"Empiricism"?

If Flat-Earthers rely on empirical evidence as they say they do, why do they assume that there is an ice dome around the Earth when they haven't seen or touched it?

They interpreted it from fragments of one of many Bible versions.

No, I really don't want to attack anyone's belief about the shape of the planet or anything. I just want to know how the theory works from a logical standpoint. To me, it seems that the theory is based on people being unable to see for themselves that the Earth is spherical. In the FAQ's it talks about "empirical" evidence as being the basis for their claims, but beyond being unable to see curvature in the Earth, every other theory that is brought up to support the flatness of the Earth is NOT based on empirical evidence. I just want to know what the logic is in the theory apart from conjecture and government conspiracy.

Since this is the "debate" section, I was hoping to have a nice debate without ad hominem comments.

But it IS based off a biblical basis. The Flood was just the dome melting and all, and I'm sure there are other connections to it that I can't remember.

Of course, there are other FE theories without a dome, like John Davis's hypothesis about a non-euclidean Earth and such.

The bible does not explicitely mention a dome. In Isaiah the King James version has a "vault of heaven", but it should better be translated as "circle of heaven" In Genesis it speaks of waters above and below the firmament (actually called "extention"). So one may conclude, that this "extention" must be a kind of "dome, because how else could it keep the water above from falling down.

"em·pir·i·cal
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic"

To put it more assertively, the way I see the whole Flat Earth theory is irrational. Aside from where the ideas come from, I understand that Flat Earthers reject the traditional theory of a spherical Earth because there is a lack of "empirical" evidence. And the "burden of proof" is on everyone else because the horizon looks flat to the casual observer. Based on the arguments that I have been reading, the Flat Earthers defend their theories by demanding "empirical" evidence, and when photographs, mathematical formulas, etc. are presented then they are automatically wrong because of a conspiracy.

The way I see it, if empirical evidence is the only relevant evidence (the basis for throwing out the long held view of a Spherical Earth in the first place), then Flat Earthers have to use empirical evidence to back up their own claims, rather than theories, historical documents/experiments, etc. (see above definition).

And I apologize to GlaringEye, I mistook the first response as sarcasm.

If Flat-Earthers rely on empirical evidence as they say they do, why do they assume that there is an ice dome around the Earth when they haven't seen or touched it?

They don't say there is definitely a dome. It's part of a theory, and not all FE believe there is a dome.

And I apologize to GlaringEye, I mistook the first response as sarcasm.

No worries.

I don't believe in the dome theory.  However, plenty of people have reported seeing the ice covered Rim Continent that roundies like to call the "Ice Wall".  Is this what you are referring to in the OP? 

If Flat-Earthers rely on empirical evidence as they say they do, why do they assume that there is an ice dome around the Earth when they haven't seen or touched it?

--- because it is cold out there. 
Ice is what you get when water-and-other-stuff gets cold. 

No, surely we don't rely on non-empirical evidence as such a thing does not exist. All knowledge flows from the font of our senses.

All evidence is empirical. It always has been, and it always will be. There is no other way for evidence to be.

I don't believe in the dome theory.  However, plenty of people have reported seeing the ice covered Rim Continent that roundies like to call the "Ice Wall".  Is this what you are referring to in the OP?

Don't you really mean that you "flatties" like to call the "The Ice Wall":

The Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects. Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot Ice Wall. The 150 foot Ice Wall is on the coast of Antarctica. It is widely known and widely studied. The Ice Wall is a massive wall of ice that surrounds Antarctica. The shelf of ice is several hundred meters thick. This nearly vertical ice front to the open sea is more than 50 meters high above the water's surface.

The Ice Wall was discovered by Sir James Clark Ross, a polar explorer who was among the first to venture to Antarctica in an attempt to determine the position of the South Magnetic Pole.

No, surely we don't rely on non-empirical evidence as such a thing does not exist. All knowledge flows from the font of our senses.

All evidence is empirical. It always has been, and it always will be. There is no other way for evidence to be.

This is the Flat Earth explanation of the lunar eclipse:

The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection.

Tom Bishop  (of T F E S "fame") and you seem to claim that the Flat Earth is based on evidence.
Now, apart from the Lunar Eclipse explanation being ridiculous, please tell us what evidence there is for:
(1)   the existence of "shadow object",
(2)    the orbital plane of the "shadow object" being tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane and
(3)    how the "shadow object" was even estimated to be around five to ten miles in diameter.

To me (1) and (3) seem as though they had to be pure guesses, while  (2) is simply "borrowed" from the real moon's orbital inclination, without any pretense at justification, let alone evidence.