Refuting FEism

Something that really really bugs me is the way that REers try to refrute FEism by quoting scientific studies or facts but without actually giving the information.  You can't just say "you're wrong because we know that the Earths gravity has an effect on the moon" or whatever - just saying something doesn't mean anything.  If you want us to believe you, you have to actually at least make an effort to show us why the statement you're making is actually true.  It seems like 99% of RE arguements rely on us accepting their word that science has proved a certain thing.  If you want to prove FE theory wrong then you need to actually give us first hand evidence.  People come here and try to make scientific claims all the time to prove that the Earth is round and often they get shot down as stupid by people who are also argueing that the Earth is flat.  Given that fact, there is no reason why we'd believe anybody who claims that the Earth is round so you have to back it up.

I'm sure somebody will point out that FEers don't back up what we say, and maybe that's the case.  Not being able to back things up doesn't show that you're wrong though.  It's just if you do want to show us that we're wrong you do have to back up what you're saying.  I hope that makes sense.

No man, I get you, that actually makes complete sense. I think one of the best ways both sides should prove stuff or explain something is with simple easy to do experiments

Ya well it is hard when FE are giving amazing evidence throughout facts in science and refute the science as incorrect. I also hate it when FE claim that pilots are part of a conspiracy when we all know that is complete bs.

Ya well it is hard when FE are giving amazing evidence throughout facts in science and refute the science as incorrect.

Wha?

Something that really really bugs me is the way that REers try to refrute FEism by quoting scientific studies or facts but without actually giving the information.  You can't just say "you're wrong because we know that the Earths gravity has an effect on the moon" or whatever - just saying something doesn't mean anything.  If you want us to believe you, you have to actually at least make an effort to show us why the statement you're making is actually true.  It seems like 99% of RE arguements rely on us accepting their word that science has proved a certain thing.  If you want to prove FE theory wrong then you need to actually give us first hand evidence.  People come here and try to make scientific claims all the time to prove that the Earth is round and often they get shot down as stupid by people who are also argueing that the Earth is flat.  Given that fact, there is no reason why we'd believe anybody who claims that the Earth is round so you have to back it up.

I'm sure somebody will point out that FEers don't back up what we say, and maybe that's the case.  Not being able to back things up doesn't show that you're wrong though.  It's just if you do want to show us that we're wrong you do have to back up what you're saying.  I hope that makes sense.

Wait so are the FE'ers actually going to say anything useful to convince us RE'ers that have stumbled in here that the earth is actually fact? Because I don't see any convincing evidence...

I can't speak for all the flat Earthers but I have never tried to convince anybody that the Earth is flat.  I just tell people trying to tell me that I'm wrong why they're wrong and I enjoy talking to the other flat Earthers.  If you believe the Earth is round - good for you.  I'm not going to try and change your mind.  If you tell me I'm wrong I will probably defend my beliefs.

In all honesty, RE ers who want to make a point about a flaw in FE theory usualy make sure to explan how and provide examples. They then get answers like "no it's not"  or "you're wrong" by FE ers, with no explanation added.

I've only seen 2 FE eras that usually give explanations after a rebuttal, one guy I forgot the username and Erasmus, which even though is my nemesis, and even if I often question his statments at least has SOMEthing to back up wha the says.

Yes but the point is the examples they give - and you're definitely one the main offenders - rely on us believing your word that some scientist somewhere has proven whatever.  Like continental drift - I've seen this brought up a lot recently but I definitely haven't seen any evidence to suggest we should actually believe it does or does not happen.  Just you telling us that other people say it happens.  How can I go out and test this to make sure?  If I can't test it, how can it be submissable evidence?  Bringing up "evidence" that we can verify doesn't in any way refute FEism.  People try to tell us that the Earth is round and if they're lieing about that, what else could they be lieing about?

In all honesty, RE ers who want to make a point about a flaw in FE theory usualy make sure to explan how and provide examples. They then get answers like "no it's not"  or "you're wrong" by FE ers, with no explanation added.

This is ironic coming from you, as you NEVER back up what you say.  You just make unjustified statements and when you are asked to back them up you refuse to respond (as is evidenced by your unwillingness to respond to ANY of my posts).

Yes but the point is the examples they give - and you're definitely one the main offenders - rely on us believing your word that some scientist somewhere has proven whatever.  Like continental drift - I've seen this brought up a lot recently but I definitely haven't seen any evidence to suggest we should actually believe it does or does not happen.  Just you telling us that other people say it happens.  How can I go out and test this to make sure?  If I can't test it, how can it be submissable evidence?  Bringing up "evidence" that we can verify doesn't in any way refute FEism.  People try to tell us that the Earth is round and if they're lieing about that, what else could they be lieing about?

It's not like you can test that there is an ice wall, or a conspiracy. You don't seem to mind.

I'm not trying to prove myself wrong.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

In all honesty, RE ers who want to make a point about a flaw in FE theory usualy make sure to explan how and provide examples. They then get answers like "no it's not"  or "you're wrong" by FE ers, with no explanation added.

This is ironic coming from you, as you NEVER back up what you say.  You just make unjustified statements and when you are asked to back them up you refuse to respond (as is evidenced by your unwillingness to respond to ANY of my posts).

And he did JUST that, after you posted that. Not even a flame back at you.

I'm not trying to prove myself wrong.

It has nothing to d owith proving yourself wrong. You said that you shouldn't be expected to beleive something without evidence. But you do just that with the ice wal, the conspiracy and everything else.

Why I believe those things is irrelevent.  Aren't you trying to prove that I'm wrong?  Why would I believe you when you say that I'm wrong if you don't back up your statements?  Maybe FEism is a dillusoinal belief.  If that's the case you still need to provide actual evidence and not claims that evidence exists to convince us of your points.

Why I believe those things is irrelevent.

What were you saying about backing up statments?


It woud normally be irrelevant, but you're the one who made the mistake of saying that YOU shouldn't beleive anything if there is no evidence, if you cannot see it, if you can't test it ect, ect.

Indicentally, YOU beleive in FE theory. Why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you contradict youself by the very beleifs you support? Why should anyone listen to you when you ask for evidence when you strangely don't require any for FE?

Can you please show me where I said that "you shouldn't believe anything if there is no evidence?"

I've read over what I've written and I never said that.  What I said was why should we believe what YOU have to say if you don't back it up with evidence.  Obviously there are somethings you can believe without evidence or without much evidence - on the other hand I never believe somebody when they tell me I'm wrong if they can't back up why it is that I'm wrong.  I wasn't make a general statement in this topic, I was making a specifici topic.


Also please remember this rule:
I before E except after C.

That rule has too many exceptions :wink:

I don't think anyone wants to test that.

And another one gets banned within a day!

Woohoo, Culling the herd

Can you please show me where I said that "you shouldn't believe anything if there is no evidence?"

I've read over what I've written and I never said that.  What I said was why should we believe what YOU have to say if you don't back it up with evidence.  Obviously there are somethings you can believe without evidence or without much evidence - on the other hand I never believe somebody when they tell me I'm wrong if they can't back up why it is that I'm wrong.  I wasn't make a general statement in this topic, I was making a specifici topic.


Also please remember this rule:
I before E except after C.

You said it many times.  I never said you said it in THIS topic.

Ok, I think we are getting too far off topic here. No need to argue. Just provide your point of view guys, and have the proof that can be seen by anyone to back it up.

That is all that is required here.

That rule has too many exceptions :wink:

Not really.  It applies to words where the ie or ei make a sound together (a strong E sound) as opposed to appling to words where the two letters just happen to fall next to each other.  Can you name an exception where you get the strong e sound but spelt ei or cie?

Quote from: "beast"

Can you please show me where I said that "you shouldn't believe anything if there is no evidence?"

I've read over what I've written and I never said that.  What I said was why should we believe what YOU have to say if you don't back it up with evidence.  Obviously there are somethings you can believe without evidence or without much evidence - on the other hand I never believe somebody when they tell me I'm wrong if they can't back up why it is that I'm wrong.  I wasn't make a general statement in this topic, I was making a specifici topic.


Also please remember this rule:
I before E except after C.

You said it many times.  I never said you said it in THIS topic.

Show me 3 times where I've said that.  Less than 3 is clearly not "many" and I doubt you could define 3 as many but I'll accept that.