En_Aristeuein

You still haven't explained where you came up with the conspiracy.  It was just a whimsy, a passing thought, right?

So basically, you have belief which has no evidence supporting it, and you say that all of the arguments against a flat earth are conspiracies.

SHOW ME AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE OF THIS CONSPIRACY! PLEASE! THE ARGUMENT "THE EARTH IS FLAT, SO PHOTOS MUST BE FAKE AND GOVERNMENTS MUST BE LYING" DOES NOT QUALIFY AS VALID OR SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.  GET THAT EMBEDDED IN YOUR BRAIN.

Also, explain how you can sometimes see the moon in the sky during daylight.  Looks perfectly round to me!

And Engineer, your argument is still lame I strongly believe that you're making it up, and pretending to be "casual" because you put "sigh" in front of every post.

For your reading enjoyment.

You still haven't explained where you came up with the conspiracy.  It was just a whimsy, a passing thought, right?

So basically, you have belief which has no evidence supporting it, and you say that all of the arguments against a flat earth are conspiracies.

SHOW ME AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE OF THIS CONSPIRACY! PLEASE! THE ARGUMENT "THE EARTH IS FLAT, SO PHOTOS MUST BE FAKE AND GOVERNMENTS MUST BE LYING" DOES NOT QUALIFY AS VALID OR SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.  GET THAT EMBEDDED IN YOUR BRAIN.

Also, explain how you can sometimes see the moon in the sky during daylight.  Looks perfectly round to me!

I'll bet a fiver no flat earther will answer that.

You forgot to say (sigh) before your answer, Engineer.

And you still didn't answer me on how you can see the moon during the day, and it looks very round and spherical.  And show me evidence of a conspiracy.

You still haven't explained where you came up with the conspiracy.  It was just a whimsy, a passing thought, right?

So basically, you have belief which has no evidence supporting it, and you say that all of the arguments against a flat earth are conspiracies.

SHOW ME AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE OF THIS CONSPIRACY! PLEASE! THE ARGUMENT "THE EARTH IS FLAT, SO PHOTOS MUST BE FAKE AND GOVERNMENTS MUST BE LYING" DOES NOT QUALIFY AS VALID OR SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.  GET THAT EMBEDDED IN YOUR BRAIN.

Also, explain how you can sometimes see the moon in the sky during daylight.  Looks perfectly round to me!

The concept is not difficult to grasp, I have no idea why everyone refuses to accept something this incredibly obvious.

Here it is, in nice, bold print, with a quotation box added for your reading pleasure:

          The reason FE's say a conspiracy exists:

Earth is flat*, the world's governments say it isn't, they are either lying or misinformed. Since we can rule out misinformed, That means they're lying.

Simple, isn't it?


*Yeah yeah, I know, Earth is round. So just try and pretend for a second that it's flat, because, as everyone already knows, if Earth isn't flat there obviously is no conspiracy.

So basically, the whole idea of the conspiracy rests on reverse logic.

It's like when a little kids stubbornly believe in the tooth fairy, and they hear somebody say that the tooth fairy does not exist; they simply assume that that person is lying, even though they have no evidence to back up the tooth fairy.  And such is your current position.

So, in other words, you're saying :We believe that the Earth is flat for no apparent reason.  When people present us with photos and videos, we'll say they're fake.  When everybody says that the earth is a sphere, we'll say they're in on a conspiracy." You're just using whims to overcome insurmountable facts.  SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF THE CONSPIRACY, OF NASA SPENDING MONEY ON COMPUTER SOFTWARE, AND PEOPLE MAPPING THE EARTH INCORRECTLY.  SHOW ME IT.  YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOUR THEORIES ARE MERE FANTASIES, AND YOU ARE QUITE PARANOID, TO BE FRANK.

It's like when a little kids stubbornly believe in the tooth fairy, and they hear somebody say that the tooth fairy does not exist; they simply assume that that person is lying, even though they have no evidence to back up the tooth fairy.  And such is your current position.

Maybe it's more like a kid who, having exhaustively searched the North Pole for Santa Claus, and finding him absent, assumes that anybody who tells him that Santa exists is lying.

I prefer my analogy.  I doubt that a little kid would search the North Pole.  Besides, the analogy doesn't altogether matter too much.  SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY, NASA WASTING MONEY, AND INCORRECT MAPPING OF THE EARTH.

I prefer my analogy.  I doubt that a little kid would search the North Pole.  Besides, the analogy doesn't altogether matter too much.

rofl.  Well, I prefer my analogy TIMES INFINITY, so you lose.

SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY, NASA WASTING MONEY, AND INCORRECT MAPPING OF THE EARTH.

Do you really think that making your idiotic demands in capital letters will make people any more likely to satisfy you?

You forgot to say (sigh) before your answer, Engineer.

Ok.

Sigh, read the link about subduction zones.  Then you will see that I was not just talking 'nonsensical whimsy'.

To Erasmus: No.  It's called emphasizing a point.  If it bothers you because you can't refute or show me the evidence I give or ask, too bad.

To The Engineer: Yes, nonsensical whimsy.

Do you really think that making your idiotic demands in capital letters will make people any more likely to satisfy you?

 Well, the burden of proof is upon those that believe in a flat Earth, for all allegations.

To The Engineer: Yes, nonsensical whimsy.

Please explain.

erasmus:

so, okay, now in lowercase letters so that you can understand better.

show
me
evidence
of
conspiracy
nasa wasting money
incorrect mapping

And to the Engineer: It's a nonsensical whimsy because....wait, what are we talking about?

Oh right subduction. It's a nonsensical whimsy because it's a nonsensical whimsy.

Well, the burden of proof is upon those that believe in a flat Earth, for all allegations.

Both false and irrelevant.

erasmus you didn't answer my question you keep avoiding it like engineer and all the fe'rs

so, okay, now in lowercase letters so that you can understand better.

I recall indicating not a lack of understanding, but rather an excess of irritation.  Anyway, the evidence has been clearly shown to you.  It isn't in the form of documentation or photographs but is simple logic: if the Earth is flat, since NASA says it isn't, NASA is lying.

goddamnit you're using reverse logic! jesus christ this is the first time i've ever seen such stupidity! go back to grade school and learn some laws of logic! god!

it's exactly my analogy!

Quote from: "spotteddick"

Well, the burden of proof is upon those that believe in a flat Earth, for all allegations.

Both false and irrelevant.

Wrong.

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "spotteddick"

Well, the burden of proof is upon those that believe in a flat Earth, for all allegations.

Both false and irrelevant.

Wrong.

Your "wrong" is wrong. One might have said the burden of proof was on the FE's, but since we've presented our evidence, and you've denied it, the burden of proof is now on you.

goddamnit you're using reverse logic! jesus christ this is the first time i've ever seen such stupidity! go back to grade school and learn some laws of logic! god!

Sorry, it has been a long time since I took any courses in logic.  A couple of months at least.  Can you remind me what the definition of "reverse logic" is, demonstrate that it is not valid logic, and demonstrate that my argument falls into that category?

See, I feel like my argument is better described by the term "modus ponens".

it's exactly my analogy!

Nope.  It's exactly mine.  Don't forget that it's mine times infinity, so just retorting in kind again doesn't get you anywhere.

Quote from: "spotteddick"

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "spotteddick"

Well, the burden of proof is upon those that believe in a flat Earth, for all allegations.

Both false and irrelevant.

Wrong.

Your "wrong" is wrong. One might have said the burden of proof was on the FE's, but since we've presented our evidence, and you've denied it, the burden of proof is now on you.

Only if you want to change the scale of the argument.  I posit, quite correctly, that the flat Earth theory is a challenge to the scientifically accepted round Earth model.  The burden of proof then, in all aspects, is on a flat-Earther to disprove the round-Earth model.  

Burden of proof would be on me, if I were making a challenge to your claims, however, flat-Earthers relegate the most valuable evidence of a round Earth into the "fake" or "conspiracy" folder, then moving to say, since you cannot prove us wrong, we are correct.  

That is a logical fallacy, in appealing to lack of proof of the negative is not valid deduction by the scientific method.

Erasmus, your argument is more like "I don't know what the hell I'm saying."

Reverse logic is pretty self-explanatory by the way.

Erasmus, your argument is more like "I don't know what the hell I'm saying."

Oh, you're right, I never learned about that particular argument fallacy.

Reverse logic is pretty self-explanatory by the way.

Indeed... it is certainly not you-explanatory.

very clever, Erasmus, but if you're so dumb as to not realize what reverse logic is, are you in any position to refute or give geological evidence? Sorry for my impertinence, but...

very clever, Erasmus, but if you're so dumb as to not realize what reverse logic is, are you in any position to refute or give geological evidence? Sorry for my impertinence, but...

I guess not, but uhm, do you realize that calling me dumb for not understanding a concept that you refuse to explain doesn't really bode well for you?

I never refused to explain.

I never refused to explain.

Okay, so then perhaps instead of wasting posts saying that I'm dumb and that you aren't refusing to explain, you could just explain?