• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Moon landing conspiracy and Flat Earth conspiracy theories go here and nowhere else

Status
Not open for further replies.
Humans are perfectly capable of creating a framework of morality without appealing to a supernatural god creator. There are "godless" societies throughout history that fit this bill.
We can certainly create moral frameworks, but what are they predicated on and how can we justify them?

If we're just animals without free will living on a random spec in an infinite deterministic universe with no overarching meaning and no afterlife, how can you justify moral absolutes?
 
lol maybe you should have watched it if you are actually interested in the debate. It has very little to do with the AT. Dave looks like a fucking fool, anyone claiming to be an educator who needs to censor legitimate comments and questions on their talks is a charlatan, to say nothing of his destroyed map arguments.

Are you suggesting that because he censored comments, everything he says is invalid?
 

Tesseract

Banned
Are you suggesting that because he censored comments, everything he says is invalid?
nickcage.jpeg
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
We can certainly create moral frameworks, but what are they predicated on and how can we justify them?

If we're just animals without free will living on a random spec in an infinite deterministic universe with no overarching meaning and no afterlife, how can you justify moral absolutes?

giphy.gif


We evaluate moral frameworks by seeing if the society that adopts it has a net positive gain in metrics like happiness, prosperity, and health. Measurable, observable, quantifiable.

Moral absolutes are not necessary in a complex society full of seemingly infinite variables. Meaning is derived from individual desires and aspirations as well as the aggregate culture's goals as a civilization.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jack Peterson Jack Peterson

this thread isn't about morality, so I started a new topic about this conversation here:

 

#Phonepunk#

Banned
Name all the societies that aren't theocracies and don't use god as a justification for any of their laws.
such as....?

name one.
If we're just animals without free will living on a random spec in an infinite deterministic universe with no overarching meaning and no afterlife, how can you justify moral absolutes?
imo true morality and recognition of objective GOOD AND EVIL requires seeing humans as not just physical but spiritually/morally superior to animals. this is not so easy to get to in atheist materialism, which proposes that humans are the same as animals.

this seems to be an impossible belief for the modern SJW Death Cult, who believe animals, humans, and even the planet itself are all equal. where Extinction Rebellion has declared Mother Earth (she's a waman) as the sacrifical deity, and our lives and livelihoods to be sacrificed in order to save Mother Earth. putting the needs of humans below the needs of the planet as if it was an old school pagan cult.

you need not a "God"/"diety" itself (however you define that rather abstract and mystical term) to have a moral society but at the very least a concept of objective, fundamental GOOD and EVIL. you have to think these are real things and not "just constructs".

the problem with atheism is they often reduce things to constructs, which is a Post Modernist trick, and which strips them of meaning. that is what Post Modernism does, it strips things of meaning. the idea is that anything that is a construct cannot have meaning, which is kind of bollocks imo. it is like saying "Language is meaningless". of course the human mind has to work in abstract constructs -- this does not by its nature invalidate or flatten them out. i mean both "Fantasy Baseball Game I Invented" and "Major League BaseballTM" are both constructs but one is more "real" in a tangible and practical sense than the other, despite both being "just constructs". objective reality DOES exist. so that's kind of a linguistic trap atheist/postmodernists often find themselves falling into.

at any rate i think if you look at the constitution of pretty much all countries you will find references to The Creator or even explicitly God as the source of "our rights" that are "endowed" upon us. this is important because the Rights are not just granted by another person (who can simply take them away) they are symbolically heaven-sent, guaranteed. GOOD and EVIL as not mere constructs but objective facts. a lie for many countries, but hey these are idealistic documents after all. every country needs its own mythology, justifications for why it is doing things, so this is only natural.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Banned
Humans are perfectly capable of creating a framework of morality without appealing to a supernatural god creator. There are "godless" societies throughout history that fit this bill.

I'm not familiar with said societies that have had no influence from and religion, ever.

Flat Earth doesn't make much sense to me.

I could buy us never landing on the moon though.

I don't care much one way or the other. We all end up in the ground anyhow.

Speak for yourself, bro! Burning up on re-entry sounds like a baller way to go.

Name all the societies that aren't theocracies and don't use god as a justification for any of their laws.

You responded to ol' boy and started the derail. No straying now! :messenger_grinning_squinting:
 
We can certainly create moral frameworks, but what are they predicated on and how can we justify them?

If we're just animals without free will living on a random spec in an infinite deterministic universe with no overarching meaning and no afterlife, how can you justify moral absolutes?
There are no moral absolutes in religion anyways, the Aztecs used to sacrifice human life for gods and sport. Slavery still existed under supposed religious nations (America being just one) and God was used as the justification for rape and murder during the Holy Wars. It is simply Human nature, to have compassion and violent tendencies. Is it up to us to teach good values to our children regardless of your religious beliefs. I am Atheist and yet I find meaning in life by dedicating it to helping people struggling with mental illness. Humans evolve emotionally too in our decisions on what is acceptable in a civilized society.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores


Hard to explain this phenomenon with the "moon and sun circle around the sky" model. It's also hard to explain why the moon and sun stay the same apparent size in the sky even if they're moving away from us and closer to us throughout the cycle. That's because it's wrong.
 

DogofWar

Member
Haha, a bit unfair to compare Moon landing deniers with flath earthers honestly. While I disagree with both groups one is mislead/believe another thing than me wereas the other is dumb beyond belief.

This thread reminded me about the flat earth society and their hilarious forum, really need to check it out again.
 

Husky

THE Prey 2 fanatic
So, um.....

I learned another confusing belief by a few Flat Earthers out there today.

.
.
.

I've got a bit of a question for all the Australians here.

So....you exist.......right?


Because today I just learned that
AUSTRALIA DOESN'T REAL


79pYr3C.png

kUzbL3Y.jpg



iAQvtMZ.gif
I need to know if he's joking
 

MrS

Banned
So, um.....

I learned another confusing belief by a few Flat Earthers out there today.

.
.
.

I've got a bit of a question for all the Australians here.

So....you exist.......right?


Because today I just learned that
AUSTRALIA DOESN'T REAL


79pYr3C.png

kUzbL3Y.jpg



iAQvtMZ.gif
King Gizzard
Cate Blanchett
Naomi Watts
Shane Warne
hugh jackman

they've all duped me
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
So, um.....

I learned another confusing belief by a few Flat Earthers out there today.

.
.
.

I've got a bit of a question for all the Australians here.

So....you exist.......right?


Because today I just learned that
AUSTRALIA DOESN'T REAL


79pYr3C.png

kUzbL3Y.jpg



iAQvtMZ.gif
I am normally absolutely against violence, but this person needs to have her stupidity slapped out of her.
How on earth anyone can believe such shit is beyond me.
Sure, my wife’s relatives are all payed actors. I mean, what the bloody fuck?!
 
Last edited:

Ailynn

Faith - Hope - Love
I wonder if they just got Australia confused with Skull Island? I've heard the wildlife there is larger and deadlier than anywhere else. :unsure:

I ask you...
AUSTRALIA or SKULL ISLAND?

n4WoInu.jpg

iX6Sudg.jpg


- THE GLOBE MAY NEVER KNOW -
 

bender

What time is it?
So, um.....

I learned another confusing belief by a few Flat Earthers out there today.

.
.
.

I've got a bit of a question for all the Australians here.

So....you exist.......right?


Because today I just learned that
AUSTRALIA DOESN'T REAL


79pYr3C.png

kUzbL3Y.jpg



iAQvtMZ.gif

 

showernota

Member
Huh, I didn't know there was a topic for this. I've been doing a deep dive on every conspiracy I've heard of but never actually looked into. Next on my list is flat earth since this popped up in my recommendations


I'll be taking a look through this thread
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Then you have to debunk them. Not say that its ridiculous and you won't address it and claim they don't have answers.

The answers might be ridiculous but if you're doing a proper debunking you target the answers.
That's not how the burden of proof works. The round earther claims the earth is round. The flat earther claims the earth is flat. The burden of proof is on the round earther to provide evidence for their claim that the earth is round, and the burden of proof is on the flat earther to prove their claim that the earth is flat.

The round earther provides strong evidence that demonstrates a reasonable justified belief in the round earth model, thus their burden of proof is fulfilled.

The flat earther provides weak evidence that is chock full of holes and inconsistencies, which does not justify a belief in the flat earth model. They have not met their burden of proof. It's not my job to prove them wrong until they can prove themselves right or even plausibly right in the first place.
 
Last edited:
That's not how the burden of proof works. The round earther claims the earth is round. The flat earther claims the earth is flat. The burden of proof is on the round earther to provide evidence for their claim that the earth is round, and the burden of proof is on the flat earther to prove their claim that the earth is flat.

The round earther provides strong evidence that demonstrates a reasonable justified belief in the round earth model, thus their burden of proof is fulfilled.

The flat earther provides weak evidence that is chock full of holes and inconsistencies, which does not justify a belief in the flat earth model. They have not met their burden of proof. It's not my job to prove them wrong until they can prove themselves right or even plausibly right in the first place.
No one's talking burden of proof.

But if you want to debunk some claim, and make a debunking video, you should cover the claim and not say its ridiculous so the claim doesn't exist.
 
Anyone who believes the earth is flat is flatout mentally retarded.

The reflection of the earth's shadow on the moon is indicative enough.

There is no benefit whatsoever to have this false and misguided belief in yourselves.

The Moon Landing though 💅
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
No one's talking burden of proof.
I am. Because it's relevant regardless if anyone wants to talk about it or not.

But if you want to debunk some claim, and make a debunking video, you should cover the claim and not say its ridiculous so the claim doesn't exist.
We're not even at that step yet.

I posted a video.

You replied that there are answers to that video. However you do not explain how those answers work or if they are even correct or how they are related to the video at all. Therefore, we're not on my turn yet. I'm still waiting for your turn to finish.
 
We're not even at that step yet.

I posted a video.

You replied that there are answers to that video. However you do not explain how those answers work or if they are even correct or how they are related to the video at all. Therefore, we're not on my turn yet. I'm still waiting for your turn to finish.
The video barely mentioned the answer of domes, but didn't address it. Just claimed it ridiculous and that means they have no answers. That's not a proper debunking.

That's like me saying all the arguments for the moon landing being faked are ridiculous, and thus moon landing hoaxers don't have any answers to the moon landing.

What the flat earthers claim is that the sky is a rotating dome, and that perspective and optical phenomena limit distance you can see something, so you get what would be personal domes from the limits of vision and optics, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah it may not be convincing, but a proper debunking would go into what's wrong with their answer.

edit:
Look the following is a flat earther's debunk of 24 hour sun. The flat earther may not be convincing, but he addresses the claim. He could say it's obviously fake they have no 24 sun video, but he doesn't he goes into the details. Maybe unconvincingly but he addresses the details of the claim.
24 HOUR ANTARCTIC SUN VIDEOS: ANALYSIS #9,475 (bitchute.com)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom