The pigeonhole, get in it.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 25, 2009, 09:19:17 AM

'In the Vatican' - 'in the Church'- we're obviously talking about the clergy and church officials. Being in the Vatican is not an indicator of ignorance, and never was. Your reasoning was rubbish.

Riiight. So if they're literal interpreters of the Bible, believing the written ignorance distributed by the church, yet not actually occupying some clerical position in the vatican, then they can be classed as people "outside the church". I can see the hole you're trying to escape through. Genius.

Cardinal 1: Dude hav u like red dis stuff! It say da earth is flat!
Cardinal 2: LOL!11!!!! I noes. Don tell ne1 tho. We mor educationed than dem.

Not sure what you're trying to get at here, because that is the case. Today there are plenty of catholics who interpret the bible in ways the catholic church never would, and yet still consider themselves catholics. This argument isn't going anywhere KillaBee, because you've got nowhere to go. It was a foolish conclusion to make, and you were wrong to do so.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 26, 2009, 04:05:43 AM

Today there are plenty of catholics who interpret the bible in ways the catholic church never would, and yet still consider themselves catholics.

If the Bible is open to interpretation, does that mean I can do what I want?

What does that have to do with anything? And why are you asking me? I'm an atheist. Strictly speaking, I suppose it depends on what you want to do, but that's a thread for Religion/Philosophy.

Quote from: KillaBee on June 16, 2009, 12:59:49 PM

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 12:56:54 PM

His words were published by the BBC.

Quote from: Raist on June 16, 2009, 12:18:56 PM

He was published by the BBC.

Someone's words being published, and being published are not the same thing.

According to?

So you believe everything in the newspapers? Same concept.

As said above...anyone who knows anything about scientific research knows the two are VASTLY different.

The debate went like this:

KB: I can change my belief because my beliefs aren't based on an ancient text.
R: LOLWUT? The church changes its belief all the time. There was a time when people didn't believe Mary was a virgin.
KB: Cite?
R: Here's some skeptics site.
KB: Yes. That indicates the virgin birth was part of Christianity since the start.
R: Well.... the Immaculate Conception then.
KB: Show me where there was a distinct change in opinion.
R: I don't have to do that. Look at all these things the Church changed their opinion over.
KB: Yes because they were forced to due to overwhelming evidence. The church is always lagging behind.
N: Well the Vatican church were some of the most clever people in the world. They were more likely to know the world was round than anyone else 500 years ago.
KB: OK... so why promote a book that contradicts such a belief?
N: It's OK to interpret the Bible. People interpret the Bible all the time, and so there can be a difference of opinion between the Catholic popualtion and the clergy.
KB: Oh. Is it acceptable to reinterpret the Bible as you choose?

I still don't know what this has to do with anything. You claimed people in the Vatican was more likely to believe the earth is flat than anyone else, and we have shown that this is not true. You have no evidence to back up this claim, so stop making it.

And they would have been heretics and they would have been put to death for their beliefs.

Congrats.

Well a better understanding then & undoubtedly a better understanding than some concepts that were going around 500 years ago, such as the earth was flat.

What criteria are you using to determine what constitutes a "better understanding"?

Doesn't a better understanding mean less wrong?

Doesn't a better understanding mean less wrong?

Thank you, you have stated the phrase "better understanding" in a different way and brought us no closer to identifying a method of determining what a better understanding actually is.

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 26, 2009, 05:06:37 AM

I still don't know what this has to do with anything. You claimed people in the Vatican was more likely to believe the earth is flat than anyone else, and we have shown that this is not true. You have no evidence to back up this claim, so stop making it.

My evidence is the Bible. If people believe the Bible then they believe the descriptions in the Bible. People in religious headquarters tend to have more belief than those elsewhere. I said there may have been a few in the vatican that still believed the earth was flat, in accordance with literal interpretation. While there may have been many learned people in the vatican, there might also have been these that took it literally.

*sigh* want more?

People in religious headquarters tend to believe what they are told, and the Church believed the earth was round. On the other hand, people with no education and no position can believe whatever they want.

Quote from: elodbob on June 16, 2009, 07:45:22 PM

does anyone have a link to this bbc story/interview?

is it a video?

my, that would make my day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7540427.stm

Did you not realize they would make fun of you?

Did that pass over your head, mr. notable scientific thinker?

I, as a FEr. reply directly to the first message posted.

To assume that all Flat Earth proponents are uninformed and stubborn is to be in err. I've taken, and am taking, astronomy classes at the collegiate level, as well as having done my own (yet somehow this won't be credible, just watch and see) valid research on general relativity to better understand gravity.

In short, there are problems with the flat earth model. But they are surprisingly comparable to the flaws in the spherical earth model. I won't go into detail, but I've got one main reason why I choose the Flat Earth theory above the Round Earth - It challenges your concept of reality. Let me explain:

Nothing is worse than a man who follows his religion, his academic teachings, or even his tastes in the arts simply because it is his upbringing. I believe every man (using the term in general for mankind, not to be sexist) should take his beliefs, his knowledge, and his tastes, and make them his own. Believe things because you know them to be true, not because you were taught them. Enjoy what you enjoy and see the value of art and music - not because of your parents generation (or as a reaction to it), but because you purely enjoy it. And finally, for my case, don't believe everything you learn at face value. Test what people tell you, and know it to be true. That is why I think the flat earth movement is a great one - not necessarily because of its own intrinsic value, but because what goes along with it - taking your ideas, your thoughts, your wisdom, your mind - and making it your own.

With all this in mind, I do truly support the Flat Earth movement and all its research. But as opposed to fending off evidence with vague excuses, I desire to work on agreeable terms to show (even in a community with people in opposition) how certain phenomena occur. I won't throw everything (note that I did not say "anything" as there are plenty of these I will throw out) out as 'fakes' and 'conspiracies' but will accept the evidence and take things at face value. This is my vision.

Did I answer your questions about the Flat Earth theory, and why people (myself, anyway) choose to believe in it?

I've taken, and am taking, astronomy classes at the collegiate level, as well as having done my own (yet somehow this won't be credible, just watch and see) valid research on general relativity to better understand gravity.

I would love to read about your relativistic experiments (honetsly, no sarcasm)!

(And please don't tell me you have a particle accelerator in your back-garden, because I will be *so* jealous!)

If you could post the details into a new thread that would be cool, thanks.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on June 27, 2009, 04:47:12 AM

People in religious headquarters tend to believe what they are told, and the Church believed the earth was round. On the other hand, people with no education and no position can believe whatever they want.

Epic lulz?

Ummm. I'm still confused. People in the Church believed what they were told, yet were some of the most educated people in thecountry, and yet they willingly believed something which contradicted the book on which their whole life was based.

Tell me, have you read those parts of the bible which people claim reveals that the earth is flat? Honestly, there really aren't any explicit statements concerning the shape of the earth in the bible. There's lots of 'from the ends of the earth' and 'four corners of the world' type statements, but none of them require the earth to be flat. There's also a lot of nonsense about a tree so large anyone can see it, which some argue is impossible on a spherical earth, so that therefore the earth must be flat according to the bible. There's also lots of stuff in the bible which says one thing about the earth, and then something else which contradicts that. So all in all, you can't take the bible literally when it comes to geography, because you'd have to believe the earth was any number of mutually incompatible things.


In summary, the Vatican need not contradict anything the bible says about the shape of the earth when they say that it's round, unless you interpret many passages in an unreasonable fashion.