Except that's not the point, Dave.
It IS, regardless of my opinion or consideration, as a matter of fact, stupid. We have shown it to be so, and denying it doesn't change that it is stupid.
It is absolutely true that the earth is a globe.
We have presented the evidence for such.
I'm saying that anyone who rejects reality in favor of some conspiracy theory is stupid.
No Dave, I don't "think" that. I and others have SHOWN it to be so, WITH calculations, WITHOUT bias, WITHOUT presuppositions. And you have either ignored or dismissed it.
It argues based on lies and misdirection, intentional or not.
More talking about atheists.
Hypocrite.
Atheists have no standards, that should be obvious to you.
You think you have absolute facts that make you think you have absolute truth that the earth is a spinning globe.
All of this is an opinion for all the reasons I've argued.
1. The earth is motionless.
2. Oceans / water are level.
3. The sun, moon, and stars are moving across the sky.
4. Horizons rise with the viewer and maintain eye level.
You can argue that these are only appearances or what seems to be true in other words you would say:
1. We can't feel the motion of the earth because of gravity.
2. All bodies of water only seem level over a short distance.
3. The movement of heavenly bodies are relative to which one your on.
4. The curvature of the earth is so large that we can't really tell that we are actually looking down at the horizon.
That we have not been back to moon since the 70's just might be because we never went there in the first place undermines everything we know from NASA about outer space.
No one is stupid for questioning a world view that negates all our basic senses. I't your opinion that people who question a spinning globe are stupid. That all the facts of science prove a spinning globe is not the case. There are, as argued, many fact of science and contradictions in a spinning globe scenario, that say the earth is not a spinning globe.
That you all have proven beyond all doubt a spinning globe just ain't so.
--Dave