Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
It depends on who you talk to. Some people don't care about having another planet to go to. Not everyone believes in using their tax dollars on a private enterprise. Healthcare is something everyone needs.
|
Then you concede my point, and your objection is refuted: there is ample benefit to believing in a flat earth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
I'm not asking you to wait for empirical evidence to materialize.
|
Au contraire - the plaintive call of "Why can’t you wait for the empirical evidence?" used to resound from this board like the eery call of
Gavia Immer. You have told me and others exactly that on many occasions. Are you that forgetful or are you just telling a convenient lie?
Quote:
|
You can continue to believe that the eyes are a sense organ and man's will is free, if you want to. But he has offered more than an assertion, which is what you're all making it out to be.
|
I am not talking about that at all: I am talking about the shameful way in which you are dismissing the flat-earth theory out of hand, joining in with your cronies to attack an idea just because it upsets your cosy little world-view. The flat-earth theory has a lot of evidence in favour of it, as you would see if you actually bothered to study it. Tell me, what are the two different models proposed by flat-earth theory scholars? I bet you cannot even tell me, and here you are shooting of your mouth and discrediting these brilliant scholars, ruining it for everyone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
I appreciate how you have tried to compare me to a flat earther, but you can't compare the two. Lessans does have proof that man's will is not free, they have no substantial proof that the earth is flat. If taxpayers want to use their money in that direction, that's their business, but it's not their business to use my tax money in this direction if I don't want it used this way. Lessans is not asking for funding.
|
And here we go again – a “flat-earther” is automatically something that you would be ashamed to be compared to, and you assume that they do not have proof to back up their ideas without even studying the evidence that they offer. Unlike some people I could mention, they have at least made an attempt to make a case for their idea. But without even having studied the proof that they offer, you have dismissed this idea out of hand, poisoning the minds of all the other posters with your queen-bee attitude. I am disgusted by the way you never even give this idea a chance, and all that before the empirical evidence is even in!
What makes this particularly unfair is that they offer a lot more evidence than you offer for your positions on conscience and the nature of sight. This just proves how biased you are, and that your rejection is just an emotional reaction to the challenge to your world-view.
This is hypocritical in the extreme, since:
1: You have not read the book(s), so your opinion on any part of the book(s) that have been explained to you is automatically invalid.
2: You yourself advocate that in such cases as these, where someone has acutely observed some relations, it is vital that we believe him completely and assume he is correct while we wait for empirical evidence to materialize.
3: It would be great if the earth was flat, for we would get a lot of spare money to do good with, and we would have a perfect argument to make people more environmentally conscious, not to mention the further beneficial scientific discoveries that could follow should all scientists embrace the correct (flat) theory.
4: Something else could be going on – science does not deal in certainties, and since there are no certainties in science, this particular idea must be plausible!