NATION

PASSWORD

Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Do you believe that heliocentric theory is correct?

Yes
118
81%
No
27
19%
 
Total votes : 145

User avatar
The Northumbrian Republic
Envoy
 
Posts: 299
Founded: Jan 28, 2015
Ex-Nation

Heliocentrism is an Atheist Doctrine

Postby The Northumbrian Republic » Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:20 am

https://blogs4brownback.wordpress.com/2 ... -doctrine/

What’s even worse than the debate raging in American schools about the teaching of the soulless doctrine of evolution, is the non-debate over an issue that rational Americans have foolishly conceded to the secular among us: the issue of Heliocentrism, or the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Now, it has to be granted that there may be some mathematical evidence going either way; mathematically speaking, Copernicus may be on ground nearly as firm as that of Tycho Brahe. Right-thinking people know the correct doctrine, however:

Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks, and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century.

Since the advent of relativity theory in the early 1900s, the laws of physics have been written in covariant equations, meaning that they are equally valid in any frame. Heliocentric and geocentric theories are both used today, depending on which allows more convenient calculations

It seems clear that it may occasionally be convenient to assume that the calculations of Copernicus and Kepler were mathematically sound. However, for both moral and theological reasons, we should always bear in mind that the Earth does not move. If it moved, we would feel it moving. That’s called empiricism, the experience of the senses. Don’t take my word for it, or the evidence of your own senses, Copernicans. There’s also the Word of the Lord:

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” (Joshua 10, 12-13)

Moreover, as Answers in Genesis points out,

…[S]omething well known to high-school physics students, but apparently not to bibliosceptics—that it’s valid to describe motion from any reference frame, although an inertial one usually makes the mathematics simpler.3 But there are many times when the Earth is a convenient reference frame; i.e. at some point we all use the geocentric model in one sense. For instance, a planetarium is a geocentric model. Calculation of rising, transiting, and setting of various celestial objects is calculated geocentrically. There are numerous other examples. Since modern astronomers often use an Earth-centred reference frame, it’s unfair and anti-scientific to criticise the Bible for doing the same.

The premier website for those wishing an absolute debunking of the Biblically unsound, empirically fraudulent, historically heretical doctrine of Heliocentrism is http://www.fixedearth.com/. The website contains numerous links to essays and analyses proving that the embrace of Copernicus is almost as foolish as the embrace of Darwinism. To quote from just one of these astounding essays:

Copernicanism, in short, is a concept that is protected in a bunker under a 50 foot thick ceiling of solid “scientific” concrete. It is meant to be impregnable. It is a concept that has become ensconced in men’s minds as the indestructible cornerstone of enlightened modern man’s knowledge. Virtually all people everywhere have been taught to believe–and do believe–that this concept is based on objective science and dispassionate secular reasoning, now long since freed from religious superstitions based on the Bible.

Indeed, it was this Copernican heliocentricity concept that gradually broke the back of Bible credibility as the source of Absolute Truth in Christendom. Once the Copernican Revolution had conquered the physical sciences of Astronomy and Physics and put down deep roots in Universities and lower schools everywhere, it was only a matter of time until the Biological sciences launched the Darwinian Revolution.

This embrace of Darwinism then quite predictably emboldened increasingly secular-minded mankind to further reject Biblical Absolutism and replace its teachings with yet more new “truths” in areas of learning having to do with economics and government. Thus was unsuccessful and floundering Marxism given new life. Marx openly tried to dedicate his own books to Darwin, exulting: “You have given me the basis for my system”. Thus, the “Social Science” disciplines were born and began to make their contributions to the destruction of Bible credibility…

Darwin, of course, only popularized evolutionism with his book in 1859, giving it a supposed mechanism thru natural selection and mutations, both since demonstrated to be utter nonsense. The actual roots of the evolutionary concept can be traced back to antiquity…as indeed can the roots of Copernican heliocentricism. Certainly the neo-heliocentrists, i.e., the early Copernicans such as Kepler were evolutionists. Galileo, like Kepler his friend, a neo-heliocentrist, was probably an evolutionist. Newton gave Copernicanism its biggest boost with his book in 1687, but I’ve seen no overt evidence that he was an evolutionist. (If you know of such evidence, I’d like to see it….)

Thanks, however, to Newton’s invented math and the excesses of his gravitational hypotheses (HERE), Copernicanism dug in its heels in the universities in the 1700’s, and by the last quarter of that century had produced a large crop of hard core heliocentrists, not a few of whom were advocating ape-man theories (amongst them, Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, Voltaire’s disciples in France, etc.). This was the age of “The Enlightenment” which produced Thomas Paine, the celebrated pamphleteer of the American Revolution, whom George Washington referred to as “that filthy little atheist”. Thomas Jefferson’s and Ben Franklin’s Deism was commonplace in Europe as well as amongst the rebellious American colonies. During the French Revolution of the 1790’s the Bible was actually outlawed.

These developments were sixty to a hundred years and more before Darwin, but the damage to Bible credibility done by the Copernican Revolution by that time was making an ever-widening open door for Evolutionism to take root. By 1830–even before Darwin (with his Degree in Theology, not Biology) went to the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his mythology, Charles Lyell (with his degree in Law, not Geology) had advanced his idea of a “geologic column” with great ages attached to alleged descending layers of the earth. Though such a column has never, ever been confirmed, and though there are mountainous examples of the theoretically old layers being on top of the supposedly more recent ones, and though the Cambrian layer shows a sudden profusion of highly developed life forms with no antecedents, Darwin picked up on Lyell’s fantasy and it is still taught as a proof of an ancient earth and macro-evolutionism.

If that, alone, isn’t enough to convince you of the folly of embracing a soulless, atheistic pseudoscience like Heliocentrism, perhaps this will soften your stony head:

God, thru His Word, teaches a non-moving and immovable earth just as surely as he teaches a six-day Creation 6000 years ago and a universal Flood some 1600 years later. All attempts to twist and even boldly reverse geocentric Scriptures by claiming that God just used a “language of appearance” are extremely reckless for the Christian devoted to the inerrancy of Scripture. After all, the same argument has been employed with near devastating effect upon the Creationist Movement by Theistic Evolutionists, has it not?

Attacking vulnerable Copernicanism is a strategy that outflanks the entire secular science establishment (overrunning the Theistic Evolutionist’s position in the process!)

In addition to all that, being men and women of sound mind (II Tim. 1:7), Creationists should be eager to learn that:

1) No one–not Copernicus, not Kepler, not Galileo, not Newton, not Einstein–absolutely no one has proven the earth to be moving.

2) The earth moves only thru abstract, abstruse, and esoteric mathematics invented to make it move.

3) Over 200 truly scientific experiments using real mathematics have shown no earth movement, and these had the science establishment in a panic from the 1880’s until Einstein came to the rescue in 1905 with his “relativity” hypothesis.

4) Relativity is pure claptrap and there isn’t a person reading this who can’t know that fact.

5) Foucault’s Pendulum, the Coriolis Effect, and geostationary satellites do not prove a moving earth.

6) Anyone can see that the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments–especially the light fringe results–prove a stationary earth; and other facts about eclipses, satellite re-positionings, alleged blinding earth speeds, gravitational hooey, etc., add to the proof. Moreover, the Big Bang Baloney, the growing awareness of the effect of Dark Matter on galactic speeds, parallax factors (HERE) which shrink the cosmos, the evidence for speed-of-light retardation, the behavior of reflections and their capabilities for producing phenomena regarding size and depth, etc., all combine to corroborate the certitude of a greatly sanforized universe (one no more than one light day thick: Start HERE), a universe put in diurnal rotation around the spiritual and physical center of God’s Creation, just exactly as it appears to be day in and day out.

7) The Bible not only flatly states scores of times (HERE) and in several ways (HERE) that the earth does not move, it actually has a built-in geocentric assumption–sun rise, sun set–from beginning to end. (One scholar, a geocentrist and mathematician, is cataloguing some 2000 (!) of these.)

In the beginning, the Bible makes clear, the earth was the center of our “solar” system, with no sun for it to go around until the 4th day of creation (Gen.1:14-19; HERE). At the End we read of a New Earth (HERE) replacing in the same location this old one (Rev. 20:11; 21:1,2). This New Earth which occupies the same location in the cosmos as the old one which has “fled away” is the place where God the Father and Jesus will dwell with the redeemed forever (Rev. 21:3).

Given that unpreached but clear teaching, do you think that God the Father and Jesus the Son will eternally be somewhere out on the edge of Their NEW Universe in the boonies…or at the center?

If you ask me, that settles the question right there. I support the Bible, and I don’t want my children learning about Heliocentrism in school. I think this doctrine encourages atheism, Darwinism, and anti-Americanism. I don’t want my tax dollars going to finance this kind of false science. It’s complete rot, and I hope that those of us who come to realize this can ultimately prevail against its propogation amongst OUR children with the money from OUR salaries.

I can’t wait to hear from the moonbats and the Darwinists and the other rubes on this one, though. Go on, witch doctors. Preach to me how the planet hurtles through the ether, Scriptural and physical evidence to the contrary! Your false doctrines will be cast down on the day when America rediscovers its Christian roots. That is a promise.

I personally am a "heliocentrist" and I think this article is batshit crazy, what do you think?

User avatar
Sagredo
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 03, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Sagredo » Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:44 am

Well you could hold the sun to be "immovable and firm" but that would require most of the observable universe to be rotating around the sun at greater than the speed of light. We wouldn't be able to see it.

Back in 1620 when I died, we didn't know about the speed of light. But I cheated. I read wikipedia before posting.

The geocentric model is worse. Even more of the observable universe would be rotating around us at greater than the speed of light.

Less bad theory is better theory. Galileo taught me that.
“One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.”
— Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Russels Orbiting Teapot
Senator
 
Posts: 4024
Founded: Jan 20, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Russels Orbiting Teapot » Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:53 am

The Northumbrian Republic wrote:I personally am a "heliocentrist" and I think this article is batshit crazy, what do you think?


I think the link along with a few select quotes would have sufficed.

Also making a better OP.

User avatar
L Ron Cupboard
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9054
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby L Ron Cupboard » Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:56 am

Is this supposed to be funny?
A leopard in every home, you know it makes sense.

User avatar
Greater Mackonia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5085
Founded: Sep 13, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Greater Mackonia » Fri Apr 03, 2015 2:59 am

"Scriptural Evidence" is irrelevant.
The Agonocracy of Greater Mackonia
"Show me someone without an ego, and I'll show you a loser."
-Donald J. Trump.

User avatar
The United Remnants of America
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17599
Founded: Mar 09, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby The United Remnants of America » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:01 am

Russels Orbiting Teapot wrote:
The Northumbrian Republic wrote:I personally am a "heliocentrist" and I think this article is batshit crazy, what do you think?


I think the link along with a few select quotes would have sufficed.

Also making a better OP.

Agreed. Until that bottom bolded line, I thought the entire text was OP's arguments and opinions.
By any means necessary. Call me URA
Winner of 2015 Best of P2TM Awards: Best Roleplayer - War
"I would much rather be with you than against you, you're way too imaginative."
"URA New Confucius 2015."- Organized States
"Congrats. You just won the second place prize for Not Giving a Fuck. First Place, of course, always goes to Furry."
"He's an 8 Ball, DEN. You can't deal with an 8 Ball." - Empire of Donner land
"This Rp is flexible with science and so will you." - Tagali Federation
"I'm confused as to your tactic but I'll trust you." - Die erworbenen Namen
"Unfiltered, concentrated, possibly weaponized stupidity."
Thafoo, Leningrad Union: DEAT'd for your sins.
Discord: Here

User avatar
Caribica
Minister
 
Posts: 2037
Founded: Nov 18, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Caribica » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:01 am

The heliocentric theory is about as incorrect as the geocentric theory. While it is true that the Earth revolves around the sun, the sun itself revolves around the center of the Milky Way but even then every single other galaxy in the universe does not orbit the milky way. Am I making sense?

User avatar
New Creataris
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 51
Founded: Aug 03, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby New Creataris » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:05 am

The argument failed the moment direct bible quotes were used, a 2000 year old holy book written by old men which was originally had a passage written about a five year old boy telling a dragon to go away with it listening is not evidence. Then the words "spake" and "thru" just highlight the lack of vocabulary and lack of worthy debate that could come from the original author.
The only puppet of Creataris that I've yet had time to say that it is.

User avatar
Mefpan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5872
Founded: Oct 23, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Mefpan » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:05 am

Caribica wrote:The heliocentric theory is about as incorrect as the geocentric theory. While it is true that the Earth revolves around the sun, the sun itself revolves around the center of the Milky Way but even then every single other galaxy in the universe does not orbit the milky way. Am I making sense?

Heliocentrism has the benefit of being accurate-ish when looking at individual solar systems only. They may not revolve around OUR sun necessarily, but they at least do revolve around a star. At least I haven't heard of any that don't.

Geocentrism becomes invalid once you look beyond the bloody moon.
Last edited by Mefpan on Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
I support thermonuclear warfare. Do you want to play a game of chess?
NationStates' umpteenth dirty ex-leftist class traitor.
I left the Left when it turned Right. Now I'm going back to the Right because it's all that's Left.
Yeah, Screw Realism!
Loyal Planet of Mankind

User avatar
Hirota
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7528
Founded: Jan 22, 2004
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Hirota » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:06 am

The Northumbrian Republic wrote:I personally am a "heliocentrist" and I think this article is batshit crazy, what do you think?


Too long, didn't read.

The United Remnants of America wrote:Agreed. Until that bottom bolded line, I thought the entire text was OP's arguments and opinions.

So did I, hence my 1st edit
Last edited by Hirota on Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger - Confucius
Known to trigger Grammar Nazis, Spelling Nazis, Actual Nazis, the emotionally stunted and pedants.
Those affected by the views, opinions or general demeanour of this poster should review this puppy picture. Those affected by puppy pictures should consider investing in an isolation tank.

Economic Left/Right: -3.25, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.03
Isn't it curious how people will claim they are against tribalism, then pigeonhole themselves into tribes?

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I use obviously in italics to emphasise the conveying of sarcasm. If I've put excessive obviously's into a post that means I'm being sarcastic

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55272
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:10 am

The Northumbrian Republic wrote:There’s also the Word of the Lord:

If it's not the Word of the Lord William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, or the Word of the Lord Ernest Rutherford, 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson, it's not that interesting...

Anyway, heliocentrism <=/=> atheism. Also, heliocentrism is wrong. Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, Newton and Lagrange say so. The Sun isn't the centre around which the Earth revolves: in a Sun-centered frame of reference, the centre of Earth's orbit, which is an ellipse, does not coincide with the centre of the Sun. That's because the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun, and the Sun does NOT revolve around Earth: the Sun-Earth system orbits around its centre of mass (as a first approximation, leaving aside the perturbations from other bodies, ofc).
Last edited by Risottia on Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
.

User avatar
The Archregimancy
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 30594
Founded: Aug 01, 2005
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Archregimancy » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:15 am

Risottia wrote:
The Northumbrian Republic wrote:There’s also the Word of the Lord:

If it's not the Word of the Lord William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, or the Word of the Lord Ernest Rutherford, 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson, it's not that interesting...

Anyway, heliocentrism <=/=> atheism. Also, heliocentrism is wrong. Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, Newton and Lagrange say so. The Sun isn't the centre around which the Earth revolves: in a Sun-centered frame of reference, the centre of Earth's orbit, which is an ellipse, does not coincide with the centre of the Sun. That's because the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun, and the Sun does NOT revolve around Earth: the Sun-Earth system orbits around its centre of mass (as a first approximation, leaving aside the perturbations from other bodies, ofc).


So we're all actually kentromazastrists?

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55272
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:22 am

The Archregimancy wrote:
Risottia wrote:If it's not the Word of the Lord William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, or the Word of the Lord Ernest Rutherford, 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson, it's not that interesting...

Anyway, heliocentrism <=/=> atheism. Also, heliocentrism is wrong. Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, Newton and Lagrange say so. The Sun isn't the centre around which the Earth revolves: in a Sun-centered frame of reference, the centre of Earth's orbit, which is an ellipse, does not coincide with the centre of the Sun. That's because the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun, and the Sun does NOT revolve around Earth: the Sun-Earth system orbits around its centre of mass (as a first approximation, leaving aside the perturbations from other bodies, ofc).


So we're all actually kentromazastrists?


Yup.
Lovely logopoiesis, by the way.
.

User avatar
Sagredo
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 03, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Sagredo » Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:27 am

Risottia wrote:
The Northumbrian Republic wrote:There’s also the Word of the Lord:

If it's not the Word of the Lord William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, or the Word of the Lord Ernest Rutherford, 1st Baron Rutherford of Nelson, it's not that interesting...

Anyway, heliocentrism <=/=> atheism. Also, heliocentrism is wrong. Copernicus, Kepler, Galilei, Newton and Lagrange say so. The Sun isn't the centre around which the Earth revolves: in a Sun-centered frame of reference, the centre of Earth's orbit, which is an ellipse, does not coincide with the centre of the Sun. That's because the Earth does NOT revolve around the Sun, and the Sun does NOT revolve around Earth: the Sun-Earth system orbits around its centre of mass (as a first approximation, leaving aside the perturbations from other bodies, ofc).


I have no idea what a "kentromazastrist" is. I don't endorse logopoiesis, even though the Archregimency does look good in red.

But I think you ascribe too much knowledge to Copernicus and Kepler. Galileo had turns of thinking that way, when he was drunk, but really the theory of universal gravitation wasn't up yet.

Yes, the Earth and Sun revolve around a mutual center of gravity. I know that now. I've been reading Wikipedia.
“One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.”
— Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Ermarian
Minister
 
Posts: 2783
Founded: Jan 11, 2004
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ermarian » Fri Apr 03, 2015 5:21 am

The Northumbrian Republic wrote:Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe.

...

I personally am a "heliocentrist"


You do realize that not only is heliocentrism in that sense equally ridiculous as geocentrism, but also that the difference between the two is negligible, given that the Sun and the Earth are basically in the same place relative to everywhere else.
The Endless Empire of Ermarian | Jolt Archives | Encyclopedia Ermariana | ( -6.38 | -8.56 ) | Luna is best pony.
"Without deeper reflection one knows from daily life that one exists for other people - first of all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness is wholly dependent, and then for the many, unknown to us, to whose destinies we are bound by the ties of sympathy." -Einstein
"Is there a topic for discussion here, or did you just want to be wrong in public?" -Ifreann

User avatar
New Waterford
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1393
Founded: Apr 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby New Waterford » Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:38 am

I thought you actually believed all this until I read the last line.
Have you thought about putting the article in quotes?
Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.49
Now known IC'ly as An Déise.

User avatar
Sagredo
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 03, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Sagredo » Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:38 am

Ermarian wrote:
The Northumbrian Republic wrote:Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe.

...

I personally am a "heliocentrist"


You do realize that not only is heliocentrism in that sense equally ridiculous as geocentrism, but also that the difference between the two is negligible, given that the Sun and the Earth are basically in the same place relative to everywhere else.


If that was a proper definition of heliocentrism, yes. It's a very bad definition. Heliocentrism was and is the idea that the Earth and the other planets orbit the Sun.

Really that "center of the universe" idea is more a geocentrist thing. By the time natural philosophers accepted the the Earth revolved around the Sun, they already had good reason to question whether the 'fixed stars' revolved around either the Sun or Earth. Rotation of the Earth was a sufficient explanation for the apparent motion of the 'fixed stars' and there was no reason to think the stars revolved around the Sun.

In fact, astronomers set to trying to find apparent motion of one star relative to another, to prove that the Earth was moving in an orbit relative to the 'fixed stars'. It took a century, because the stars were much further away than scientists had thought. The parallax motion of one star relative to another is tiny and they didn't have photography or even good clocks, so it was mostly a technical limitation.

Then when they did definitely detect parallax motion, their observations did not fit the heliocentric model. Scientists didn't know that the speed of light is finite! Even more amazingly, the apparent error in the observations of parallax provided the first good estimate of the speed of light. It's a fascinating story of theory and observation racing each other to the truth.
“One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.”
— Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Indira
Minister
 
Posts: 3339
Founded: Feb 02, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Indira » Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:40 am

I believe in facts, so yes I believe in heliocentrism. This is an EXCELLENT example of of just how desperate fundies are to avoid reality

User avatar
Caninope
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24620
Founded: Nov 26, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Caninope » Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:47 am

Indira wrote:I believe in facts, so yes I believe in heliocentrism. This is an EXCELLENT example of of just how desperate fundies are to avoid reality

Well, heliocentrism actually is wrong in the strictest sense because of relativity, the size of the universe, and elliptical orbits (the sun is a focus of the orbit, but not the only focus- see here for the barycenter of the solar system.

But heliocentrism is an incredibly useful fiction that describes how things work pretty well, yes.
I'm the Pope
Secretly CIA interns stomping out negative views of the US
Türkçe öğreniyorum ama zorluk var.
Winner, Silver Medal for Debating
Co-Winner, Bronze Medal for Posting
Co-Winner, Zooke Goodwill Award

Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:
Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.

Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.

User avatar
Kilobugya
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6878
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:04 am

In modern light of Newtonian mechanics and Einstein relativity, the terms of the debates switched a bit, and "the Sun is immobile at the center of the solar system" isn't technically right. But in all meaningful ways, it's more accurate than the geocentric system. Under Newtonian mechanics, the Sun while not immobile (it is slightly moved by the planets, and it rotates very fast around the center of the galaxy) is a much better frame of intertia than the Earth. And there are countless experiences that proves it, from having actually sent probes to space to the Foucault pendulum to ...

It requires blind fanatism to deny it nowadays.

And yes, even if both Galileo and Newton were christian, it can be labeled an "atheist doctrine", because the mindset it took to discover it (probing the facts without preconceptions, not taking any pre-written truth for absolute but actually updating your mind with evidence, judging the truth of a theory by its ability to explain facts and make predictions, ...) is the same mindset that leads to atheism. At the time of Galileo and Newton, were we didn't know about the neurons, DNA, other galaxies and planets, ... the god hypothesis was still a roughly reasonable answer to many unknown questions (even if "well, for that, we don't know" would have been better) so we can't blame them for being theists, but in the modern world, with the modern amount of understanding we have of the universe and of the methods of rationality, there is no real excuse for theism left.
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
Tekania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21671
Founded: May 26, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Tekania » Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:11 am

I do not believe the Earth is the center of the universe, I do not believe the Sun is the center of the universe either..... The universe has no center for something to be in it in the first place; "center" is a meaningless term when talking about the universe's geometry.... it's like trying to define the "Center" of a sphere's surface.

I do not support geocentrism. I support geokeneticism (that is the Earth is in motion, it resolved around the Sun, the Sun revolved around Galactic Center, the Galaxy is in motion itself in its local cluster, and local clusters are in motion as well.
Such heroic nonsense!

User avatar
Sagredo
Envoy
 
Posts: 226
Founded: Apr 03, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Sagredo » Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:19 am

Indira wrote:I believe in facts,


"Facts" are for trivia contests and the Guinness Book of World Records.

so yes I believe in heliocentrism. This is an EXCELLENT example of of just how desperate fundies are to avoid reality


Or less harshly, an example of creative thinking towards a desired end. Perhaps amusing to some?

Neither facts, nor wishful thinking, are the real deal though. Science requires you to believe sincerely what you think you know, always welcome correction or extension of your knowledge, and admit that even if you are the most eminent scientist in that field you do not know all there is to know.

Compared to Science, facts and wishful thinking are two hobos wrestling in a ditch.
“One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.”
— Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Sun Wukong
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9798
Founded: Oct 16, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Sun Wukong » Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:28 am

Indira wrote:I believe in facts, so yes I believe in heliocentrism. This is an EXCELLENT example of of just how desperate fundies are to avoid reality

I believe in the Kamina who believes in me that we live in an acentric universe, but that planetary orbital equations tend to be easier if you put the sun in the center.
Great Sage, Equal of Heaven.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:29 am

'Stellacentrism' might be the more accurate term. The Sun is a star.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Planita
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1767
Founded: May 01, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Planita » Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:31 am

Send my congratulations to the blogger, he/she made fundamentalist religious people look even more like fools

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Eahland, Ineva, Infected Mushroom, Keltionialang, Kostane, New Temecula, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, Tesseris, Trump Almighty, Tungstan, Verkhoyanska

Advertisement

Remove ads