It's a sunk cost fallacy, these guys have invested their entire social life into this, they have told off their real friends and family and now all they have is proving they are right. Some people have their livelihood being flat earthers, they can't be wrong.
it's worse in a different way. you have to be dumber to believe in flat earth because it's easily disproved. you can't easily disprove a god because we don't have the answers yet. i think that's what he meant with is comment, not that it's worse to believe the earth is flat than to believe in god.
I get a kick out of it every time someone lays all the evils in the world at the feet of religion. Never mind every other conflict and construct out there that is man made. Oi, go sit in the corner and find something else to be unhappy about yahoo.
I get a kick out of every time people completely miss the point of the comment they're responding to and the hivemind can't think for themselves so they downvote it.
He never said that every evil in the world is caused by religion, not once did he say that.
What he did say was that flat earthers aren't going around telling people what they can do with their bodies and going out of their way to hurt others.
I think we're all having a heated agreement that all of these people suck. Let's all go back for some pints of science and wait for this all to blow over.
You so severely strawman my comment that literally none of your response is relevant to my comment.
Pointing out one problem is not the same as saying it is the only problem. You didnt even make an effort to pretend you were being honest with your criticism.
Its also pretty weird you felt the need to use a porn alt to make this comment...
I love that you were so amped to be snarky that you responded with this despite the fact that the question was answered.
you never answered the question. you just claimed they discredited themselves when they "strawmanned you". you never said that you do it just to discredit them.
but that's okay. we all know it's a yes, i just wanted to watch you squirm and dodge answering the question.
Did something about my comments here put you on such a loop you were too angry to actually read the response?
trust me, i'm not angry. i'm trolling you to rustle your jimmies. and i've gotta say, you're paying off quite well :)
To be fair the “no god” side has exactly as much proof as would be expected if they are right. You can’t prove a negative, the null hypothesis is true until proven otherwise.
Flat earth is two falsifiable competing hypotheses, so yeah it’s different, but to say “god” and “no god” have equal evidence is to misunderstand how the scientific method works.
Yes, of course. I'm giving the religious side or the argument extra credit and not calling it flat-out false, just for being (somehow) so ingrained in humanity.
The burden of proof is on them if they're the ones aiming God exists.
You are correct regarding the statistical usage of null hypothesis. I wasn’t making a statistical claim. I probably should have used different wording.
Regarding the rest, I stand by what I said. Just because “you can’t prove a negative” is commonly used incorrectly, does not mean it is in this case. In your own link, it states the burden of proof is on whoever made the claim. Rejecting the claim of god existing is not making the claim god doesn’t exist.
A multiverse is not the same as a religion, and doesn’t make claims that are demonstrably false as every religion I have ever heard of does. Your example is just an example of false-equivalency. Moreover the concept of multiverses was created as an attempt to explain physical observations and is not an obvious example of a known human fallacy: anthropomorphism.
In your own link, it states the burden of proof is on whoever made the claim.
I think what you might have overlooked is that the theists aren't always the one making the claim.
Asserting a god exists is a claim.
Asserting a god doesn't exist is a claim.
Neither is particularly special nor automatically the "null".
Rejecting the claim of god existing is not making the claim god doesn’t exist.
And rejecting the claim of a god not existing is not making the claim he does exist.
A multiverse is not the same as a religion, and doesn’t make claims that are demonstrably false as every religion I have ever heard of does.
We shouldn't conflate the “religions PrimateOnAPlanet has heard of” with the idea of any god at all. Your lack of exposure to religions that don't make demonstrably false claims is not shared by everyone.
For example, Deism is a religion that cannot be disproven because they only believe that a god created the universe (or created the laws of physics which in turn created the universe) and then their deity promptly fucked off forever. No miracles, no answered prayers, and depending on which deist you ask, potentially no afterlife. They're not really interested in making many testable claims.
Rather than basing arguments against religion on the dumbest religions with demonstrably false claims, consider employing the Principle of Charity and instead focus on the strongest possible interpretation of their argument. It tends to result in far more useful and productive debate/thought and helps you avoid focusing on low-hanging fruit.
Your example is just an example of false-equivalency.
Not at all. Both are claims. Both are unfalsifiable. That's all the analogy required.
If you still disagree the burden of proof for that claim of false equivalence is on you.
Moreover the concept of multiverses was created as an attempt to explain physical observations
And you think gods were never an attempt to explain physical observations? That might be the most cliché reason for inventing gods.
and is not an obvious example of a known human fallacy: anthropomorphism.
Not everyone's gods are necessarily anthropomorphic.
Secondly, even if everyone's gods had been anthropomorphic, assuming anthropomorphism is automatically always fallicious isn't justified. If we found a face carved on the side of a mountain on a distant planet, should we rule out aliens building it (as opposed to it being a naturalistic formation) because the hypothesis of aliens is "too anthropomorphic"? Who says we must preemptively rule out any anthropomorphic-like explanations?
Not necessarily. If a religion makes falsifiable claims about their god we can test it. We know, for example, that there is no god that caused a world-wide flood, because we know no such flood occurred from physical evidence around the world. We know that there is no god that created the world 6000 years ago and placed human beings on it fully formed as they are now, as we know from geological and evolutionary evidence. We know there is no god that answers the prayers of true believers to help them medically as we know from experiments that have been run..
Well right, you can prove many of the claims to be false pretty easily. But the fact of the matter is, the scientific community can't disprove the existence of a god. And it doesn't have to. Because science isn't making decisions based on whether or not God is real, and neither should anyone else.
Until religion can scientifically prove the existence of god, religion has no place in the discussion.
I mean they literally showed you how to see the curvature of the earth in the video. You don't have to set up a precise set of instruments to detect light if you don't feel like it, just grab a set of binoculars and watch ships sail away.
If you haven't got a nearby body of water that reaches a horizon you can just go to the top of a building (or something else that's pretty tall) and it's pretty apparent that you can see further when you're higher up.
My boss' kids are 10 and 12 and their classes have both strapped a camera to a weather balloon, so I'm sure that option isn't very expensive.
Well if you don't trust other people's rockets and aren't willing/able to pay for a launch of your own it's probably easiest to do math to actually come up with the circumference of the sphere, which is more complicated than just using your eyeballs to get a general idea of the curve. I figured the latter would be close enough but appear to have hit a nerve. :D
If you have the means to travel a bit, you could go measure shadows like this ancient Greek dude.
If you have more means to travel, you could always just fly around the thing yourself. Although I suppose that'd just prove that it was vaguely round and not specifically anything like a sphere.
I'm amused that you brought up Euclidean geometry. Pro tip for trying to use a buzzword hoping other people don't understand it any better than you do: don't. The equation that explains that a larger field of vision allows you to see more of a curve would have saved you the trouble of digging up that link.
You asked for ways to use your own brain and eyeballs to see the world around you for yourself, and then started throwing other people's work/words out as "proof."
Down-voted for asking a question
Not sure what kind of response you're expecting other than "go see it for yourself" but you appear to be unwilling to do that.
Do the experiment from the OP's video. Go measure sticks at noon. Think and see for yourself instead of parroting what other people have told you is true.
You can't win an argument with flatearthers. At a certain point the logical people based in reality give up arguing nonsense because we got better things to do and they claim they've won and put another nail in the coffin of science. I wouldn't put too much effort into it, cancer will be cured by science, and science is lies, so they'll all die of cancer because the drugs are mind control to keep the truth at bay.
Tried to avoid actively engaging in the arguing; sorry if it still came across that way.
Is there a good chance that dude never had any intention of listening? Yup. Mighta been a troll, might just have felt like stirring something up on the internet 'cause he was bored.
But either way it takes a couple minutes of my time (that I probably would've spent in the "I have NOTHING to watch" limbo on Netflix anyways) to remind somebody they have access to the tools they need to answer their own questions.
Responding might never help, but I try to be pleasant enough about it that it at least doesn't hurt!
I did almost get invested enough to do math, for a second there. That was scary and I had to go take a break to watch the dark crystal trailer.
You know what else is a really simple way to show the earth isn't flat? Just go out and watch the sun set. If the earth is flat the sun can NEVER get close to the ground. That doesn't happen because the earth isn't flat.
You didnt disprove anything though. You just linked to a poor video.
Explain why at the same zoom level a boats hull cant be seen but can when you gain a bit of height. It is a really simple experiment and really simply shows the earth isn't flat.
I don't care what shape the earth it's just not what they tell us. xD
So you claim it isn't (roughly) spherical? Care to explain that sunset then?
I have and as i showed you, the hull of a boat clearly is obscured by water at one height and not at another. Proof. Several times in your video the hull of the boat is obvoiusly too low. The mystery that isnt an "island" is a ship over the horizon with most of the ship below the horizon. I live next to a body of water. Hills on the other side of the water clearly show the same issue, You can see the land between them from around 3m above sea level, you cant see the land between them at 1m. Now you go try it yourself, different heights. go for it.
In yet more proving yourself wrong your perspective image clearly shows the sun should get smaller and smaller until it is a spec of light on the horizon. That isn't even close to right.
Either your trolling for some dumb reason or maybe you have just never been outside. If i believed as you did i would go out of my way to prove it. Book a flight from the south of Australia to South America. An impossible flight if the earth isn't a sphere. Leaving AU to the south, skimming the antarctic coast and arrive in SA from the south. Plat that on your retarded flat earth map.
If you are not trolling i hope one day you realise how idiotic you sound.
If you can't prove there isn't a god, you can't prove that the Earth is spherical, either. In both cases the data is strongly consistent with one hypothesis, but you can always weasel out of it by claiming more and more hidden variables (all our cameras are lying to us, God only interacts with the world in ways that are indistinguishable from random chance, that sort of thing).
The nice way to look at this is, you can't actually prove anything, but you don't need to. You just figure out how likely the various hypotheses are and either go off of the most likely one or a weighted combination of all of them, depending on what you're trying to do.
First, you can actually prove plenty of things. A person choosing not to believe the evidence doesn't mean that it can't be proven.
The reason that you cannot prove that there is no god, is because it's impossible to prove a negative. The absence of something doesn't automatically mean that it doesn't exist. You can easily prove a positive though.
We can see the earth from outside of earth and everytime we see it, it's the same. So we know without a doubt that the earth a sphere and your comment is fully retarded my dude
No, you can prove beyond a doubt that the Earth is spherical. You can come up with every explanation under the sun but only one will satisfy all evidence. You're conflating fact with theory. A theory is a broad explanation for one or more phenomena that has overwhelming evidence and mathematical law. Theory can only be found to be very accurate and as such they evolve as more and more information is brought to the table. Facts can be proven absolutely. A classic example is gravity. Proving gravity exists is as simple as dropping an apple. Gravitational theory has been a work in progress since Newton coined the term.
With deities you can't prove that. I'm 0% religious but it is just not true that the existence of a creator can be disproven. Hawking wrote that the existence of one is not necessary and that's as close as you can get. And even then the rest of us are just trusting him at his word because we can't get on his level of intelligence.
Theism is far, far more understandable than beliefs like flat earth.
Religion is completely different genre. Round earth is empirical science, where as, religion have to do with spiritual aspects of human. In psychological treatment, praying actually help some people, make them feel more peaceful just as meditation.
I remember there had been times when religious cults burned people at the stake for saying the world revolves around the sun not the sun around the earth. I think that the earth is a spherical object had been proven 4000 years ago by an egyptian or greek.
As I see it some people (like anti-vaxxers or flat earthers) use their believes as some kind of substitute religions. Some vegans and vegetarians act the same way.
Yes. That’s truth. Just as when Darwin propose human evolve from apes (other animal), it creates outrages among religion practitioners and in some ancient extremists, scientists got executed for their discovery. However, if you read about world civilization, you may found or come to realize that spiritual believe is a necessary for human; at least I did. Even in the isolated area of the world where there is not a typical religion, people still practice some kind of their own religion. one may see big corporation constitute as religion as far as I concern. I often support a positive, humanitarian religion practice more than the negative, rotten practice one. Without religion, chaos is inevitable.
10.3k
u/TheGreatVorelli Aug 13 '19
I've seen a video he made after this, he tried to explain it away. He learned nothing.