(December 4, 2016 at 2:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation. The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis). The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed because of their greater orbit.
The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you. Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with). Do you think that he was correct in his method?
Of course he was not using the correct method.
He went into the discussions with a presupposition, then refused to accept any demonstrable evidence that disagreed with his presup. And only accepted evidence that could be spun into his presup.
Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
