Convince Me

....Our ideas today can be wrong, therefore earth can be flat round or any other shape thought of

When I said, "So what?" I didn't mean, "Please restate the obvious;" I mean, "Why even bring it up?  What's the point of saying so?  What insight have we gained as a result of this realization?  In short, who cares?"

Quote from: "RenaissanceMan"

Anyway. It's like this:

FEers are deeply religious. They want to believe in a universe that mirrors the creation myth in Genesis. It's that simple.

I'm stunned.  You're really astute.  You've been on this forum, what, three days?  And already you have peered within the depths of our collective psyches and found the germ of our neurosis.  Well done.

actually he is right, the few actual FEer we have on this forum are infact very religious. but not in the right-wing christian protestant sort of way you would think.

Quote

I never said it wasn't round.

...

Quote

If someone lives in California, for example, that person cannot say California exists even though that person lives in California because of the very fact that someone else has *NOT* been to California, and because of that very thinking, has no evidence that California exists. Therefore, California would both exist and not exist.

Yet that's exactly the kind of information this site produces.  Saying it's a fact that the whole worlds' governments are all in on one conspiracy to say the world is not flat, even though others have seen that it is, is completley and utterly worthless.

Quote

Thinking like this is a waste of time.

I agree.  So thank you for backing my point.
cookies++

Do you listen?  I have never claimed to be for or against either theory/belief presented on this site.

Why do you insist on trying to contradict me when I haven't said anything that isn't neutral?  

You are missing the whole reasoning behind the conspiracy as well.  Its not that people said "well if there was a conspiracy, perhaps a Flat Earth is viable!".  It's that people believed that the Earth is flat due to several mathematical principles, religious reasons, and/or various experiments.  When they see all this information showing a round Earth, they explain it by saying its false.  They *BELIEVE* (as in they take a certain amount of information or knowledge for granted as we all do in situations) in a flat Earth so how do they explain all the information reguarding the Round Earth?  A government conspiracy meant to hide the truth.  They use a conspiracy to explain the information reguarding a round Earth, not to explain why the world is flat.  They already know that the Earth is flat; they aren't trying to convince themselves!

Troubadour is correct; most of the flat Earthers on this forum seem to be religious, but it doesn't seem to me that this is a requirement.  There are very many convincing readings on the whole subject.

When I said, "So what?" I didn't mean, "Please restate the obvious;" I mean, "Why even bring it up?  What's the point of saying so?  What insight have we gained as a result of this realization?  In short, who cares?"

Why bring it up... this is the flat earth society forum and this statement proves the earth could be flat..... not asking for you to care just stating for those that think the earth is round it is possible for it to be flat,  gaining insight in that not all accepted ideas are necessarily correct so again it could be flat....

again restating obvious... but maybe in a way you can see the relevance

Why bring it up... this is the flat earth society forum and this statement proves the earth could be flat..... not asking for you to care just stating for those that think the earth is round it is possible for it to be flat,  gaining insight in that not all accepted ideas are necessarily correct so again it could be flat....

Look, everybody is either the kind of person who already realizes the truth of "X could be true," or the kind of person who will not suddenly change their mind just because you say it.

Really, the statements "For all X, X could be true," and "Not all accepted ideas are necessarily correct" add no new knowledge, understanding, or insight, to anybody, whatsoever.

On this forum it is not likely to have an effect: those whom you're trying to change -- the people who refuse to believe that the Earth could be flat in the sense of "could" that you're using -- are going to ignore it, and everybody else is already using it.

In other venues the only effect it can ever have is to terminate an ongoing, possibly fruitful discussion.

Do you listen?

I was just about to ask you the same thing.

I have never claimed to be for or against either theory/belief presented on this site.

When did I say you did?  Maybe you should stop seeing only what you want to see.

I have never claimed to be for or against either theory/belief presented on this site.

Why is that?  Are you afraid that if step down from this plateau you are trying to create above the rest of these kids, that you will have no chance of actually proving your beliefs because of your obvious lack of knowledge about debating?  How sad.

Why is that? Are you afraid that if step down from this plateau you are trying to create above the rest of these kids, that you will have no chance of actually proving your beliefs because of your obvious lack of knowledge about debating? How sad.

Actually, you're somewhat right on this one!  You've got one (of many) reason(s) I do not post my exact beliefs.  That one reason is that I don't feel that I know enough about physics and mathematics to prove myself one way or another.  Is this really so bad?  The level of thought here has remained very high and physics is not exactly my cup of tea, so-to-speak.  Mathematics, I am somewhat stronger with, but I have not been exposed to some of the higher formulas, equations, and theorems that are seen on this forum.

I don't see what is sad about keeping my ignorance to myself, sir.  I never pretend to know anything more about physics than I do which is why you do not see me posting in many topics.

I do, however, feel that I have a competent enough grasp on philosophy to step in when people, such as yourself, disreguard certain basics in philosophy, or cannot understand why people can believe in certain things.  That much I can contribute, and I am happy to do so.

I am also learning a great deal about physics and its practical use on this forum.  This is like an educational goldmine here:  you're getting people using theorems and formulas to apply it to, well, the Earth!  It's much easier to see why certain things work the way they do, or understand why you should use x formula over y formula when its over a common subject.

I suppose it would be much easier to contribute to some debates here if I read theorems of physics rather than Crime and Punishment and The Idiot by Fyodor Dostovesky, The Metamorphosis by Kafka, and Faust parts I and II by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.  But, to be honest, I'd rather read this than physical theorems.  I guess I can't post here anymore now that my facade has been uncovered!

 

actually he is right, the few actual FEer we have on this forum are infact very religious. but not in the right-wing christian protestant sort of way you would think.

I am an actual FEer and I am not very religious.

Look, everybody is either the kind of person who already realizes the truth of "X could be true," or the kind of person who will not suddenly change their mind just because you say it.

Really, the statements "For all X, X could be true," and "Not all accepted ideas are necessarily correct" add no new knowledge, understanding, or insight, to anybody, whatsoever.

On this forum it is not likely to have an effect: those whom you're trying to change -- the people who refuse to believe that the Earth could be flat in the sense of "could" that you're using -- are going to ignore it, and everybody else is already using it.

Yes very true I now understand what you are saying, and apologize for the practically useless info bc like you said its either blaitently obvious or ignored.... You bring up a very good point thats prlly true in alot of cases on this forum

Actually, you're somewhat right on this one!  You've got one (of many) reason(s) I do not post my exact beliefs.  That one reason is that I don't feel that I know enough about physics and mathematics to prove myself one way or another.  Is this really so bad?  The level of thought here has remained very high and physics is not exactly my cup of tea, so-to-speak.  Mathematics, I am somewhat stronger with, but I have not been exposed to some of the higher formulas, equations, and theorems that are seen on this forum.

I don't see what is sad about keeping my ignorance to myself, sir. I never pretend to know anything more about physics than I do which is why you do not see me posting in many topics.

I do, however, feel that I have a competent enough grasp on philosophy to step in when people, such as yourself, disreguard certain basics in philosophy, or cannot understand why people can believe in certain things.  That much I can contribute, and I am happy to do so.

I am also learning a great deal about physics and its practical use on this forum.  This is like an educational goldmine here:  you're getting people using theorems and formulas to apply it to, well, the Earth!  It's much easier to see why certain things work the way they do, or understand why you should use x formula over y formula when its over a common subject.

I suppose it would be much easier to contribute to some debates here if I read theorems of physics rather than Crime and Punishment and The Idiot by Fyodor Dostovesky, The Metamorphosis by Kafka, and Faust parts I and II by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.  But, to be honest, I'd rather read this than physical theorems.  I guess I can't post here anymore now that my facade has been uncovered!

 

I tip my hat to such statements  :mrgreen:

cannot understand why people can believe in certain things.

Oh I understand why some people might actually believe this, even though the creators of this site obviously don't, some people will believe anything, if you put it in a pretty enough package.

I do, however, feel that I have a competent enough grasp on philosophy to step in when people, such as yourself, disreguard certain basics in philosophy...

*laughs*
If by "grasp on philosophy", you mean a complete lack of common sense, attempting to stay above everyone else with this ultimate knowledge that you've yet to shared with everyone, and putting others down to make your self-image better, then yes, I guess you do. :?

The only "philosophical" post(s) I've made here were ones based on the same ideas that this website trys to teach.  So by saying "I disreguard certain basics in philosophy", you're also saying that about this site.  This is strange, because to me, you either seem to be a creator, or you like to seem like a big part of this site.  Why would you attempt to insult this place?

If by "grasp on philosophy", you mean a complete lack of common sense, attempting to stay above everyone else with this ultimate knowledge that you've yet to shared with everyone, and putting others down to make your self-image better, then yes, I guess you do.

Yes.  If I had shown you my full mental capabilities, you'd probably explode.  Maybe.

The only "philosophical" post(s) I've made here were ones based on the same ideas that this website trys to teach. So by saying "I disreguard certain basics in philosophy", you're also saying that about this site.

Look, if you're not going to play by the rules, I will notify you of it.  If you don't like the rules, that's a bit too bad.  "Everything is nothing" disproves itself; using it in a debate is essentially suicide.  I merely pointed this out to you.  I don't say this about this site because it doesn't do anything wrong really.  Infact, by taking away certain evidence that is often taken for granted (and apparently is often faked as other forum regulars and I have found), this forum works well for discussions.

This is strange, because to me, you either seem to be a creator, or you like to seem like a big part of this site. Why would you attempt to insult this place?

I am neither.  I wouldn't mind playing a big part in it, however.

Yes. If I had shown you my full mental capabilities, you'd probably explode.

I doubt that.  It was funny though, good job.

Look, if you're not going to play by the rules, I will notify you of it.

You might want to make sure you actually know the rules first.  Right now it doesn't seem like you do not.

"Everything is nothing" disproves itself; using it in a debate is essentially suicide.

I didn't say "Everything is nothing", you were the one trying to make it seem like I did.  Which by my standards, if it counts, is very immature and childish.  But if you are indeed a child, I meant no offense.

Infact, by taking away certain evidence that is often taken for granted

Some call it evidence, some call it story writing.  Who's to say?

I am neither. I wouldn't mind playing a big part in it, however.

Somehow I don't doubt that.

Quote from: "chevelle"

Why is that? Are you afraid that if step down from this plateau you are trying to create above the rest of these kids, that you will have no chance of actually proving your beliefs because of your obvious lack of knowledge about debating? How sad.

Actually, you're somewhat right on this one!  You've got one (of many) reason(s) I do not post my exact beliefs.  That one reason is that I don't feel that I know enough about physics and mathematics to prove myself one way or another.  Is this really so bad?  The level of thought here has remained very high and physics is not exactly my cup of tea, so-to-speak.  Mathematics, I am somewhat stronger with, but I have not been exposed to some of the higher formulas, equations, and theorems that are seen on this forum.

I don't see what is sad about keeping my ignorance to myself, sir.  I never pretend to know anything more about physics than I do which is why you do not see me posting in many topics.

I do, however, feel that I have a competent enough grasp on philosophy to step in when people, such as yourself, disreguard certain basics in philosophy, or cannot understand why people can believe in certain things.  That much I can contribute, and I am happy to do so.

I am also learning a great deal about physics and its practical use on this forum.  This is like an educational goldmine here:  you're getting people using theorems and formulas to apply it to, well, the Earth!  It's much easier to see why certain things work the way they do, or understand why you should use x formula over y formula when its over a common subject.

I suppose it would be much easier to contribute to some debates here if I read theorems of physics rather than Crime and Punishment and The Idiot by Fyodor Dostovesky, The Metamorphosis by Kafka, and Faust parts I and II by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.  But, to be honest, I'd rather read this than physical theorems.  I guess I can't post here anymore now that my facade has been uncovered!

 

The allure of a bel-air edit is quite powerful, but I will restrain for now.

By the way, my name is not "chevelle".

I didn't say "Everything is nothing", you were the one trying to make it seem like I did. Which by my standards, if it counts, is very immature and childish. But if you are indeed a child, I meant no offense.

That's what the idea of not being able to know anything for true and its subsets basically refer to.  Disputing that we can actually know things isn't done.  It really is, as I said before, a waste of time.  You have to realize, newIdea, that this argument is done far too much on this forum.  I do apologize if I seemed harsh; after re-reading my original post, that does seem the case.  It was mainly dismay at seeing those kinds of posts over and over again.

You might want to make sure you actually know the rules first. Right now it doesn't seem like you do not.

Sorry for doing this backwards.  I'm quite sure I do.  By all means, if there are holes in my posts, please, drop me a line via private message.  Philosophy is a subject that interests me very well so I'd be happy to read some articles or even books showing a different point of view on this subject.  I'm going to Half-Price Books tommorow or the next day to pick up a Qu'ran and Faust Part Two by Goethe, so I'll look up some books about this one.

By the way, my name is not "chevelle".

haha I just noticed the mis-quote.

My apologies on the mis-quote.

That's what the idea of not being able to know anything for true and its subsets basically refer to.

No I never mentioned that "everything" is "nothing".  From what I said, under this site's basis, is that you couldn't fully know that something is a fact, unless you witness it.  The part I think you're neglecting to realise, is that I was using this site's basis and FE's arguments.  I'm surprised that you, being a self-proclaimed "philosopher", are so distraught to this idea.

You have to realize, newIdea, that this argument is done far too much on this forum.  I do apologize if I seemed harsh; after re-reading my original post, that does seem the case. It was mainly dismay at seeing those kinds of posts over and over again.

Meh, I might consider it harsh if those were my beliefs.  I was using that as a example to prove FE's arguments wrong.  But for some reason, oddly enough, no one wanted to hear that their arguments were rediculous.  Isn't that strange?

I'm quite sure I do.

Sorry to use a FE'ers overused line, but... "proof"?