[pablozablo]

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth

You have answered your own question, and it is this level of dogmatism that makes you guys so funny.

Interesting definition of "dogma". Is it dogma that I believe oxygen is the constituent element of the air that allows me to continue living?
Is it dogma that I don't reject the mountain of photographic, documentary, technological, observational, astronomical evidence for the shape of the earth on the grounds of an undefined conspiracy?
Is it dogma that I believe the reason the sun stays an identical shape and size and speed as I look at it throughout the day is because it indeed does remain the same distance from me?
Was it dogma that allowed scientists from Europe, India and the Middle East throughout (pre-medieval) history to independently calculate the size of the Earth that corresponds with the actual measured distances in use today by shipping companies, telecommunication companies, airlines.
Or is it dogma that enables you to reject all of this because of something to do with unmeasured, unverifiable, untestable ideas about perspective/thick air/magic energy and contradictory flat earth geographic depictions.
I get what you are doing on a philosophical level - and as an exercise this is valid in questioning "What is belief?" and "What is real?" and "How do we know what we know?". But in propagating inadequate explanations and provable ignorance beyond the scope of the philosophical, surely you have tied yourself to the rock of dogma and cannot free yourself from its destination?

[Treep Ravisarras]

And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.

Yes it is. To a real Flat Earther he must see and observe the world around him and that is what he knows. Everything else is left unknown.

You are misunderstanding the following said:

Well, I'll take easily repeatable observation over a blank assertion.

It is also true in order for something to become truth, it must be shown. So if you want to convince me you need to show me. I'd like to leave out rationalization and just know what I see.

What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism. Knowledge can only be gained by experience, but this cannot be reversed as:

"I choose my experiences to control the extent of my knowledge." Another translation of this sentence could read as "I happy with being fat, dumb and happy and I am not interested at all in gaining knowledge."

The real Flat Earther would say: "I want to gain knowledge by experience". So show me.

That's why I think there are so many nominals. Just as Christianty unfortunately. 

[Pete Svarrior]

But this is exactly the reasoning given in this Wiki page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET

Hmm, that is a strange page. I wonder how it made it there in the first place. I shall investigate and address it.

[Curious Squirrel]

3DGeek created a list at one point during his time on here.

3DGeek's methodology illustrates so beautifully what's wrong with the RE mindset. He doubled down on ideology so hard that he mistook Texas for Japan, just because he thought he'd finally prove the Earth round.

I know you have an issue with that one experiment (and I would be lying if I pretended I didn't too) but that doesn't discount the rest of what he's put forth as good food for thought at least, especially the ones with little to no FE response to them. You wanting to throw out everything he's put forth on the basis of that single 'proof' being problematic in it's execution is not something in your favor. I would also note, that particular try isn't listed on that page either.

But this is exactly the reasoning given in this Wiki page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET

Hmm, that is a strange page. I wonder how it made it there in the first place. I shall investigate and address it.

I look forward to seeing anything that happens here. I've been referencing it for some time. I vaguely recall seeing it in a source at some point, but which one it was escapes me unfortunately, so I can't be positive it was somewhere other than that page.

[pablozablo]

And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.

Yes it is. To a real Flat Earther he must see and observe the world around him and that is what he knows. Everything else is left unknown.

I have to disagree with you on this point. "The horizon looks flat" is not evidence that an empiricist would rely on alone, because of the knowledge that if a sphere is big enough, and if one is close enough to it it will appear flat. By the same logic one cannot be inside a house and look out of the window and say "It looks warm outside" and therefore conclude it is warm outside. A true empiricist would need to experience with all his senses, not just his eyes from a single view point. A true empiricist would understand the inadequacy of relying on a single sense from a single point and would therefore use all his senses and a variety of view points in order to verify that his senses are correct, thus justifying his faith in his senses for experiencing the world.

[Beorn]

What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism.

This is often the result of having the hundreds of people asking the same questions that have already been answered hundreds of times both here, in the wiki as well as in the FAQ.

[pablozablo]

What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism.

This is often the result of having the hundreds of people asking the same questions that have already been answered hundreds of times both here, in the wiki as well as in the FAQ.

If you don't want to have a debate about flat earth, having an open flat earth debate forum is probably not for you. Perhaps spend your time improving the wiki instead?

[inquisitive]

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?

From WGS 84:

Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.

Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.

In what context, not the shape of the whole earth?

[inquisitive]

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth

You have answered your own question, and it is this level of dogmatism that makes you guys so funny.

Please explain, I notice you have not commented on WGS-84.

[inquisitive]

What I am still struggling with though, and I believe true Flat Earthers are struggling with me that there are instances where people are trying to show something, but the so-called "Flat Earther" (not a real one) says: "I'm sorry, not interested. I don't care what you want to show me as I already know what you are going to show me and my conclusion is such and such." That goes against Flat Earthism.

This is often the result of having the hundreds of people asking the same questions that have already been answered hundreds of times both here, in the wiki as well as in the FAQ.

Key to this is the production of a map and model, both of which 'you' cannot seem to do, or even define how you would do it.

[juner]

You can address multiple people in a single post. There is a modify button. It will help keep you from triple posting.

[Beorn]

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?

From WGS 84:

Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.

Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.

In what context, not the shape of the whole earth?

I assumed that when you kept talking about WGS 84 you would have read through the specifications yourself.

[inquisitive]

What is a RE mindset, there is no doubt about the shape of the earth, do you have an issue with WGS-84?

From WGS 84:

Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.

Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.

In what context, not the shape of the whole earth?

I assumed that when you kept talking about WGS 84 you would have read through the specifications yourself.

Yes, it defines the round earth.

[AATW]

And "the horizon looks flat" is not evidence for a flat earth.

Yes it is. To a real Flat Earther he must see and observe the world around him and that is what he knows. Everything else is left unknown.

No, it isn't.
Unless you disagree that a small section of a  large enough circle and a flat line are indistinguishable to the naked eye. But that is not something which is debatable, it is demonstrably true. So seeing a flat horizon is not sufficient evidence to conclude a flat earth. If you saw a curve then you'd know the earth is not flat, if you don't then while a flat earth cannot be discounted it is not the only possibility.
That's where other observations are required.
And luckily we have plenty of other observations from amateur balloons, high altitude pilots and astronauts testifying to a curve.
Now, you can say that they are all lying and you won't believe it till you see it for yourself but this is a strange way to go through life.
No-one literally goes through life like this, refusing to drink tap water for example because someone else has certified it safe and you haven't personally verified it.

It is also true in order for something to become truth, it must be shown. So if you want to convince me you need to show me.

Well no, that isn't true. The truth is the truth. Truth is absolute, it doesn't depend on your opinion or what you have observed. The earth has a certain shape. You can determine that based on observations (as discussed, observing a flat horizon is not enough information to definitively determine it) but the shape of it is not dependant on your opinion. If the only way to convince you is to show you then train to be an astronaut or send up a balloon.

[jimbob]

Our senses can lie.

That's why nobody suggests you should only perform one experiment, or rely on a single observation. You build up evidence and rely on its preponderance. If, after collecting a reasonable amount of data points, this process leads you to believe that the Earth is a certain shape, then the conclusion should be easy.

It's not an easy process, and it's not meant to be one.

On a more philosophical note, if the majority of your experiences turn out to be illusions, perhaps you ought to rethink what an illusion is.

If I ask my neighbour to ask Tim Peake (ISS Astronaught) for the picture that I was shown, that Tim had sent him, looking out of the ISS (at a round earth) would this constitute proof?

[Tumeni]

Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.

Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.

Assuming you mean the bold statement, what do you take this statement to mean?

[Spycrab]

It is also true in order for something to become truth, it must be shown. So if you want to convince me you need to show me.

Well no, that isn't true. The truth is the truth. Truth is absolute, it doesn't depend on your opinion or what you have observed. The earth has a certain shape. You can determine that based on observations (as discussed, observing a flat horizon is not enough information to definitively determine it) but the shape of it is not dependant on your opinion. If the only way to convince you is to show you then train to be an astronaut or send up a balloon.

Actually, he has a good point. If you want to be shown, some brief online shopping will get you a high altitude balloon and wireless camcorder for as low as $166(133.36€). Oh, but you'd better watch out, the atmosphere is probably being paid off by NASA.

On a side note, if you want to be 'shown', maybe stop instinctively discrediting every ounce of proof you are presented via video, photo, mathematical, etc. methods? If you're rejecting the dissenting logic because it disagrees, you're not an empiricist.