I am holier than thou
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2013, 07:51 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2013 08:04 AM by DLJ.)
RE: I am holier than thou
Warning:
Epic post coming up... Don't start reading if you only have the attention span of Hughsie or Ferdie.


(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  No Father would be so inane as to answer this way to a genuine question of his son.
...
No I don't think you are lying, I just think you are quite addled on this point.

You accuse my father of being "inane" and me of being "addled".
I can assure that it is quite the reverse, but then, he is 92 Laughat

I was using the 'blue sky' example as a rhetorical device but as it appears that you are unfamiliar with the concept of how to encourage 'critical thinking' I will elaborate further.

Firstly, an apology...

(17-09-2013 11:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  You are making a mockery of the parenting skills of christian parents.
No Christian parent I have heard of has presented their religion to their children in this manner.

It's true, I was. I confess. But only for comedic effect.
I would hope that no parent would use that technique and I certainly didn't mean to imply that you do.

However, I am well aware that priests ('spiritual' teachers) did and do use that approach.
I have comforted many young ladies who have been racked with guilt because of the myth of hell-fire... 2 x Irish girlfriends and Filipinas too numerous to mention.

You know how the old 'drama triangle' goes, you play 'rescuer' to their 'victim' with the church as 'persecutor' and one thing leads to another. Big Grin Cool

So, to elaborate...

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
Your parents taught you what the colour blue was. They taught you what the sky was, long before it occurred to you to ask why the sky was blue. Its ridiculous to suggest that teachers do not convey knowledge of facts about the way things are.
...

Actually, no.
I observed that the sky was blue. No one specifically told me.
I heard the words 'blue' and 'sky' long before I could speak.

Oddly enough, I remember these conversations at home much more vividly than any lesson at my church school.

So I will give you a fuller transcript to help you understand i.e. a less off-the-cuff comedic response.

DLJ: Dad, why is the sky blue?
Dad: Is it?
DLJ: Um, well yes, I looks blue to me.
Dad: Is it always blue?
DLJ: Well, no, only in the day time.
Dad: So why do you think that is?
DLJ: Not sure. Something to do with the sun?
Dad: Go on...
DLJ: Um, ok, well at dawn and dusk we get pinks and reds and at night we can see stars. Does that mean there is no sky at night time?
Dad: Smile Not quite but you are on the right lines. You have noticed that we have a colour to the sky when the sun is around but at night there is an absence of colour. Why do you think that is?
DLJ: Is it something to do with the same reason we get different colours in a rainbow?
Dad: You might have something there. Do you know how a rainbow works?
DLJ: I think so. It's about light reflected through water.
Dad: Actually the word is 'refracted'. Have you heard of that before?
DLJ: No.
Dad: Ok, go and look that up and get back to me.
Note: No internet back then but we had a vast array of encyclopedias etc. as both my parents were professional educators.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  No Father would be so inane as to answer this way to a genuine question of his son. That is avoiding the question and is truly one of the worst teaching styles I have ever heard advocated.

Thus, far from being 'inane', though he probably didn't know it at the time, my father was using a technique that, coincidentally, I will be teaching my class tomorrow: The 5 Whys. This is now an internationally recognised 'best practice' technique for Problem Management.

Certainly, it is avoiding a 'direct' answer but there is no long term value in the direct answer... y'know... give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  We teach our children that God loves us.

You see... there is an assumption in that statement i.e. that there is a god or indeed that there is only one god.
Man has invented countless gods and due to what you refer to as 'the worst teaching styles I have ever heard advocated", I learned to research the origins of these assumptions i.e. animism and agency.
And looking at the evolution of these various gods, it became obvious that 'love' was not a common factor. This in fact is a quite recent adaptation.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
But we also teach children that if they take drugs they can destroy their lives. We warn of the dangers of venereal disease, unwanted pregnancy, potentially abusive partners, danger of jail if they break the law etc.

Here is your parenting style
DLJ: Dad, why are some drugs illegal?
Dad: Good question, son. What do you think is the best way to find out the answer to that?

What a joke.

We explain what some of the drugs are, what impacts they have on the body and the mind, how lives, relationship, health etc can be damaged by the effects of the drugs. We explain how the government have passed laws making it illegal and imposing serious consequences on users and drug pushers.
In short we teach our children.
...

That strikes me as preaching not teaching.

I do recall this conversation, if not verbatim, and it involved:

DLJ: Dad, why are some drugs illegal?
Dad: Good question, son. Firstly, what do you mean when you say "drugs"?
...
The conversation covered the definition of 'drugs' vs. 'chemicals;
what impacts they have on the body and the mind (as you said);
the societal influences that determine whether something should be restricted, by whom and to whom;
the types of societies that would decree something to be harmful or not i.e. US prohibition vs native American poison rituals;
the cultural / spiritual / religious / superstitious roots of these societies;
the vested interest groups that would lobby for legality / illegality i.e. the US timber merchants, petroleum-based synthetic textiles manufactures etc.
http://www.hemphasis.net/History/history.htm
etc. etc.
I think you get the picture by now... encouragement to look more deeply into interconnected topics to get a full picture of how the world works.

Always avoiding a "because it is" statement and encouraging "why is it" questions.


(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  In the same way when our children ask "Why is adultery a sin"
Dad explains how adultery damages the sacred bond between husband and wife, how it can lead to men raising children which are not their own, how it arouses destructive jealousies and feelings of intense betrayal, how women found with children conceived in adultery often abort the babies, how venereal diseases can enter the marriage and infect the innocent spouse, how marriages can break down and leave the family in poverty and the children get shuffled between the parents often growing up without their fathers etc. And so we explain that for all these reasons God, the great and ultimate lawmaker has made a law to prohibit adultery and ascribed a penalty for those who engage in it.
That is called education. That is called teaching.

It's not called indoctrination, its called teaching and education. It's called raising children in a good path. It is a parents right and duty to teach their children.
...

Well, I guess it is a right, sadly for parents to indoctrinate their children.
And it is indoctrination.
You also, again, make the assumption that there is an external, supervising, supernatural entity for which there is no evidence.

It would be 'teaching' if you covered (as was covered in my family):
Societies where more than one wife was encouraged (you will find that in the bible and the quran too).
How different animal societies behave i.e.
Monogamy: One male and one female have an exclusive mating relationship. The term "pair bonding" often implies this.
Polygamy: Three types are recognized:
- Polygyny (the most common polygamous mating system in vertebrates so far studied): One male has an exclusive relationship with two or more females
- Polyandry: One female has an exclusive relationship with two or more males
- Polygynandry: where two or more males have an exclusive relationship with two or more females; the numbers of males and females need not be equal, and in vertebrate species studied so far, the number of males is usually less.
Promiscuity: A member of one sex within the social group mates with any member of the opposite sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
My children are not quivering wrecks unable to function because of their terror of hell.
...

I am relieved to hear it.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The fear of hell is not for the righteous who have God's favour and who are in a state of grace. The fear of hell is for sinners, who are committing sins and are not seeking God.
...

Sorry, but that is just white noise to me.


Thanks for reading.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
19-09-2013, 07:54 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
Hi Excubitor,

I remain willing to discuss religion. I do not think I have been rude to you. I do use humor often and some of it may be barbed.

Here are a few observations.

"Most of you are just rude and banal brutes"

As I said at the begining of the thread, if you came to discuss, you'd find people willing to engage. If you came here to tell us that we're all misguided and revert to the bible says then you'd run into a lot of people that will give you short shrift.

"I see evidence of a six day creation and a cataclysmic global flood. When I study the heavens and the movements of the planets, sun and moon I see unarguable evidence of a geocentric universe"

That dog won't hunt! The more we find out about cosmology the clearer it becomes that we're not the center of the universe.

When you replied to my question about "what is sin" you listed the usual ones. I would posit that the RCC is guilty of almost all of them.

I guess we'll see where this goes.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes KidCharlemagne1962's post
19-09-2013, 08:14 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 07:51 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Warning:
Epic post coming up... Don't start reading if you only have the attention span of Hughsie or Ferdie.


(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  No Father would be so inane as to answer this way to a genuine question of his son.
...
No I don't think you are lying, I just think you are quite addled on this point.

You accuse my father of being "inane" and me of being "addled".
I can assure that it is quite the reverse, but then, he is 92 Laughat

I was using the 'blue sky' example as a rhetorical device but as it appears that you are unfamiliar with the concept of how to encourage 'critical thinking' I will elaborate further.

Firstly, an apology...

(17-09-2013 11:31 AM)DLJ Wrote:  You are making a mockery of the parenting skills of christian parents.
No Christian parent I have heard of has presented their religion to their children in this manner.

It's true, I was. I confess. But only for comedic effect.
I would hope that no parent would use that technique and I certainly didn't mean to imply that you do.

However, I am well aware that priests ('spiritual' teachers) did and do use that approach.
I have comforted many young ladies who have been racked with guilt because of the myth of hell-fire... 2 x Irish girlfriends and Filipinas too numerous to mention.

You know how the old 'drama triangle' goes, you play 'rescuer' to their 'victim' with the church as 'persecutor' and one thing leads to another. Big Grin Cool

So, to elaborate...

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
Your parents taught you what the colour blue was. They taught you what the sky was, long before it occurred to you to ask why the sky was blue. Its ridiculous to suggest that teachers do not convey knowledge of facts about the way things are.
...

Actually, no.
I observed that the sky was blue. No one specifically told me.
I heard the words 'blue' and 'sky' long before I could speak.

Oddly enough, I remember these conversations at home much more vividly than any lesson at my church school.

So I will give you a fuller transcript to help you understand i.e. a less off-the-cuff comedic response.

DLJ: Dad, why is the sky blue?
Dad: Is it?
DLJ: Um, well yes, I looks blue to me.
Dad: Is it always blue?
DLJ: Well, no, only in the day time.
Dad: So why do you think that is?
DLJ: Not sure. Something to do with the sun?
Dad: Go on...
DLJ: Um, ok, well at dawn and dusk we get pinks and reds and at night we can see stars. Does that mean there is no sky at night time?
Dad: Smile Not quite but you are on the right lines. You have noticed that we have a colour to the sky when the sun is around but at night there is an absence of colour. Why do you think that is?
DLJ: Is it something to do with the same reason we get different colours in a rainbow?
Dad: You might have something there. Do you know how a rainbow works?
DLJ: I think so. It's about light reflected through water.
Dad: Actually the word is 'refracted'. Have you heard of that before?
DLJ: No.
Dad: Ok, go and look that up and get back to me.
Note: No internet back then but we had a vast array of encyclopedias etc. as both my parents were professional educators.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  No Father would be so inane as to answer this way to a genuine question of his son. That is avoiding the question and is truly one of the worst teaching styles I have ever heard advocated.

Thus, far from being 'inane', though he probably didn't know it at the time, my father was using a technique that, coincidentally, I will be teaching my class tomorrow: The 5 Whys. This is now an internationally recognised 'best practice' technique for Problem Management.

Certainly, it is avoiding a 'direct' answer but there is no long term value in the direct answer... y'know... give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  We teach our children that God loves us.

You see... there is an assumption in that statement i.e. that there is a god or indeed that there is only one god.
Man has invented countless gods and due to what you refer to as 'the worst teaching styles I have ever heard advocated", I learned to research the origins of these assumptions i.e. animism and agency.
And looking at the evolution of these various gods, it became obvious that 'love' was not a common factor. This in fact is a quite recent adaptation.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
But we also teach children that if they take drugs they can destroy their lives. We warn of the dangers of venereal disease, unwanted pregnancy, potentially abusive partners, danger of jail if they break the law etc.

Here is your parenting style
DLJ: Dad, why are some drugs illegal?
Dad: Good question, son. What do you think is the best way to find out the answer to that?

What a joke.

We explain what some of the drugs are, what impacts they have on the body and the mind, how lives, relationship, health etc can be damaged by the effects of the drugs. We explain how the government have passed laws making it illegal and imposing serious consequences on users and drug pushers.
In short we teach our children.
...

That strikes me as preaching not teaching.

I do recall this conversation, if not verbatim, and it involved:

DLJ: Dad, why are some drugs illegal?
Dad: Good question, son. Firstly, what do you mean when you say "drugs"?
...
The conversation covered the definition of 'drugs' vs. 'chemicals;
what impacts they have on the body and the mind (as you said);
the societal influences that determine whether something should be restricted, by whom and to whom;
the types of societies that would decree something to be harmful or not i.e. US prohibition vs native American poison rituals;
the cultural / spiritual / religious / superstitious roots of these societies;
the vested interest groups that would lobby for legality / illegality i.e. the US timber merchants, petroleum-based synthetic textiles manufactures etc.
http://www.hemphasis.net/History/history.htm
etc. etc.
I think you get the picture by now... encouragement to look more deeply into interconnected topics to get a full picture of how the world works.

Always avoiding a "because it is" statement and encouraging "why is it" questions.


(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  In the same way when our children ask "Why is adultery a sin"
Dad explains how adultery damages the sacred bond between husband and wife, how it can lead to men raising children which are not their own, how it arouses destructive jealousies and feelings of intense betrayal, how women found with children conceived in adultery often abort the babies, how venereal diseases can enter the marriage and infect the innocent spouse, how marriages can break down and leave the family in poverty and the children get shuffled between the parents often growing up without their fathers etc. And so we explain that for all these reasons God, the great and ultimate lawmaker has made a law to prohibit adultery and ascribed a penalty for those who engage in it.
That is called education. That is called teaching.

It's not called indoctrination, its called teaching and education. It's called raising children in a good path. It is a parents right and duty to teach their children.
...

Well, I guess it is a right, sadly for parents to indoctrinate their children.
And it is indoctrination.
You also, again, make the assumption that there is an external, supervising, supernatural entity for which there is no evidence.

It would be 'teaching' if you covered (as was covered in my family):
Societies where more than one wife was encouraged (you will find that in the bible and the quran too).
How different animal societies behave i.e.
Monogamy: One male and one female have an exclusive mating relationship. The term "pair bonding" often implies this.
Polygamy: Three types are recognized:
- Polygyny (the most common polygamous mating system in vertebrates so far studied): One male has an exclusive relationship with two or more females
- Polyandry: One female has an exclusive relationship with two or more males
- Polygynandry: where two or more males have an exclusive relationship with two or more females; the numbers of males and females need not be equal, and in vertebrate species studied so far, the number of males is usually less.
Promiscuity: A member of one sex within the social group mates with any member of the opposite sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_system

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  ...
My children are not quivering wrecks unable to function because of their terror of hell.
...

I am relieved to hear it.

(19-09-2013 02:55 AM)excubitor Wrote:  The fear of hell is not for the righteous who have God's favour and who are in a state of grace. The fear of hell is for sinners, who are committing sins and are not seeking God.
...

Sorry, but that is just white noise to me.


Thanks for reading.
Its almost unbearable to read this post. The purpose of a teacher is to convey knowledge to a student. In your ridiculous rainbow story Dad didn't actually teach his son anything, he just had a conversation and teased out from his son what he already knew. How by any definition can that be described as education or teaching.
Obviously the various aspects of education include conveying the skills required to process information into various forms of knowledge, but to suggest that education does not convey any information upon which to base thought and to use as building blocks in the formation of knowledge is frankly absurd.

You make yourself to be some kind of professional mate, but you are trying to be too clever for your own good and have turned yourself into a show pony. Get a grip on reality mate before you explode.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 08:15 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 07:54 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Hi Excubitor,

I remain willing to discuss religion. I do not think I have been rude to you. I do use humor often and some of it may be barbed.

Here are a few observations.

"Most of you are just rude and banal brutes"

As I said at the begining of the thread, if you came to discuss, you'd find people willing to engage. If you came here to tell us that we're all misguided and revert to the bible says then you'd run into a lot of people that will give you short shrift.

"I see evidence of a six day creation and a cataclysmic global flood. When I study the heavens and the movements of the planets, sun and moon I see unarguable evidence of a geocentric universe"

That dog won't hunt! The more we find out about cosmology the clearer it becomes that we're not the center of the universe.

When you replied to my question about "what is sin" you listed the usual ones. I would posit that the RCC is guilty of almost all of them.

I guess we'll see where this goes.
There is a geocentric thread somewhere here where I first joined the forum. Make your comments there and I will wipe the floor with them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 08:21 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
when all the reason of becoming religious and following what is recalled as absolute jaleous one, in a dog image kind of way, so the reason is definitely powers
how it is also for rightous of being

u did ur choice, finding god good for u

but u cant speak or mean right about anything then

why people stand and care for smthg freedom or appreciate its present value, this is not of ur concern stay with ur powerful shit god presence and b sure he is seeing u being his perfect dog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes absols's post
19-09-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 08:14 AM)excubitor Wrote:  Its almost unbearable to read this post. The purpose of a teacher is to convey knowledge to a student. In your ridiculous rainbow story Dad didn't actually teach his son anything, he just had a conversation and teased out from his son what he already knew. How by any definition can that be described as education or teaching.
Obviously the various aspects of education include conveying the skills required to process information into various forms of knowledge, but to suggest that education does not convey any information upon which to base thought and to use as building blocks in the formation of knowledge is frankly absurd.

You make yourself to be some kind of professional mate, but you are trying to be too clever for your own good and have turned yourself into a show pony. Get a grip on reality mate before you explode.

No, the purpose of a teacher is to educate, and teaching the ability to solve problems is vastly more important than imparting facts.

Your grip on reality is so tenuous that your caution to DLJ is risible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-09-2013, 08:28 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 07:36 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I deny that there is any clear evidence to the contrary to anything which I believe. I have done a huge amount of study into geology, astronomy, cosmology. Everything I see in all of these fields which I have the capacity to comprehend as a layman is in agreement with my beliefs which I have learned from the church and the scripture. When I look at the formations of the earth in geology I see evidence of a six day creation and a cataclysmic global flood. When I study the heavens and the movements of the planets, sun and moon I see unarguable evidence of a geocentric universe. When I see all the different kinds of creatures and the complexity of the simplest cell I see evidence for the special creation of the heavens and earth in six days by the Lord God.
(19-09-2013 08:15 AM)excubitor Wrote:  There is a geocentric thread somewhere here where I first joined the forum. Make your comments there and I will wipe the floor with them.

You are wrong. You are absolutely, incredibly, thoroughly, stunningly wrong.

Let us consider the structure of the universe for a moment. It is only possible to account for the motions of the planets if they are orbiting the sun. This has been known since the 1600s. The planets may be observed every night. Their relative angular position may be determined by simple visual inspection. To deny this is to deny reality. Therefore their angular motion relative to us, on Earth, is extraordinarily well known, and it is based on cumulative observation over the last five thousand years with ever increasing precision.

These motions are known. If you deny that then you are denying the reality of looking at the sky. Are you so perverse? I could almost believe it.

It has been the task of all those thousands of years to figure out how and why the planets have the paths they do. Primitive ignorance posits geocentrism; the planets seem to move, and the Earth does not. And yet planets orbiting in perfect spheres cannot account for the observed motions. Epicycles about equants show some improvement. Not enough - the best possible such system can not make predictions as good as our modern observations. Two thousand years ago it was precise enough. No longer.

To account for their motion the other planets must orbit the sun. This is incontrovertible. To deny this one must deny that looking at things tell us where they are. Tycho Brahe proposed the final 'geocentric' system in his later years, after a lifetime of study. His model was that all the other (known) planets orbited the Sun, and the Sun orbited the Earth.

This is mathematically equivalent to the Sun orbiting the Earth if one is considering only motions - it is a simple change of reference frame. I remind you again that one need only look at the sky to gather this data; it admits of only one interpretation.

And yet that had not explained why things orbited each other. This falls to Newton. Mass attracts mass. The sun is far, far more massive than the Earth. It is the centre of the solar system. That is a fact. The watery brainshits that leak from your slack, gaping maw are not thoughts. They are a pitiable comedy of errors. Your "studies" (and I use the word quite wrongly) are worthless. Your conclusions are farcical. Your ignorance is monumental.

Your worldview is not the product of a mind engaging in rational thought. It is born of the rotting corpse of a decaying intellect, beaten down and rent apart by the perverted will of a narcissistic and judgmental mind, utterly terrified of admitting fault, revelling in self-indulgent, contorted, incoherent, abject denial, clinging fast to incredulous nonsense; an abjuration of every possible observation open eyes could make.

What a way to live.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
19-09-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
Seems he doesn't want to address my assertion that indoctrination into the Catholic church is child abuse.

If you can't explain it or defend it....ignore it. Always a solid plan.

Based on other snarky comments, I take it that Excubitor is your real name and we should therefore take you seriously.

I'm not anti-social. I'm pro-solitude. Sleepy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
19-09-2013, 08:32 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
(19-09-2013 08:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 07:36 AM)excubitor Wrote:  I deny that there is any clear evidence to the contrary to anything which I believe. I have done a huge amount of study into geology, astronomy, cosmology. Everything I see in all of these fields which I have the capacity to comprehend as a layman is in agreement with my beliefs which I have learned from the church and the scripture. When I look at the formations of the earth in geology I see evidence of a six day creation and a cataclysmic global flood. When I study the heavens and the movements of the planets, sun and moon I see unarguable evidence of a geocentric universe. When I see all the different kinds of creatures and the complexity of the simplest cell I see evidence for the special creation of the heavens and earth in six days by the Lord God.
(19-09-2013 08:15 AM)excubitor Wrote:  There is a geocentric thread somewhere here where I first joined the forum. Make your comments there and I will wipe the floor with them.

You are wrong. You are absolutely, incredibly, thoroughly, stunningly wrong.

Let us consider the structure of the universe for a moment. It is only possible to account for the motions of the planets if they are orbiting the sun. This has been known since the 1600s. The planets may be observed every night. Their relative angular position may be determined by simple visual inspection. To deny this is to deny reality. Therefore their angular motion relative to us, on Earth, is extraordinarily well known, and it is based on cumulative observation over the last five thousand years with ever increasing precision.

These motions are known. If you deny that then you are denying the reality of looking at the sky. Are you so perverse? I could almost believe it.

It has been the task of all those thousands of years to figure out how and why the planets have the paths they do. Primitive ignorance posits geocentrism; the planets seem to move, and the Earth does not. And yet planets orbiting in perfect spheres cannot account for the observed motions. Epicycles about equants show some improvement. Not enough - the best possible such system can not make predictions as good as our modern observations. Two thousand years ago it was precise enough. No longer.

To account for their motion the other planets must orbit the sun. This is incontrovertible. To deny this one must deny that looking at things tell us where they are. Tycho Brahe proposed the final 'geocentric' system in his later years, after a lifetime of study. His model was that all the other (known) planets orbited the Sun, and the Sun orbited the Earth.

This is mathematically equivalent to the Sun orbiting the Earth if one is considering only motions - it is a simple change of reference frame. I remind you again that one need only look at the sky to gather this data; it admits of only one interpretation.

And yet that had not explained why things orbited each other. This falls to Newton. Mass attracts mass. The sun is far, far more massive than the Earth. It is the centre of the solar system. That is a fact. The watery brainshits that leak from your slack, gaping maw are not thoughts. They are a pitiable comedy of errors. Your "studies" (and I use the word quite wrongly) are worthless. Your conclusions are farcical. Your ignorance is monumental.

Your worldview is not the product of a mind engaging in rational thought. It is born of the rotting corpse of a decaying intellect, beaten down and rent apart by the perverted will of a narcissistic and judgmental mind, utterly terrified of admitting fault, revelling in self-indulgent, contorted, incoherent, abject denial, clinging fast to incredulous nonsense; an abjuration of every possible observation open eyes could make.

What a way to live.

I can argue geocentrism with excubitor. I was planning to discuss Quantum Mechanics with absols....I'm leaning towards absols. I'd like you input on which would be the more fruitful discussion.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
19-09-2013, 08:39 AM
RE: I am holier than thou
the dog
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like absols's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: