[quote='Chas' pid='899391' dateline='1426516721']

[quote]Your ignorant pigheadedness has been noted by all and your credibility irreparably lost.
[/quote]

Really ? "irreparably" lost ?
who are you to judge ?

Of I forgot. more social terrorism so I shut up ; right ?
Well, here's my big lie with the reference :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

[quote]Though the earliest evidence of a spherical Earth comes from ancient Greek sources, there is no account of how the sphericity of the Earth was discovered.[/quote]

This link, along with the quote, contains lots of contradicition to what many others sourced and linked, from saying that Aristotle is the first to discover it, despite the link saying :

[quote]According to Diogenes Laertius, "Pythagoras was the first Greek who called the earth round; though Theophrastus attributes this to Parmenides, and Zeno to Hesiod."[/quote]

Which eventually led me to change my main point of view, admit that ancient scholars did had discoveries and models about this ; yet according to the "flat earth" link, THIS WAS NOT THE MAJOR BELIEF.

Please sir, why don't you stop the social terrorism ?
This is a discussion and actually I do poses a strong point, not a weak one.

And of course everybody would say I'm wrong, the majority here are atheists.

You are not the one to judge my credibility.

[quote]Also, calling ridiculous, unfounded, dishonest assertions of belief "idiotic" or "absurd" isn't "Social terrorism" (good lord what a term...). It's just being honest. Ridiculous notions are deserving of ridicule by definition.
[/quote]

Really ?

Whats the "big lie" there, Atlas, in that wiki quote? Assuming that's what you meant.

Assuming that people will disagree "because atheists" is ignorant, stop.

Your points strength (as anyone's) is most probably not something that you get to decide, eh...?

(feel absolutely free to reboot our convo, to this single post, if you think it might help)

Oh for Christ's sake enough with the 'Social Terrorism' bullshit. You have nutty, unsubstantiated ideas, expect to be called out on them, this is a discussion forum, we are going to discuss your absurdities.

"Social terrorism"????? What a fucking clown.

If you don't want to be ridiculed for your beliefs, don't hold ridiculous beliefs. Just like the term islamophobe being discussed in another other thread, this social terrorism bullshit is only meant to shutdown debate because you realize your ideas don't hold up well to scrutiny.

effed up the quotes, will try again.

So what, OP? Regardless of what the majority believed at the time, the Qur'an doesn't even say the earth is round. Both the Arabic and the English translations are clear on this. You're the only one here who thinks the verse even says that.

Time to admit you were wrong about the Qur'anic verse as well.

(March 16, 2015 at 11:56 am)AtlasS2 Wrote: [quote='Chas' pid='899391' dateline='1426516721']

Quote:Your ignorant pigheadedness has been noted by all and your credibility irreparably lost.

Really ? "irreparably" lost ?
who are you to judge ?

I am an intelligent, educated, informed person.

Quote:Of I forgot. more social terrorism so I shut up ; right ?

"Social terrorism"? Seriously? You need to grow a sack.

Quote:Well, here's my big lie with the reference :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
Please sir, why don't you stop the social terrorism ?
This is a discussion and actually I do poses a strong point, not a weak one.

And of course everybody would say I'm wrong, the majority here are atheists.

You are not the one to judge my credibility.

I, and everyone here, will judge your credibility.


Your assertion is "How Muslims believed earth was spherical long before anybody mentions it."

That has been shown to be utterly false.

Perhaps, Atlas, you could submit an addendum to the wiki article - along the lines of:

"And then, 800 years later, some nameless arab subjugates wrote down their state sponsored belief in a spherical earth in one of their foundational texts"
Maybe replace "some nameless arabs" with the chief compiler - if you prefer- of course.

?

AtlasS2

To say the truth, I don't know Quaran so well as to conclude with full confidense that there're no mentions of spherical Earth hypotheses in it in any reasonably-recognisable way and in any of it's editions. Hereby I let the more educated collegues to present a compelling arguement on this topic. But even if there is a mention it doesn't actually indicate it's novelty or divine origin. The points why it is so have been brought up earlier in this topic. That is, spherical earth hypothesis was introduced 2-3 hundred years B.C. and by the first century it was a well-confirmed fact. To add to it, this hypothesis appeared as a result of systematic natural observations and logical reasoning (of ancient Greeks).

Medieval Arab civilization played a major role in preserving and developing natural knowledge (mostly Astronomy, Math, Medicine) in times when civilization in Europe was in sharp decline in terms of science. And European clerics of the Dark Ages sometimes really backed up their bad attitude towards certain "ungodly" branches and ideas of natural science with claims that said ideas came from "the heathens". But it's religious fundamentalism and politics of those times. This doesn't have anything to do with the nature of science.

As I've said in another topic, science is observancy, competence and first and foremost hard work. But not revelations. To say more correctly, there may be a "revelation" as a result of a long period of careful study and reasoning but not in any other way. No work - no revelations. That's what I'm trying to point out, actually. All those naive stories about "genious revelations" (such as about Newton, Einstein, Mendeleev et al) are in fact modern myths and completely fail to tell the full story. For example that it took Newton about a decade of hard work to study carefully Kepler's and Galileo's considerations, collect and analyze the most up to date data on Lunar motion, make and prove hypotheses and finally complete his Theory of Universal Gravitation. It's like when you look at a marvelous work of art and wonder what inspired the artist but don't really bother about the amount of routine effort it took to complete said masterpiece, let alone become skilled enaugh to even be able to do it.

Speaking of famous Arabic scientists of the Middle Ages they first and foremost relied on logic and experiment which is clear from their works that have been preserved for our times. Of course they were all Muslims but didn't invoke faith in their actual research (they rather used faith as a motivational factor how responsible theists do it).

Well said

---

(March 17, 2015 at 5:45 am)Smaug Wrote: [...] That's what I'm trying to point out, actually. All those naive stories about "genious revelations" (such as about Newton, Einstein, Mendeleev et al) are in fact modern myths and completely fail to tell the full story.

This November, General Relativity has its 100th anniversary. Einstein started working on it a decade earlier. The maths part got started when he asked mathematician friends how they think one might realize certain things, and they gave him a crash course in Riemannian Geometry. And just months before the final publication, he threw out everything because he was unsure about a problem (the hole problem of diffeomorphism invariant theories), and tried a different approach to the field equations, only to convince himself that the original approach was ok all along. David Hilbert did the same work in parallel from a more mathematical perspective. The lone genius revelation story is Hollywood science.