Spirituality
04 Feb 15
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI apologise, you are correct and I should have checked.
I never said they did, so don't try to put false statements in my mouth to construct a strawman argument.
It was however lemon lime who put those words in your mouth.
And I wasn't constructing a strawman argument, and the way you can tell
that is that my post contained no arguments of any kind.
Originally posted by RJHindsWikipedia says:
Well, from a child we have always been taught in school that geocentrism is wrong and it makes it hard to consider the possibility that we were taught wrong. It has been proven that the earth is not flat, but geocentrism has not been disproven and the Holy Bible seems to support it to me.
So are Christians just to ignore that part or can we explain it aw ...[text shortened]... ith the six days of creation so they can believe in evolution and billions or millions of years?
"In 1616, the Roman Inquisition's consultants gave their assessment of the proposition that the sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, judging both to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy" and that the first was "formally heretical" while the second was "at least erroneous in faith". (The original assessment document from the Inquisition was made widely available in 2014.)
This assessment led to Copernicus's De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium to be placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum - the Index of Forbidden Books.
Galileo Galilei revised those same theories and was also admonished for his views on heliocentrism. In 1633, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo and found him "vehemently suspected of heresy" and banned Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Galileo died under house arrest, and Tommaso Campanella was imprisoned for twenty-seven years."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron, are you applying for the job of "Inquisitor"? Good luck there. You'd have to go back to the 1600's but you'd fit right in, no doubt.
Originally posted by lemon limeThinking about it is one thing. (All thinking people think about all manner of things, even things they have been taught are false. One reason could be to try and disprove what they've been taught, or as mental exercise. But some things are still false regardless how much thought goes into them, because they are false, like geocentrism.)
[b]I'm struggling to believe that there is ONE person in
the world stupid enough to think this... let alone two.
You don't need to struggle. Hinds has already listed four people stupid enough to think about this... Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Edwin Hubble, and Fred Hoyle.[/b]
Believing it is quite another, and there is no record of these people ever actually believing in geocentrism.
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt's not stupid to question anything simply because it is stated as fact. It might stupid to believe something (an idea or theory) that has been formed through one sided arguments that consistently poo poo or laugh off counter arguments... but we aren't talking about evolution here.
OK.
The two arguments given in the portion of the video I was prepared to sit through were these...
1. If the Earth orbits the sun with it's axis inclined at ~23.4 degrees with the orbital diameter
being 300 million km [haven't checked that number, but it's in the right ballpark] then the point the
Earth's axis points at [he imagines a lase ...[text shortened]... s were, and how trivial they are to disprove, I would suggest
reconsidering agreeing with him.
I didn't look at the youtube video because I didn't need to see it to understand the underlying principle. I wonder how many people poo pooed or argued against (or laughed off) the idea of light being able to travel through a vacuum without the need of a theoretical aether, before Einstein came along to prove otherwise...
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt was however lemon lime who put those words in your mouth.
I apologise, you are correct and I should have checked.
It was however lemon lime who put those words in your mouth.
And I wasn't constructing a strawman argument, and the way you can tell
that is that my post contained no arguments of any kind.
Oopsie, I thought I was putting those words into your mouth. Okay then, open wide, here comes the airplane... it's circling around, and now it's attempting to land...
Arrgh...no no, you need to keep your mouth open, otherwise the plane can't land and taxi into the hangar.
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy point was that if your first post had any kind of truth to it, then science would never have developed computers.
No, that's not even close.
My point was that if your first post had any kind of truth to it, then science would never have developed computers.
[b]A computer expert once told me a computer can only do what you program it to do.
He was wrong.[/b]
I don't know what "kind of truth" you were searching for, but you did a fine job of missing my point... my point was in reference to the OP, and the point I believe Hinds was making. I could be wrong about what Hinds was trying to communicate, but I doubt it.
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by SuzianneNo. I believe they can believe what they want too. But also allow me to believe as I see fit. If I wish to believe the Holy Bible, then I should be allowed to do so without ridicule.
Wikipedia says:
"In 1616, the Roman Inquisition's consultants gave their assessment of the proposition that the sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, judging both to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy" and that the first was "formally heretical" while the second was "at least erroneous in faith". (The origi ...[text shortened]... sitor"? Good luck there. You'd have to go back to the 1600's but you'd fit right in, no doubt.
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI hope you're not suggesting that some things should never be challenged, because acceptance of that idea can lead to all sorts of abuses... such as determining who should be in charge of what is true or not.
Thinking about it is one thing. (All thinking people think about all manner of things, even things they have been taught are false. One reason could be to try and disprove what they've been taught, or as mental exercise. But some things are still false regardless how much thought goes into them, because they are false, like geocentrism.)
Believ ...[text shortened]... is quite another, and there is no record of these people ever actually believing in geocentrism.
I'm thinking something like instituting a Ministry of Correctness belongs in a Monte Python sketch... and should stay there.
04 Feb 15
Originally posted by SuzianneIf you can prove geocentrism is false, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Thinking about it is one thing. (All thinking people think about all manner of things, even things they have been taught are false. One reason could be to try and disprove what they've been taught, or as mental exercise. But some things are still false regardless how much thought goes into them, because they are false, like geocentrism.)
Believ ...[text shortened]... is quite another, and there is no record of these people ever actually believing in geocentrism.
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsBut that's my point here, Ron.
No. I believe they can believe what they want too. But also allow me to believe as I see fit. If I wish to believe the Holy Bible, then I should be allowed to do so without ridicule.
It's NOT the Bible you are "believing". What you are believing is your own, weird interpretation of the Bible. The Bible never says the earth is the physical center of the universe, just like it never says the earth is only 6,000 years old. You are "believing" your own bizarre interpretation of what the Bible does say.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by SuzianneAnd who's to say that his weird interpretation is any better or worse than your weird interpretation?
But that's my point here, Ron.
It's NOT the Bible you are "believing". What you are believing is your own, weird interpretation of the Bible. The Bible never says the earth is the physical center of the universe, just like it never says the earth is only 6,000 years old. You are "believing" your own bizarre interpretation of what the Bible does say.
While we're believing based on faith with no recourse to science, logic, and evidence...
Go on, give me a faith based reason why you know better than he does...
Or will you admit that you need logic and evidence and reason to have any objective determination
of anything?
05 Feb 15
Originally posted by SuzianneIn your view, is RJHinds one of the "pinheads" [on his "side of the divide"] that you mentioned on the other thread?
But that's my point here, Ron.
It's NOT the Bible you are "believing". What you are believing is your own, weird interpretation of the Bible. The Bible never says the earth is the physical center of the universe, just like it never says the earth is only 6,000 years old. You are "believing" your own bizarre interpretation of what the Bible does say.
05 Feb 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHeliocentrism is the only explanation of why some planets appear to have retrograde motion. If geocentrism was true, no planet would ever exhibit retrograde motion. If Mercury and Venus (the only two planets closer to the sun) were orbiting earth, their orbits would take them completely around the earth, something that is not observed.
If you can prove geocentrism is false, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Is that good enough for you?
Geeeeez, if only everything was that easy.