Antartica not existing

:roll:

Oh well .. no point in discussing with me anyways. As an astronomer, I'm part of the conspiracy. YAY! I'm an evil conspirator. I've always wanted to try that

They are indisputedly ignorant, in that they believe in something they have never seen. I'm not saying they are stupid- we are all ignorant, myself included. It's not an insult, merely a fact. We are ignorant, but to deny our ignorance is stupidity. To paraphrase Socrates, 'I am only wise in that I know I know nothing'.

Quote

And this is supposed to infer what exactly? How can one possibly have a logical and sensible debate with someone who claims that any disparaging evidence is a conspiracy? As I stated prior, it is like arguing with a brick wall.

It is supposed to infer that you have no right to claim we are 'deviant' when your opinions and beliefs are based entirely on what other people have told you. Tell me, what authority do they have that we don't?

Quote

They are indisputedly ignorant, in that they believe in something they have never seen.

Have you ever seen your lungs?

If the flat earth society was actually interested in proving their theory, they would have collected enough money to have ONE PERSON try it by now.

Ohh... so because we can't physically see it first-hand with our own two eyes that's enough for you to justify questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about? Also, you might want to refer the meaning of "deviant" as your last statement made no sense.

Good point. There are also other scenarios for which this would apply....

Quote from: "ciroc"

Ohh... so because we can't physically see it first-hand with our own two eyes that's enough for you to justify questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about? Also, you might want to refer the meaning of "deviant" as your last statement made no sense.

See above post. And I made no reference to the meaning of deviant; I merely suggested that saying we are deviant just because we question what we are told by forces we have no reason to trust is foolish.

Quote

Good point. There are also other scenarios for which this would apply....

No, it's not a good point, because anyone who went would have to get their own plane (expensive) and then, as per the conspiracy, risk confrontation with the security forces which patrol the ice-wall.

He is also mistaken in his belief regarding commercial flights over 'Antarctica' by the way- they are extremely rare.

No, you are mistaken (moron). LANChile and Aerolineas Argentinas fly over Antarctica on every sector from Santiago/BA to Auckland and vice versa. Whilst not directly over the South Pole, the route does take them over Antarctica.

Deviant: "departing from normal standards"- Oxford English Dictionary

By saying I have a deviant mind, or that my mind is in a deviant state, you imply that my mind is in some way abnormal- hence that there was something wrong with me. Perhaps you meant to say that my beliefs were deviant, but then, that isn't what you said, is it?

By saying my mind is 'deviant', you are implying that there is something intrinsically wrong with my mind, and that this is the reason that I think the way I do. What I am saying is that questioning the things we are told in no way means that we have "deviant minds"- on the contrary, we are simply holding our powers of rational to the highest standard, by questioning and scrutinizing what we are told. So, either you believe that it is in some way abnormal to question the world around you (in which case I am quite happy to remain abnormal), or you do not know the meaning of what you said.

Quote

No, you are mistaken (moron). LANChile and Aerolineas Argentinas fly over Antarctica on every sector from Santiago/BA to Auckland and vice versa. Whilst not directly over the South Pole, the route does take them over Antarctica.

Could you provide me with the specific details of these routes? I was under the impression that Antarctic flying was extremely dangerous, and that as such, unlike the north pole, it was generally not flown over to any great degree. I may be wrong, but that was what I have been lead to believe.

Nice analysis! How long did that take you? Half an hour? A whole hour?

1. If you think that the North pole is similar to the south pole, then you are displaying clear ignorance of the facts you supposedly believe in. As I said before, filghts over the North pole are very common and perfectly safe, but to the best of my knowledge Antarctic flights are extremely dangerous and commerical flights very rare.

2. To be in a deviant state of mind or to have a deviant mind would imply that there is something basically wrong with that mind and the way it functions. However, by your logic, anyone who doesn't believe in God or supernatural beings has a deviant state of mind, as the majority of the worlds population does to some degree. So by that reasoning, anyone who questions accepted assumptions has a deviant mind- Gallileo and Einstein spring to mind.

Of course, this is not the case, as their minds worked in a perfectly normal way- it is merely their beliefs which are deviant, as in my case.

3.
Well, though that's probably the most childish thing you've said so far, I'd just like to point out that I replied to your post 25 minutes after you posted it (which you would know if you had bothered to look at the time of posting which is on every post), whereas you took 2 hours to make your reply. But because I'm not an ass, I'm not going to make any childish comments about it- I'll just presume that like me, you were away from your computer when I posted.

The sole reason I mentioned the north pole was because of the similar temperatures encountered. You provided no explanation for why you thought it was dangerous to fly over Antarctica, so could deduce only that..

Because the weather conditions are completely different, and I do mean completely. Antarctica is supposedly a continent, and as such has a weather system which would be incomparable to that of the north pole region, which is entirely different in size and make-up.

Quote from: "ciroc"

You just don't get it, do you? Relating your situation to that of religious persons and "deviant"(?) atheists is a completely different scenario. It seems you once again failed to read my post. Questioning widely accepted assumptions is not indicative of a deviant mind. What I am addressing is the fact that your alternative "theory" lacks any credible evidence, logic or reasoned thinking. But the fact you hold such overwhelming conviction in this concept implies a corrupted or otherwise deviant mind. It's just rediculous that you compare your situation with that of Gallileo and Einstein. Their postulates were never based upon conspiracies and unjustified arbitrary theories tailored to suit their POV.

But taken in itself, our theory makes perfect sense. If you accept that there is a conspiracy without knowing the cause (like you accept there is gravity without knowing the cause), it's not nearly as outlandish. Just like RE theory there are some things we cannot explain which form a core part of our beliefs, but that does not make that theory any less valid. Einsteins theories were an entirely unprove and unsubstantiated alternative to Newtonian physics when he presented them, and only came to be widely accepted in the decades afterwards, and some apsects of it were not 'proven' until after his death. He questioned the physics of Newton (despite the fact those physics made what were apparantly highly accurate predictions) based on a small number of observable disrepencies.

All I am saying is that you accuse us of having a deviant state of mind, which is not the case. I can see the logic in the RE model, but that does not mean I have to accept it and not question it. If I want to believe in God (which I do not, incidently), it does not mean I have a deviant mind just because the concept of god "lacks any credible evidence, logic or reasoned thinking" or that to "hold such overwhelming conviction in this concept implies a corrupted or otherwise deviant mind". Tell me, exactly what do you mean by a "deviant mind"? On the one hand you are saying that it is to believe in something which doesn't make logical sense (like 'God'), but on the other you appear mean that a deviant mind is any mind which does not conform to widely accepted beliefs (like God). If I don't understand you, it's because you are not being clear and, frankly, because you are contradicting yourself.

Quote from: "ciroc"

It wasn't childish, I was just curious to how long you spent scrutinizing the very nature and application of the word "deviant".

I'm sure curiousity was your sole motive.