselves.
Learn how to prove FE? If they were interested in making us learn the proof, they would have to use a method to guide our thought processes. Otherwise, that's just waiting for us the think of the same thing without a way to get there. Socratic method on the FE'ers part is not really seen on these forums.

The main possibilities I see for not posting evidence are:
1. Lack of proof, but belief anyways. (Faith)
2. Lack of proof, and lack of belief. (Fake FE'er)
3. Preference to argue. (Indifferent to truth, cares only for the arguments)

A preference to argue would mean that desire to debate outweighs their care of the real RE/FE.
If these scenarios are true it would mean a win for RE. Since, no FE'er wants to admit any of these, a lack of explanation is expected. This is why I plan to give this thread plenty of bumps, to ensure that no proof can or wants to be presented. That in itself is evidence supporting that one or more of the conditions (of presenting the evidence) are in fact true.

My guess is 2 and 3. Fake FE'ers with a preference to debate.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #71 on: September 10, 2008, 08:51:10 AM »
Discounted by their presence and claims on these forums. No?

That's an illogical statement. Their presence and claims have resulted in no considerable proof in the conspiracy or that the Earth is really flat. Actually posting information proving such a thing would be a lot more dangerous.

It is much more work to argue day after day for years, than to post something that would prove FE.

Another illogical statement. Typing simple logic and rebuttals in hypothetical circumstances seems like nothing compared to having the academic know-how and time to complete an impressive array of evidence and information proving the shape of the Earth. No matter how much work is done, there will always be ignorance and stupidity.

Learn how to prove FE? If they were interested in making us learn the proof, they would have to use a method to guide our thought processes. Otherwise, that's just waiting for us the think of the same thing without a way to get there. Socratic method on the FE'ers part is not really seen on these forums.

Well, this doesn't seem to be the priority of many members, as logic doesn't seem to be apart of most REers repertoire.

3. Preference to argue. (Indifferent to truth, cares only for the arguments)

Indifference to truth? Sorry, but logically, it's not truth.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

PeopleOnBehalfOfLogic

  • 130
  • RE'er (for now)
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #72 on: September 10, 2008, 01:32:36 PM »
has it ocurred to either of you we may simply not be able to prove FE or RE? We may just have to wait for commercial spaceflight? though this is fun...on a more relavent note, if someone had proof for FE then once they published they would be safe. Killing them would just be suspicous and get them media attention.
Just noticed my name is actually pretty insulting. Apologies.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #73 on: September 11, 2008, 07:34:11 AM »
has it ocurred to either of you we may simply not be able to prove FE or RE?

That should be the first conclusion anyone makes.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #74 on: September 11, 2008, 07:38:10 AM »
For a noob with less than 100 posts, you sure are fast to get that.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #75 on: September 11, 2008, 09:08:25 AM »
Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

Even if you don't believe FE needs to prove itself, there is no reason not to satisfy the people asking for proof. I await your response.
I speak with a humble tongue and a kind heart that I may impart peace and love, (Truth).

The North pole is the only place where 6 months of light and darkness can and has been documented because there are people who live there (Inuits), according to science if the Earth spun on her axis this could not take place. The link shows the North axis is tilted away from the Sun in Dec (3/mths), thereby no day-light, and in June towards the Sun (3/mths), thereby no nights, but in the March and Sept position the North axis gets half light/half night (6/mths), under this failed THEORY the Earth is flat.


But on a flat Earth map when the Sun is closer to the center as in the spring/summer the 6 months light documentation is confirmed and the same during the fall/winter for the 6 months nights, I hope this helped.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/flatmap.jpg
« Last Edit: September 15, 2008, 01:52:00 PM by Punisher »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #76 on: September 11, 2008, 09:10:34 AM »
Inuits live at the north pole?
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #77 on: September 11, 2008, 09:26:56 AM »
Inuits live at the north pole?
Very close and very cold!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42612
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #78 on: September 11, 2008, 03:20:00 PM »
Inuits live at the north pole?

I think that it's conspiracy code for Santa and his elves.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

PeopleOnBehalfOfLogic

  • 130
  • RE'er (for now)
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #79 on: September 12, 2008, 09:24:30 AM »
Thank you. If someone had proof and they published, they would be safe. Kiling them would just be suspicous.
Just noticed my name is actually pretty insulting. Apologies.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #80 on: September 12, 2008, 09:25:46 AM »
Discounted by their presence and claims on these forums. No?

That's an illogical statement. Their presence and claims have resulted in no considerable proof in the conspiracy or that the Earth is really flat. Actually posting information proving such a thing would be a lot more dangerous.
I have to work on my communication skills.  :P
I was referring partly to previous attempts to prove FE.

1. These posts were made for debate. (no need for conspiracy)
2. These posts were made under the belief that they were correct. (lesser fear of conspiracy)
3. Scientifically inaccurate posts were made under the belief that they were accurate. (slightly incompetent FE'ers)
4. Scientifically inaccurate posts were made, hoping that RE'ers wouldn't notice the mistakes. (unscientific FE'ers)

Quote from: divito
It is much more work to argue day after day for years, than to post something that would prove FE.

Another illogical statement. Typing simple logic and rebuttals in hypothetical circumstances seems like nothing compared to having the academic know-how and time to complete an impressive array of evidence and information proving the shape of the Earth. No matter how much work is done, there will always be ignorance and stupidity.

Ignorance in the presence of significantly greater evidence and/or proof would be greatly diminished. Debating with the least effective argument is inefficient. Why use a toothpick to kill an army of ants when you have pesticide, or a hand grenade?

Quote from: divito
Learn how to prove FE? If they were interested in making us learn the proof, they would have to use a method to guide our thought processes. Otherwise, that's just waiting for us the think of the same thing without a way to get there. Socratic method on the FE'ers part is not really seen on these forums.

Well, this doesn't seem to be the priority of many members, as logic doesn't seem to be apart of most REers repertoire.
So teaching us to learn it ourselves is pretty much out. Right?

Quote from: divito
3. Preference to argue. (Indifferent to truth, cares only for the arguments)

Indifference to truth? Sorry, but logically, it's not truth.
I'm not sure what you mean here...
If FE'ers are on this site to debate for the fun of it, wouldn't the true shape of the Earth is irrelevant?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #81 on: September 12, 2008, 10:32:20 AM »


The North pole is the only place where 6 months of light and darkness can and has been documented because there are people who live there (Inuits),

People live on the south pole too.


according to science if the Earth spun on her axis this could not take place. The link shows the North axis is tilted away from the Sun in Dec (3/mths), thereby no day-light, and in June towards the Sun (3/mths), thereby no nights, but in the March and Sept position the North axis gets half light/half night (6/mths).

That illustration does not show northpole getting half-night half day for 6 mths in a year it gets that for two days in a year on those points illustrated on that picture. If you would draw those pictures of earth one day before march equinox and one day after the march equinox you would see that northpole does not get any light on those days

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42612
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #82 on: September 12, 2008, 10:37:07 AM »


The North pole is the only place where 6 months of light and darkness can and has been documented because there are people who live there (Inuits),

People live on the south pole too.


according to science if the Earth spun on her axis this could not take place. The link shows the North axis is tilted away from the Sun in Dec (3/mths), thereby no day-light, and in June towards the Sun (3/mths), thereby no nights, but in the March and Sept position the North axis gets half light/half night (6/mths).

That illustration does not show northpole getting half-night half day for 6 mths in a year it gets that for two days in a year on those points illustrated on that picture. If you would draw those pictures of earth one day before march equinox and one day after the march equinox you would see that northpole does not get any light on those days

Actually, the equinoxes are the sunrise/set dates for the poles.  Oh, and have you ever heard of twilight?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #83 on: September 12, 2008, 10:47:16 AM »
Actually, the equinoxes are the sunrise/set dates for the poles. 

Did I say something different?

Oh, and have you ever heard of twilight?

Naturally north and south pole get some light when the sun is below the horizon,
but the main point was that the sun isn't visible during 6 months.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #84 on: September 12, 2008, 12:45:15 PM »
Thank you for actually attempting to respond to my post.
The North pole is the only place where 6 months of light and darkness can and has been documented because there are people who live there (Inuits), according to science if the Earth spun on her axis this could not take place.
Please demonstrate this. The link you proved showed Alaska on a Round Earth in shadow for 2 of the seasons and in light for two of the seasons.

Quote
The link shows the North axis is tilted away from the Sun in Dec (3/mths), thereby no day-light, and in June towards the Sun (3/mths), thereby no nights, but in the March and Sept position the North axis gets half light/half night (6/mths), under this failed THEORY the Earth is flat.
I think I understand your train of thought, in which case I should point out that the yellow dot in a red circle is the North Pole, not Alaska. Take another look.  ;)

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/seasons.jpg
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #85 on: September 15, 2008, 06:58:26 AM »
This thread needs to be bumped.
Refresher:

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

I can see no reason why such evidence can't readily be shared with us, since previous attempts have been made. Is there no reason to believe in FE left (biased), or are you afraid to subject your reasons to debate in fear of losing your reasons (biased)?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #86 on: September 17, 2008, 06:34:06 AM »
BUMP
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #87 on: September 17, 2008, 07:00:32 AM »
This thread needs to be bumped.
Refresher:

Point 1: It is illogical to arrive at a conclusion without evidence to support the conclusion.
Point 2: You have come to a conclusion of a Flat Earth.
Point 3: If you use logic and reasoning you must have evidence.

I can see no reason why such evidence can't readily be shared with us, since previous attempts have been made. Is there no reason to believe in FE left (biased), or are you afraid to subject your reasons to debate in fear of losing your reasons (biased)?

I can arrange to take you on a trip to the Ice Wall where you can bungee jump into outer space. Would this be enough evidence for you?

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #88 on: September 17, 2008, 07:15:55 AM »
I can arrange to take you on a trip to the Ice Wall where you can bungee jump into outer space. Would this be enough evidence for you?

Normally yes, but I'm busy. I only type in these forums in between classes and work.  ;)
I would accept a video tape yourself doing it, as long as it demonstrates that it is in fact the edge of the Earth.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Burden of Proof
« Reply #89 on: September 17, 2008, 07:43:11 AM »
Normally yes, but I'm busy. I only type in these forums in between classes and work.  ;)
I would accept a video tape yourself doing it, as long as it demonstrates that it is in fact the edge of the Earth.

So photography is unacceptable?