You have accused me of subscribing to the belief in a flat earth, which I assure you is most erroneous. I am what is called a sceptic, inclined to cast doubt upon all things, and to subject all things to the closest scrutiny. I have a deep-seated distrust of claims that are made without evidence, & I am ever vigilant against the seductions of ideology.
Being a skeptic of something where the evidence is overwhelming is simply a fancy way of being a denier.
My dear, the term 'denier' reeks of religious connotations, whereas I am but a sceptic. To deny suggests an assertive rejection, whereas my stance is one of withholding belief in the declarations of two opposing factions. In essence, my position cannot be accurately described as one of denial, but rather a cautious reservation of judgment.
The insistence on assigning me to one camp or the other stems from that very ideological tribalism to which I previously made reference. Such tendencies impede one's ability to engage in open and unbiased discourse.
I stand as a steadfast sceptic, acutely cognizant of the dearth of evidence that pervades this matter from all directions. The very essence of our world remains an enigmatic puzzle, and those who feign certainty are merely indulging in self-deception. You, my dear fellow, purport to possess knowledge beyond your grasp, while I, on the contrary, humbly claim less than the extent of my true understanding.
Now, should you feel compelled to label me a denier of both the flat earth and globe earth theories, despite the imprecision of the term 'deny' as previously explained, I shall concede that this at least approaches a more accurate portrayal of my position than 'flat earther'—an absurdity, considering that I have the same sceptical attitude towards flat earth theory that in the case of the globe earth you equate with 'denial'. Be consistent. In any event, if you find it necessary to confine my views within the realm of negative epithets, do proceed with this designation (flat-earth-and-globe-earth denier), though a more precise description ('sceptic') might be better suited.
But pray, let us not dally with imprecise labels when the true essence of my stance may be aptly captured by such terms as 'radical scepticism,' 'consistent scepticism,' or, if you will, 'consistent logician.' These descriptors, my dear fellow, convey the very heart of my philosophical inclinations.
For indeed, one must wonder, what purpose does it serve to weave falsehoods regarding my beliefs? Such deceptions hold no merit in the pursuit of truth or the cultivation of meaningful discourse. Let us, instead, engage in sincerity and rationality as we venture forth in our quest for enlightenment.
If the Earth isn't round how can I be here? I have left home going west and returned still going west. Twice.
For aught I know to the contrary, our earth may well be a sphere of magnitudes vastly grander than anyone has ever dared to conceive, or perhaps it bears no discernible shape or foundation whatever, and could be likened to a holographic projection, as a natural phenomenon that defies conventional understanding. It could even be the 'basement' of the universe, for lack of a better term, with you circumnavigating the North Pole in a big circle which would be indistinguishible from a straight line, a phenomenon that would hold true on both a spherical and flat plane, by the way. Alas, the example you provide does not favour one model over the other. In truth, neither you nor I can profess to be in possession of any certitude regarding the nature of our earth. Those who claim to have unshakable knowledge on such enigmatic matters are merely indulging in the sweet deception of self-delusion
Except you haven't cited any evidence against a round Earth or for a flat Earth.
One need not present evidence for this or that stance when one adheres to neither. The absence of compelling evidence for either side only serves to fuel my scepticism towards both positions. What meets the eye, it seems, is either a web of deceit spun by the proponents of each view or a collection of observations compatible with an array of models, encompassing the globe and flat earth theories among others. Truly, the situation presents itself as a bewildering muddle.