dnk@world.net (David Kay) wrote:
>In <3rqcr9$a4g@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, madhudvisa@krishna.org (Madhudvisa dasa ) writes:
>>The "flat earth" idea came from a posting related to the book "Telling
>>Lies for God" where some atheist was spouting his view that the Bible was
>>invalid as it described the Earth as flat...
>>
>>So I thought it would be a nice exercise to investigate intellectually if
>>one could actually come up with a consistent world-view based on a
>>flat-earth...
>Hi Bozo!
>I'm the atheist that was sprouting my view that the Bible was invalid
>as it described the earth as flat.
Thank you. It started an interesting discussion.
> Actually, I said that creation
>'scientists" claim that the Bible was inerrant (they mean literally
>true, but they're not too bright). I then gave a number of examples
>of "facts" in the Bible that we now know are false. That the Earth was
>flat was one of them.
>I never claimed that the Bible was "invalid", whatever that means.
>I simply said that to treat it as a scientific book was stupidity.
>Your lack of comprehension skills is matched only by your intellectual
>weakness. In response to this you posted a load of rubbish about an
>"intellectual exercise", pretending that the world actually was flat.
I was exploring the model, that's all. Many things can be explained
according to this view [more than I initially expected]... It is true that
we see the world through our own "model"... And there can be more than one
model that fits the observations...
>Obviously your definition of intellectual is different from mine - it
>seemed more like an exercise in futility to me.
No. It was certainly not futile.
>Perhaps the reason people
>were reluctant to indulge you in your little game was that they saw it
>as a complete waste of time?
Well some were reluctant, of course, but many, many people have been [and
still are] discussing things which grew out of it. So it was valuable.
>There is ample evidence that the Earth is round.
I never said it wasn't round. I merely suggested it might be flat... It is
still round.
> Boats and planes don't
>drop over the edge,
You obviously didn't read the articles. There is no edge... Everything
looks exactly the same as we see it now. The only problem I had was
annoying distance discrepancies as one gets closer to the south pole and a
problem in the Southern Hemisphere sky... Otherwise everything was fine.
> the stars in the sky are in different positions,
>according to your position on the Earth.
Yes. They are in the flat earth model too. But I haven't worked it out
completely. It is a little tricky...
> These are simple observations
>that people made thousands of years ago, yet they seem to elude you.
No. They haven't eluded me. I was exploring to see if theses same "simple
observations" could be explained using a completely different model of the
universe. It may sound unreasonable to you but it is a valid exercise.
>Now we have even more proof: hundreds of satellites are orbiting the
>Earth right now, and we've seen photographs of the Earth taken from space.
The satellites [except for the polar orbiting ones] are not a problem at
all. The photos from space well... that's not so easy to explain :-(
>Jerking-off about "world views", as if this made nonsense reasonable,
>changes none of this.
No. We all see the world differently. It's not nonsense.
< the rest has degenerated into meaningless mud slinging... >
Thank you. Hare Krishna!
Madhudvisa dasa
(madhudvisa@krishna.org) http://www.krishna.org
Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
Sudarsana Home madhudvisa@krishna.org