I must say, your "defense mechanism" against new ideas is pretty amusing for people who would style themselves 'freethinkers' :)
I must say, your "defense mechanism" against new ideas is pretty amusing for people who would style themselves 'freethinkers' :)
I did think about it. I concluded that geocentrism is wrong and that you are a troll.
Okay, maybe you're NOT a Troll/Poe. Maybe you're an incredibly gifted lobotomized chimp.I must say, your "defense mechanism" against new ideas is pretty amusing for people who would style themselves 'freethinkers' :)
I did think about it. I concluded that geocentrism is wrong and that you are a troll.
Which is basically what the post you quoted was all about. Your atheistic heliocentric worldview is entrenched such that anyone suggesting otherwise MUST NOT BE SERIOUS because otherwise they have to be insane and you have to get the thought police to go round them up, right?
Usually when someone spells atheist correctly, not like "athiest", they are a troll.I've never found spelling and grammar to be an accurate test for trolling.
Usually when someone spells atheist correctly, not like "athiest", they are a troll.
Dude, wut?Usually when someone spells atheist correctly, not like "athiest", they are a troll.
Ironic. One thing I have noted above all else about the Atheist community is how vicious antitheistic vitriol trumps spelling and grammar every time. If you want to use my ability to spell correctly against me you first have to address your compatriots who "HATEZ TEH CHRISTAINS LOLOLZ" or however you encode such things.
Ok, can you provide some evidence that your assertion that the entire universe revolves around the earth is indeed fact? If you can, I'd love to see it. I'm more than happy to accept that the universe is geocentric if someone can provide compelling evidence for that assertion.
Ok, can you provide some evidence that your assertion that the entire universe revolves around the earth is indeed fact? If you can, I'd love to see it. I'm more than happy to accept that the universe is geocentric if someone can provide compelling evidence for that assertion.
The Geocentric model is very old and very well established. Older, in fact, than the heliocentric model.
For millennia, the universe was indisputably Geocentric.
Everyone from the simplest peasant to the greatest genius like Ptolemy KNEW that the celestial bodies revolved around a fixed earth. This knowledge was handed down throughout every sacred text of the time and well understood to be Truth.
And then early progenitors of the modern Cult of Atheism, Copernicus and Galileo came forth to DEMAND that our knowledge be superceded and that we accept the Atheists' latest lie against God and Reality.
The Bible says it plain, the Earth is fixed and set firm and immovable. The celestial bodies move about us and as such are subject to the will of God. Modern "scientists" claim this not to be so and assume a 'moving earth' reference frame for relative motions within the orbital system rather than accepting the truth of a fixed earth and a moving external heliosphere.
Ultimately, the Great Lie of Heliocentrism cannot stand against the inexorable tide of Biblical Truth, one day our faith shall be vindicated!
Ok, can you provide some evidence that your assertion that the entire universe revolves around the earth is indeed fact? If you can, I'd love to see it. I'm more than happy to accept that the universe is geocentric if someone can provide compelling evidence for that assertion.
The Geocentric model is very old and very well established. Older, in fact, than the heliocentric model.
The heliocentric model simply fails to provide explanations for why:
(a) we have the exact same starfield visible in the night sky every night. If the earth moved around the sun once per year, the stars in that starfield would change position on a nightly basis, this doesn't happen.
(b) the perfect correlation between the sizes of the moon and sun as seen from earth. This is the only set of bodies in the KNOWN UNIVERSE where a perfect eclipse is visible.
(c) the Moon's tidal force upon the earth is far stronger than the sun's. According the The Atheist Newton's gravitational equation and the mass/distance figures mandated by the heliocentric worldview, F = GmM / r^2, the Sun's gravitational pull upon the Earth is more than 100 times larger than the Moon's, yet the Moon exerts a far greater tidal force than the sun upon the earth. Clearly either the equations underpinning heliocentrism OR the values they ascribe to the heavenly bodies are WRONG!
On a serious note, why are we feeding the troll?Because I can't get a live stream of the friggin' Oscars... >:(
I'm torn on whether this guy's sincere or not.
Assuming he is, a question: Is the Earth flat or round?
The Geocentric model is very old and very well established. Older, in fact, than the heliocentric model.
The heliocentric model simply fails to provide explanations for why:
(a) we have the exact same starfield visible in the night sky every night. If the earth moved around the sun once per year, the stars in that starfield would change position on a nightly basis, this doesn't happen.
(b) the perfect correlation between the sizes of the moon and sun as seen from earth. This is the only set of bodies in the KNOWN UNIVERSE where a perfect eclipse is visible.
(c) the Moon's tidal force upon the earth is far stronger than the sun's. According the The Atheist Newton's gravitational equation and the mass/distance figures mandated by the heliocentric worldview, F = GmM / r^2, the Sun's gravitational pull upon the Earth is more than 100 times larger than the Moon's, yet the Moon exerts a far greater tidal force than the sun upon the earth. Clearly either the equations underpinning heliocentrism OR the values they ascribe to the heavenly bodies are WRONG!
And he has youtube videos as well. Outstanding.Link please!
It's in his sig.And he has youtube videos as well. Outstanding.Link please!
Actually I think he is a really impressive troll.
An Anglican, Geocentrist, fundamentalist homophobe.
And he has youtube videos as well. Outstanding.
I don't really feel like scrolling past all the cat macros, did anyone point out that he's glancing across right on his trip into orbit? As heliocentrism is a long discarded theory of the universe, and it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Sort of, not really my field but the earth does not appear to be the point of origin for the movement at the very least. The observations I'm familiar with involve differences in relative speed between earth and other bodies which would indicate that whatever started everything moving wasn't directly centered around earth. It's all moving, the vast majority of it away from us in a literal sense, but how it's all moving doesn't support earth as the center of anything.it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is separate from our galaxy, which is separate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
I haven't noticed the earth moving.
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
Observations also show that the Earth is perched on the back of a giant sea turtle.it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
Oh god this is too much...I haven't noticed the earth moving.
That would be because it isn't :)
Atheists use the idea of "atmospheric inertia" to explain away the lack of the violent effects of earth's supposed rotation about its axis and its movement about the sun, but this is easily shown to be nonsense.
A fighter pilot travelling at Mach 2 experiences hugely increased inertial forces due to speed, even moreso if the aircraft is turning. And this is despite the craft having its own self-contained atmosphere.
If the earth were really whizzing through space at 87 times the speed of sound, the inertial force imparted to us would splatter anything living on the surface INSTANTLY!
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
Pro-Tip: Acceleration exerts Gs, not velocity. Since everything moves around the earth at the same velocity there's no real noticeable effect.
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
Well, yes, things are moving away from us and we're moving away from them.
Also, I love how you only quote science when you can misinterpret and willfully ignore the parts you don't like.
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
Well, yes, things are moving away from us and we're moving away from them.
Also, I love how you only quote science when you can misinterpret and willfully ignore the parts you don't like.
If the word of scientists is put against the word of God, it loses by default. Science that is in line with God's word is useful however.
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
Correction: Everything in the universe is moving further away from everything else. It is not specifically everything moving further away from us. At the same time any given galaxy is moving further away from our own, it is also moving further away from all the other of the billions of galaxies in existence. Essentially, the entire universe is expanding--imagine a balloon, with lots of little stars drawn on it. As the balloon inflates, every star moves further away from every other star. There is no one specific star that stands still, and the other stars move away from it. Instead, all the stars are moving away from each other as the distance between them grows increasingly vast. This a crude metaphor for the expansion of our universe.
By your logic, every point in the universe is the center of the universe, because every other point in space is moving further away from it.
The simple truth is, earth is an unremarkable planet orbiting a spectacularly unremarkable star, in an unremarkable arm of an unremarkable galaxy. There are billions of galaxies exactly like ours, each of which contains billions of stars orbited by billions of planets exactly like our own. Earth is in no way special, except that it is, at this time, the only planet we know of what has life. However, we make remarkable discoveries every day, and that may simply not always be the case.
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
Correction: Everything in the universe is moving further away from everything else. It is not specifically everything moving further away from us. At the same time any given galaxy is moving further away from our own, it is also moving further away from all the other of the billions of galaxies in existence. Essentially, the entire universe is expanding--imagine a balloon, with lots of little stars drawn on it. As the balloon inflates, every star moves further away from every other star. There is no one specific star that stands still, and the other stars move away from it. Instead, all the stars are moving away from each other as the distance between them grows increasingly vast. This a crude metaphor for the expansion of our universe.
By your logic, every point in the universe is the center of the universe, because every other point in space is moving further away from it.
The simple truth is, earth is an unremarkable planet orbiting a spectacularly unremarkable star, in an unremarkable arm of an unremarkable galaxy. There are billions of galaxies exactly like ours, each of which contains billions of stars orbited by billions of planets exactly like our own. Earth is in no way special, except that it is, at this time, the only planet we know of what has life. However, we make remarkable discoveries every day, and that may simply not always be the case.
And this fantasy is based on what, exactly? We have precisely ONE reference frame from which we can determine movement. Maybe if you were in another galaxy you could have an extra perspective from which to claim that, but as it is all you can see is objects moving away from US.
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
And this fantasy is based on what, exactly? We have precisely ONE reference frame from which we can determine movement. Maybe if you were in another galaxy you could have an extra perspective from which to claim that, but as it is all you can see is objects moving away from US.
it's accepted that the universe has it's own central point, which is seperate from our galaxy, which is seperate from our sun, which largely puts earth as a tick in the back ass of no where in the universe?
Not so. Observations show that every point in the universe appears to be moving away from us. The natural inference of this is that the earth is at the centre of any supposed expansion.
Well, yes, things are moving away from us and we're moving away from them.
Also, I love how you only quote science when you can misinterpret and willfully ignore the parts you don't like.
If the word of scientists is put against the word of God, it loses by default. Science that is in line with God's word is useful however.
Direct question: Is the Earth round (like a ball) or flat (like table)?
Direct question: Is the Earth round (like a ball) or flat (like table)?
What sort of question is that? You can see the earth is spherical just by looking to the horizon.
Well it's an oblate spheroid but in your case I'll say close enough. Also looking at the horizon it really does create the illusion of flatness, so you may want to doublecheck where you're looking at.Direct question: Is the Earth round (like a ball) or flat (like table)?
What sort of question is that? You can see the earth is spherical just by looking to the horizon.
Some Chriastans like yourself who belive in geocentrism and such also believe in a flat earth for many of the same reasons.Direct question: Is the Earth round (like a ball) or flat (like table)?What sort of question is that? You can see the earth is spherical just by looking to the horizon.
Some Chriastans like yourself who belive in geocentrism and such also believe in a flat earth for many of the same reasons.Direct question: Is the Earth round (like a ball) or flat (like table)?What sort of question is that? You can see the earth is spherical just by looking to the horizon.
Do you reject then, the passages of the bible that imply (at the very least) that the Earth is flat?
Some Chriastans like yourself who belive in geocentrism and such also believe in a flat earth for many of the same reasons.Direct question: Is the Earth round (like a ball) or flat (like table)?What sort of question is that? You can see the earth is spherical just by looking to the horizon.
Do you reject then, the passages of the bible that imply (at the very least) that the Earth is flat?
It isn't a matter of rejection. In the Bible, the description of the earth as flat is a literary device. In comparison, the Geocentric principle is stated far more explicitly and on at least one occasion a quote attributed directly to God.
Pretty convenient that you get too pick and choose which parts of the bible you want to believe.Some Chriastans like yourself who belive in geocentrism and such also believe in a flat earth for many of the same reasons.Direct question: Is the Earth round (like a ball) or flat (like table)?What sort of question is that? You can see the earth is spherical just by looking to the horizon.
Do you reject then, the passages of the bible that imply (at the very least) that the Earth is flat?
It isn't a matter of rejection. In the Bible, the description of the earth as flat is a literary device. In comparison, the Geocentric principle is stated far more explicitly and on at least one occasion a quote attributed directly to God.
He's certainly doing a good job of it. But if you follow the link in his sig, you'll see he has gone to a lot of effort to carry it out.Just a classic example of a false-flag operation (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3615.msg134587#msg134587).
He's certainly doing a good job of it. But if you follow the link in his sig, you'll see he has gone to a lot of effort to carry it out.Just a classic example of a false-flag operation (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3615.msg134587#msg134587).
He only made like six videos. And it seems like poe to an epic degree. He claims Atheists engage in blood drinking rituals and that Newton was an Atheist Cultist.
Evidently it's impossible to imagine anyone having a legitimate disagreement with Atheist dogma and practices being peddled to our nation's children.Begone, secret atheist. I'm on to you...and your plans to make Christians look stupid. Well I'm not falling for it.
Better get used to it, the world is waking up to the truth.
If the word of scientists is put against the word of God, it loses by default. Science that is in line with God's word is useful however.
Evidently it's impossible to imagine anyone having a legitimate disagreement with Atheist dogma and practices being peddled to our nation's children.
Better get used to it, the world is waking up to the truth.
Evidently it's impossible to imagine anyone having a legitimate disagreement with Atheist dogma and practices being peddled to our nation's children.(assuming you're for real because that's more amusing)
He only made like six videos. And it seems like poe to an epic degree. He claims Atheists engage in blood drinking rituals and that Newton was an Atheist Cultist.Atheist cultists have to be the most boring thing I've ever thought about. What would they even do?
His channel also doesn't have a username
He only made like six videos. And it seems like poe to an epic degree. He claims Atheists engage in blood drinking rituals and that Newton was an Atheist Cultist.Atheist cultists have to be the most boring thing I've ever thought about. What would they even do?
His channel also doesn't have a username
Hey guys, wanna go debase ourselves and others in the name of our god and belief system? Wait, we don't have either... uh... pizza then?
Evidently it's impossible to imagine anyone having a legitimate disagreement with Atheist dogma and practices being peddled to our nation's children.(assuming you're for real because that's more amusing)
1) There's no such thing as atheist dogma. Though most of us believe pretty strongly that the scientific method is a good way to sort fact from fiction, and if that's what you're accusing me of being dogmatic about, I'll gladly cop to that.
2) You have no legitimate disagreement.
Evidently it's impossible to imagine anyone having a legitimate disagreement with Atheist dogma and practices being peddled to our nation's children.(assuming you're for real because that's more amusing)
1) There's no such thing as atheist dogma. Though most of us believe pretty strongly that the scientific method is a good way to sort fact from fiction, and if that's what you're accusing me of being dogmatic about, I'll gladly cop to that.
2) You have no legitimate disagreement.
1 - Originally maybe the scientific method had that purpose but it is abundantly clear that modern scientists use it as a club to beat on religion.
2 - So you think my disagreement is illegitimate? Maybe you think I should be arrested for my nonadherence to Atheism?
1 - Originally maybe the scientific method had that purpose but it is abundantly clear that modern scientists use it as a club to beat on religion.
2 - So you think my disagreement is illegitimate? Maybe you think I should be arrested for my nonadherence to Atheism?
1) The beauty of the scientific method, including the process of peer review, is that you can't just make the results say whatever you want. The process is designed to eliminate bias. You're just mad because you don't like the results. But being mad that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 doesn't mean mathematitions have it out for you.Evidently it's impossible to imagine anyone having a legitimate disagreement with Atheist dogma and practices being peddled to our nation's children.(assuming you're for real because that's more amusing)
1) There's no such thing as atheist dogma. Though most of us believe pretty strongly that the scientific method is a good way to sort fact from fiction, and if that's what you're accusing me of being dogmatic about, I'll gladly cop to that.
2) You have no legitimate disagreement.
1 - Originally maybe the scientific method had that purpose but it is abundantly clear that modern scientists use it as a club to beat on religion.
2 - So you think my disagreement is illegitimate? Maybe you think I should be arrested for my nonadherence to Atheism?
More drivel from the false-flag "Christian". Think about it: if you wanted to make Christians look bad, wouldn't you claim to believe in ridiculous nonsense (e.g. Geocentrism) that most Christians think is insane? Funny that's exactly what we see, eh? (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3615.msg134544#msg134544) I should also point out that any of your pro-Christian videos can just as easily be considered fabrications (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=3615.msg134538#msg134538) because Stalin or something. I'm on to you...Evidently it's impossible to imagine anyone having a legitimate disagreement with Atheist dogma and practices being peddled to our nation's children.(assuming you're for real because that's more amusing)
1) There's no such thing as atheist dogma. Though most of us believe pretty strongly that the scientific method is a good way to sort fact from fiction, and if that's what you're accusing me of being dogmatic about, I'll gladly cop to that.
2) You have no legitimate disagreement.
1 - Originally maybe the scientific method had that purpose but it is abundantly clear that modern scientists use it as a club to beat on religion.
2 - So you think my disagreement is illegitimate? Maybe you think I should be arrested for my nonadherence to Atheism?
Better get used to it, the world is waking up to the truth.
So wat do if troll boy gets bored?
So wat do if troll boy gets bored?
What we do every time, Pinky, try to take over the world.
I mean, we move on to whatever chewtoy comes our way next.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/498/980/21b.jpg)So wat do if troll boy gets bored?
What we do every time, Pinky, try to take over the world.
I mean, we move on to whatever chewtoy comes our way next.
Oh. Can we make this a Dolan thread? Pretty pretty please? :D
1) The beauty of the scientific method, including the process of peer review, is that you can't just make the results say whatever you want. The process is designed to eliminate bias. You're just mad because you don't like the results. But being mad that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 doesn't mean mathematitions have it out for you.
2) Now you're just being silly. Why on Earth would I want you arrested?
1) The beauty of the scientific method, including the process of peer review, is that you can't just make the results say whatever you want. The process is designed to eliminate bias. You're just mad because you don't like the results. But being mad that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 doesn't mean mathematitions have it out for you.
"bias" is a highly subjective term. If everyone involved in the peer review process is an Atheist then any conclusion falling outside the usual materialist or uniformitarianist norm will be rejected out of hand. How is that not an inherent bias in the system?
That is the ultimate solution to the problem of the religious, isn't it? At least it always has been in any country where Atheism becomes the rule rather than the exception.Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Those words damn you more than you realise.
The lack of an officially Atheist society that wasn't a dictatorship with a secret police force dedicated to committing pogroms against those subversive theists would tend to indicate that ALL officially Atheist societies end up that way.
Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Those words damn you more than you realise.
The lack of an officially Atheist society that wasn't a dictatorship with a secret police force dedicated to committing pogroms against those subversive theists would tend to indicate that ALL officially Atheist societies end up that way.
Okay, I visited the troll's youtube page and watched a couple of his videos last night. I'm not entirely certain he's not a poe.
That is the ultimate solution to the problem of the religious, isn't it? At least it always has been in any country where Atheism becomes the rule rather than the exception.
"bias" is a highly subjective term. If everyone involved in the peer review process is an Atheist then any conclusion falling outside the usual materialist or uniformitarianist norm will be rejected out of hand. How is that not an inherent bias in the system?
That is the ultimate solution to the problem of the religious, isn't it? At least it always has been in any country where Atheism becomes the rule rather than the exception.
"bias" is a highly subjective term.Not really.
If everyone involved in the peer review process is an Atheist then any conclusion falling outside the usual materialist or uniformitarianist norm will be rejected out of hand. How is that not an inherent bias in the system?You do realize that not all scientists are atheists, right?
That is the ultimate solution to the problem of the religious, isn't it? At least it always has been in any country where Atheism becomes the rule rather than the exception.No and no. We have this thing here in America called freedom of speech. As long as you're not slandering anyone, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or inciting violence, you can say whatever you want. And that's the the way I (and most atheists) like it.
I notice you haven't given examples of any of these atheist police states.Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Those words damn you more than you realise.
The lack of an officially Atheist society that wasn't a dictatorship with a secret police force dedicated to committing pogroms against those subversive theists would tend to indicate that ALL officially Atheist societies end up that way.
Maybe we should just elect a cat as the president/prime minister already.I'd vote for Grumpy Cat.
Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Those words damn you more than you realise.
The lack of an officially Atheist society that wasn't a dictatorship with a secret police force dedicated to committing pogroms against those subversive theists would tend to indicate that ALL officially Atheist societies end up that way.
Rabbit, USSR and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Both atheist states that did persecute the religious. But as Sylvana pointed out that was because they were oligarchies/ police states. Whereas Scandanavia (apart from the nudity, the saunas and the whipping each other with sticks) is just dandy.I notice you haven't given examples of any of these atheist police states.Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Those words damn you more than you realise.
The lack of an officially Atheist society that wasn't a dictatorship with a secret police force dedicated to committing pogroms against those subversive theists would tend to indicate that ALL officially Atheist societies end up that way.
I'm well aware of this, but I kinda wanted AE to answer it.Rabbit, USSR and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Both atheist states that did persecute the religious. But as Sylvana pointed out that was because they were oligarchies/ police states. Whereas Scandanavia (apart from the nudity, the saunas and the whipping each other with sticks) is just dandy.I notice you haven't given examples of any of these atheist police states.Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Those words damn you more than you realise.
The lack of an officially Atheist society that wasn't a dictatorship with a secret police force dedicated to committing pogroms against those subversive theists would tend to indicate that ALL officially Atheist societies end up that way.
I'm well aware of this, but I kinda wanted AE to answer it.Rabbit, USSR and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Both atheist states that did persecute the religious. But as Sylvana pointed out that was because they were oligarchies/ police states. Whereas Scandanavia (apart from the nudity, the saunas and the whipping each other with sticks) is just dandy.I notice you haven't given examples of any of these atheist police states.Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Those words damn you more than you realise.
The lack of an officially Atheist society that wasn't a dictatorship with a secret police force dedicated to committing pogroms against those subversive theists would tend to indicate that ALL officially Atheist societies end up that way.
It's okay--looking back on it he never would've answered me anyway.I'm well aware of this, but I kinda wanted AE to answer it.Rabbit, USSR and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Both atheist states that did persecute the religious. But as Sylvana pointed out that was because they were oligarchies/ police states. Whereas Scandanavia (apart from the nudity, the saunas and the whipping each other with sticks) is just dandy.I notice you haven't given examples of any of these atheist police states.Name a single country where Atheism is / was the norm that was not ruled by an despotic authoritarian leader on a power trip. You will find that the general religion of a nation has very little to do with attacks on the religious and more to do with how religious institutions threaten the absolute power of the oligarch.
Those words damn you more than you realise.
The lack of an officially Atheist society that wasn't a dictatorship with a secret police force dedicated to committing pogroms against those subversive theists would tend to indicate that ALL officially Atheist societies end up that way.
Oh Mea Culpa.
Rabbit, USSR and Khmer Rouge Cambodia. Both atheist states that did persecute the religious. But as Sylvana pointed out that was because they were oligarchies/ police states. Whereas Scandanavia (apart from the nudity, the saunas and the whipping each other with sticks) is just dandy.What's wrong with nude scandinavians?
Gotta admit this troll has staying power.Down, boy.
Ironbite-but keep going...I'm getting frisky.
Back to the original topic of this thread, I went looking for a video to explain the Mars retrograde motion to see how geocentrists would explain it... and apparently they've come up with something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3svFa6hMeTY).
I commented that you can draw hypothetical orbit diagrams all day, and they don't mean squat if you can't explain the forces involved. Now one of the "teach the controversy" commenters is going all "Newtonian physics have no place in 2013, learn some relativity and all will become clear!" tripe on me.
The video made me laugh out loud when the narrator wondered why evolution had yet to provide an explanation for stable orbits (and naturally he gives no mechanism for how the hell HIS proposed orbits could ever be stable).
Wondered what Heliocentrism is...
Then discovered it is the widely accepted (and one with outstanding evidence of) idea that the sun is the center of the known galaxy we live in...
This man who says "The Atheist" should "self-censor," even in Jack Chick-grade stupidity believes Catholicism and Islam is at fault of Atheism (what the fuck?) believes this is all bunk... (Should I also mention it was the Catholic Church that imprisoned Copernicus until his death over this discovery?)
...I now even more so dearly wish this man is a poe.
Okay, lets do heliocentric as well. Your position is that the ENTIRE milky way and the ENTIRE universe has to revolve around the sun and at some point, objects must exceed speed of light. Therefore the heliocentric model is wrong too? You have to see that your logic is flawed. Is this really that hard to see?I also like that he completely ignored my question of how the geocentric model explains Lagrange points.
Actually, from the guy who's arguing with me on YouTube, apparently geocentrists (who think the earth is the center of the universe), believe that heliocentrism states the same thing, just with the sun:QuoteOkay, lets do heliocentric as well. Your position is that the ENTIRE milky way and the ENTIRE universe has to revolve around the sun and at some point, objects must exceed speed of light. Therefore the heliocentric model is wrong too? You have to see that your logic is flawed. Is this really that hard to see?I also like that he completely ignored my question of how the geocentric model explains Lagrange points.
Heliocentric model indicates that the SUN is the focal point of the universe, hence helio (sun) centric. And because the modern physics shows that the only focal point of the universe is at the exact time of the big bang, neither heliocentric and geocentric models are absolutely correct. Therefore, both models are equally valid when simply presenting as a model. It is just a matter of what to put in the middle. And about Lagrange points, how the fuck can you NOT explain with geocentric model????
Lagrange points are five 5 points found within the gravitational fields of two objects where a third object of comparatively negligible mass can be held in perfect relation to them as those two objects orbit their common center of mass.
Man, this guy is the gift that keeps on giving.QuoteHeliocentric model indicates that the SUN is the focal point of the universe, hence helio (sun) centric. And because the modern physics shows that the only focal point of the universe is at the exact time of the big bang, neither heliocentric and geocentric models are absolutely correct. Therefore, both models are equally valid when simply presenting as a model. It is just a matter of what to put in the middle. And about Lagrange points, how the fuck can you NOT explain with geocentric model????
That's right, guys. Apparently all this time, we've believed that the entire universe revolves around the sun. The proof is that both "heliocentric" and "geocentric" contain the root "centric". Mind = blown.
Lagrange points are five 5 points found within the gravitational fields of two objects where a third object of comparatively negligible mass can be held in perfect relation to them as those two objects orbit their common center of mass.
Man, this guy is the gift that keeps on giving.QuoteHeliocentric model indicates that the SUN is the focal point of the universe, hence helio (sun) centric. And because the modern physics shows that the only focal point of the universe is at the exact time of the big bang, neither heliocentric and geocentric models are absolutely correct. Therefore, both models are equally valid when simply presenting as a model. It is just a matter of what to put in the middle. And about Lagrange points, how the fuck can you NOT explain with geocentric model????
That's right, guys. Apparently all this time, we've believed that the entire universe revolves around the sun. The proof is that both "heliocentric" and "geocentric" contain the root "centric". Mind = blown.
And yet, that is what the word means. The Atheist model is even sillier than that, you need to come up with a new label for it ASAP.
Again, this is an inverted truth. You say "we couldn't have L2-L5 points if the earth were stationary", but you conveniently miss out the rotation of the sun about us.
Hey AE,
Heliocentrism means that the sun is the center of our solar system. Not that it is the center of the universe.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Yeah, we should cling to nonsense that's even more outdated. Tell me, are you constantly worried about falling off the edge of the Earth?You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
Wait? Are you actually trying to imply that heliocentric theory and a spherical earth are poisoning our society? How? I can kind of see how evolution can possibly harm society, it does not actually, but it has room for abuse, but fundamental observations of our planet and universe? Observations that barely affect our lives somehow poison our society? That's special.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
Wait? Are you actually trying to imply that heliocentric theory and a spherical earth are poisoning our society? How? I can kind of see how evolution can possibly harm society, it does not actually, but it has room for abuse, but fundamental observations of our planet and universe? Observations that barely affect our lives somehow poison our society? That's special.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
Wait? Are you actually trying to imply that heliocentric theory and a spherical earth are poisoning our society? How? I can kind of see how evolution can possibly harm society, it does not actually, but it has room for abuse, but fundamental observations of our planet and universe? Observations that barely affect our lives somehow poison our society? That's special.
Except they DO affect your lives in that they colour your entire worldview. Filling kids' heads with false doctrines deliberately divorced from God's word can't really be considered anything other than social poison.
Generations of kids now have grown up with their minds infiltrated with Atheistic lies, believing that we are each insignificant specks in an irrelevant backwater of this huge universe and therefore you and your actions don't matter one iota.
Telling children that they are just temporary arrangements of chemicals assembled via random chance is just a calculated move to keep them from discovering the Holy Spirit, personally I consider that child abuse.
All of you are very clearly wrong. I am the center of the universe. Not the sun, not Earth, not God; ME!!!! ;)I'll accept that ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD8ZtM1sWgIExcept they DO affect your lives in that they colour your entire worldview. Filling kids' heads with false doctrines ...can't really be considered anything other than social poison.You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
Wait? Are you actually trying to imply that heliocentric theory and a spherical earth are poisoning our society? How? I can kind of see how evolution can possibly harm society, it does not actually, but it has room for abuse, but fundamental observations of our planet and universe? Observations that barely affect our lives somehow poison our society? That's special.
Generations of kids now have grown up with their minds infiltrated with Atheistic lies, believing that we are each insignificant specks in an irrelevant backwater of this huge universe and therefore you and your actions don't matter one iota.And correctly surmising that the Earth revolves around the Sun accomplishes this how?
Telling children that they are just temporary arrangements of chemicals assembled via random chance is just a calculated move to keep them from discovering the Holy Spirit, personally I consider that child abuse.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
Wait? Are you actually trying to imply that heliocentric theory and a spherical earth are poisoning our society? How? I can kind of see how evolution can possibly harm society, it does not actually, but it has room for abuse, but fundamental observations of our planet and universe? Observations that barely affect our lives somehow poison our society? That's special.
Except they DO affect your lives in that they colour your entire worldview. Filling kids' heads with false doctrines deliberately divorced from God's word can't really be considered anything other than social poison.
Did you do know that this site has several christians and other religious people who have no trouble accepting science? Science and religion do not have to be enemies, we look for them for different reasons.
Religion can give us peace of mind, help those who seem lost in life and comfort those who are troubled.
Science helps us understand how this world in which we live in works.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
Wait? Are you actually trying to imply that heliocentric theory and a spherical earth are poisoning our society? How? I can kind of see how evolution can possibly harm society, it does not actually, but it has room for abuse, but fundamental observations of our planet and universe? Observations that barely affect our lives somehow poison our society? That's special.
Except they DO affect your lives in that they colour your entire worldview. Filling kids' heads with false doctrines deliberately divorced from God's word can't really be considered anything other than social poison.
Generations of kids now have grown up with their minds infiltrated with Atheistic lies, believing that we are each insignificant specks in an irrelevant backwater of this huge universe and therefore you and your actions don't matter one iota.
Telling children that they are just temporary arrangements of chemicals assembled via random chance is just a calculated move to keep them from discovering the Holy Spirit, personally I consider that child abuse.
Except they DO affect your lives in that they colour your entire worldview. Filling kids' heads with false doctrines deliberately divorced from God's word can't really be considered anything other than social poison.
Generations of kids now have grown up with their minds infiltrated with Atheistic lies, believing that we are each insignificant specks in an irrelevant backwater of this huge universe and therefore you and your actions don't matter one iota.
Telling children that they are just temporary arrangements of chemicals assembled via random chance is just a calculated move to keep them from discovering the Holy Spirit, personally I consider that child abuse.
(a) we have the exact same starfield visible in the night sky every night. If the earth moved around the sun once per year, the stars in that starfield would change position on a nightly basis, this doesn't happen.
(b) the perfect correlation between the sizes of the moon and sun as seen from earth. This is the only set of bodies in the KNOWN UNIVERSE where a perfect eclipse is visible.
(c) the Moon's tidal force upon the earth is far stronger than the sun's. According the The Atheist Newton's gravitational equation and the mass/distance figures mandated by the heliocentric worldview, F = GmM / r^2, the Sun's gravitational pull upon the Earth is more than 100 times larger than the Moon's, yet the Moon exerts a far greater tidal force than the sun upon the earth. Clearly either the equations underpinning heliocentrism OR the values they ascribe to the heavenly bodies are WRONG!
The moon is closer so of course it's stronger. Also I don't get people using scientific principles to disprove science.
Even though the Sun is 391 times as far away from the Earth as the Moon, its force on the Earth is about 175 times as large. Yet its tidal effect is smaller than that of the Moon because tides are caused by the difference in gravity field across the Earth. The Earth's diameter is such a small fraction of the Sun-Earth distance that the gravity field changes by only a factor of 1.00017 across the Earth. The actual force differential across the Earth is 0.00017 x 174.5 = 0.03 times the Moon's force, compared to 0.068 difference across the Earth for the Moon's force. The actual tidal influence then is then 44% of that of the Moon.
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
Wait? Are you actually trying to imply that heliocentric theory and a spherical earth are poisoning our society? How? I can kind of see how evolution can possibly harm society, it does not actually, but it has room for abuse, but fundamental observations of our planet and universe? Observations that barely affect our lives somehow poison our society? That's special.
Except they DO affect your lives in that they colour your entire worldview. Filling kids' heads with false doctrines deliberately divorced from God's word can't really be considered anything other than social poison.
Generations of kids now have grown up with their minds infiltrated with Atheistic lies, believing that we are each insignificant specks in an irrelevant backwater of this huge universe and therefore you and your actions don't matter one iota.
Telling children that they are just temporary arrangements of chemicals assembled via random chance is just a calculated move to keep them from discovering the Holy Spirit, personally I consider that child abuse.
You literally have not responded properly to a single point anyone has raised here. You've just kinda babbled without explaining why you're correct and we're not.
Because cute animals!
(http://lolthulhu.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/rightmer-spawn-scaled.jpg)
You're correct, AE. We use the phrase because in the "center" of our solar system is the "sun". Blows the mind, doesn't it?
Not so much, actually. The idea that people are still clinging to outdated nonsense produced by Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin would be amusing if it wasn't so poisonous to society.
Wait? Are you actually trying to imply that heliocentric theory and a spherical earth are poisoning our society? How? I can kind of see how evolution can possibly harm society, it does not actually, but it has room for abuse, but fundamental observations of our planet and universe? Observations that barely affect our lives somehow poison our society? That's special.
Except they DO affect your lives in that they colour your entire worldview. Filling kids' heads with false doctrines deliberately divorced from God's word can't really be considered anything other than social poison.
Generations of kids now have grown up with their minds infiltrated with Atheistic lies, believing that we are each insignificant specks in an irrelevant backwater of this huge universe and therefore you and your actions don't matter one iota.
Telling children that they are just temporary arrangements of chemicals assembled via random chance is just a calculated move to keep them from discovering the Holy Spirit, personally I consider that child abuse.