The Glade 4.0

Wow. Aside from the backpeddling from what you said above, AND the fact that he didn't conclusivly prove that at all, as the wiki link demonstrated, the fact is that "heliocentric model" and "earth going around the sun" mean the same **** thing in this context! You're just dancing all over the place.

The rest of the problems with your argument can be summed up right here.

"Heliocentric" literally means "The Sun is at the center." While our solar system is Heliocentric, the universe is not. Galileo's model had the sun at the center of the universe, with everything else orbiting it.

Galileo's model could not be proven because it was wrong--the universe does not orbit the sun. However, the earth orbiting the sun was already established, and in fact, Johannes Kepler had effectively already done so decades earlier. (Though his model was even more flawed, overall than Galileo's.)

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Talya's position is one that "might MAKES rights" in the real world. You'll note that rights is plural, indicating the construct of reserve privileges and protections guaranteed by such documents as the U.S. Constitution.

As for Hawking, I ahve no idea what you're talking about but I don't recall ever hearing of him being suppressed in any way.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

She does hold that position. She has also espoused the position on many occasions that "Right" in a moral sense is an absurd and illogical concept, completely subjective and without merit of any sort.

Now, since I haven't asked in a long time, would you like to discuss Moral Realism and the possibility of moral absolutes that may or may not depend on the existence of a deity?

A derail I approve of, for once.

Oh, and as for this, you've not been reading the thread.
http://ipower.ning.com/profiles/blogs/p ... nce-not-to

There is a book you need to read. Not that I suspect it would help. It has nothing to do with religion, but is a history of astronomy in general, called "Blind Watchers of the Sky," by Rocky Kolb. It's a truly fascinating read from all levels. You have a lot of misconceptions about what went on in this regard, however, and how much the church tried to interfere.

You mentioned Copernicus. What was the Church's reaction to Copernicus? Oh, they didn't like it much, but they hadn't yet decided on open censure for the idea. The full implications of his idea had only just begun to sink in, and a course of action had not yet been decided.

The first information about the heliocentric views of Nicolaus Copernicus were circulated in manuscript. Although only in manuscript, Copernicus' ideas were well known among astronomers and others. His ideas appeared to contradict the bible. In the King James Bible Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the Lord] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

Nonetheless, in 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered in Rome a series of lectures outlining Copernicus' theory. The lectures were heard with interest by Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals. On 1 November 1536, Archbishop of Capua Nicholas Schönberg wrote a letter to Copernicus from Rome encouraging him to publish a full version of his theory.

While not always a Catholic, obviously, Martin Luther had this to say about Copernicus.

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth." ~ Tischreden, Martin Luther

You're still just attributing to the church what you want them to have done and thought instead of what happened.

Diamondeye:

At which point, we need to engage the subject of Moral Realism. Morality, in any "real" sense, is entirely subjective because human beings fundamentally lack the ability to "know" the Moral Absolutes of the universe. This also assumes that Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems don't apply and that the Moral System is complete. Consequently, Talya has stated that she possesses her own individual Moral System. She has a set of rules which dictate what she feels is right and wrong. This is a set of rules she derived or reasoned herself, much as you likely have. Her condemnations are no more inconsistent or meaningless than yours. The problematic presumption is that her Moral System much match yours.

Now, since I haven't asked in a long time, would you like to discuss Moral Realism and the possibility of moral absolutes that may or may not depend on the existence of a deity?

At original publication, Copernicus' epoch-making book caused only mild controversy, and provoked no fierce sermons about contradicting Holy Scripture. It was only three years later, in 1546, that a Dominican, Giovanni Maria Tolosani, denounced the theory in an appendix to a work defending the absolute truth of Scripture.[51] He also noted that the Master of the Sacred Palace (i.e., the Catholic Church's chief censor), Bartolomeo Spina, a friend and fellow Dominican, had planned to condemn De revolutionibus but had been prevented from doing so by his illness and death.[52]

Arthur Koestler, in his popular book The Sleepwalkers, asserted that Copernicus' book had not been widely read on its first publication.[53] This claim was trenchantly criticised by Edward Rosen,[54] and has been decisively disproved by Owen Gingerich, who examined every surviving copy of the first two editions and found copious marginal notes by their owners throughout many of them. Gingerich published his conclusions in 2004 in The Book Nobody Read.[55]

It has been much debated why it was not until six decades after Spina and Tolosani's attacks on Copernicus's work that the Catholic Church took any official action against it. Proposed reasons have included the personality of Galileo Galilei and the availability of evidence such as telescope observations.

In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine[56] that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture."[57] The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.

On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.[58] The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.[59]

In 1633 Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture,"[60] and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Diamondeye:

Again, the issue of objectivity and subjectivity is precisely what's at hand here. You contend that human beings are possessed off the ability to know "reality"; yet, as usual, you refuse to discuss any of the thousands of pages of metaphysics devoted to Moral Realism. So, I'll ask again; do you or do you not want to discuss Moral Realism?

Oh, Diamondeye:


This next part is fun:



Perhaps you shouldn't be using Copernicus as a shining example of Church reaction to science. The fact that it took them 6 decades and another prominent scientist to support his models before they denounced him, doesn't mean they looked kindly on Copernicus at all.

So do you think the condemnations are bullshit?

Or is it that you think it's bullshit that it's Talya pointing them out?

Don't give me this bullshit. Galileo was convicted of Heresy for following Copernican ideas when he had failed to prove them. There was still, at the time of the trial, no good reason to abandon Ptolmey in favor of Copernicus/Galileo in view of the inability to provide proof.

The fact of the matter was that the church was not opposed to Copernican science until Galileo took it upon himself to ridicule the church for not accepting something he couldn't prove.

Funny, that's what you're saying, but it doesn't match up with the facts quoted above. Huh. Imagine that.

In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the supposedly Pythagorean doctrine[56] that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture."[57] The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.

On the orders of Pope Paul V, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine gave Galileo prior notice that the decree was about to be issued, and warned him that he could not "hold or defend" the Copernican doctrine.[58] The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.[59]

Pope Urban VIII encouraged Galileo to publish the pros and cons of Heliocentrism. In the event, Galileo's Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems clearly advocated heliocentrism and appeared to make fun of the Pope. Urban VIII became hostile to Galileo and he was again summoned to Rome.[51] Galileo's trial in 1633 involved making fine distinctions between "teaching" and "holding and defending as true". For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was put under house arrest for the last few years of his life.

Theologian and pastor Thomas Schirrmacher, however, has argued:

"Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree."[52]
According to J. L. Heilbron, Catholic scientists have also:

"appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance."
—Heilbron (1999)

Go back and reread everythin I've said so far in this thread.

TL;DR

There's nothing really nuanced about putting blinders on so one can support their apologism by ignoring the sins and attrocities of indisputably evil organizations with revisionist history and outright falsehoods.