Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Says the guy who was telling us that there is an argument to be made for the flat earth :lol:
    You didn't have time to read it, proving my point again you're not actually interested in learning.

    There was an argument to be made for flat earth 2,000 years ago, based on science instead of religious argument. That's where it comes from in the Quran, it's not right, but it's not stupidity either. Saying it today is stupid I agree (which is why I never did), but it's wrong and dishonest to say they believed it for religious reasons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Attempt)
    I made the mockery of your delusional comment about Islam's contribution to Science and it's History, because as a person who has been studying Abrahamaic theology for half a decade, it's safe to say that the only scientific contributions that the religion of Islam has made to the world is time travel.

    In the sense that anyone who takes the religion seriously gets transported back to the 7th century, where ideas of the earth being flat and the urine of camels being medicinal weren't completely out of order.
    Studying Abrahamic thelogy for half a decade, oh look at you reading your Dawkins books not taking any interest in actual history and now pretending you are some scholar. You could at least take an interest in the wars and conflict of the period but the fact you put everything into one bubble and think every Muslim believes one thing shows you haven't learned a single thing about its history.

    I can quote a lot of nonsensical European ideas of the period as well does that invalidate Maxwell's equations?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virgili)
    You didn't have time to read it, proving my point again you're not actually interested in learning.
    So someone's interest in learning is based purely on whether they bother to read an irrelevant link you've posted? Yup, that's totally logical

    There was an argument to be made for flat earth 2,000 years ago, based on science instead of religious argument. That's where it comes from in the Quran, it's not right, but it's not stupidity either. Saying it today is stupid I agree (which is why I never did), but it's wrong and dishonest to say they believed it for religious reasons.
    It would be dishonest if I'd actually said it.

    What I said is that the Muslims who believe today in the flat earth do so because it's written in religious texts, not that it was originally put in the texts for religious reasons.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    So someone's interest in learning is based purely on whether they bother to read an irrelevant link you've posted? Yup, that's totally logical



    It would be dishonest if I'd actually said it.

    What I said is that the Muslims who believe today in the flat earth do so because it's written in religious texts, not that it was originally put in the texts for religious reasons.
    It's not irrelevant and the fact you won't even take a few minutes to read it to understand my point shows you can't be trusted to comment on things I have no understanding of.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    And what is your solution to the issue?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virgili)
    It's not irrelevant and the fact you won't even take a few minutes to read it to understand my point shows you can't be trusted to comment on things I have no understanding of.
    I've read the few relevant paragraphs. The argument is that the flat-earth theory was "almost" right (itself a laughable proposition) and that the theory lasted a long time because of this and that it had some justification based on the methodologies they possessed,

    I'm sorry but you're simply not very bright if you're incapable of understanding the obvious irrelevance your argument that they had some justification for this belief based on their methodologies and the knowledge they possessed has to the fact that modern Muslims base their belief in the flat earth on religious documents.

    We're not talking about a distinction of the finer sort either. You are so desperate to talk about the Asimov theory in that short essay that you've completely lost sight of what the debate was actually about. You really want to talk about that, rather than the actual subject of debate. And when someone doesn't play ball and shift the topic to what you want to talk about, you become hysterical and make laughable claims that this shows the person has "no interest in learning".

    The deficit of interest is entirely yours, and it is your lack of interest in discussing the subject at hand.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    And what is your solution to the issue?
    Oppose it. That is as much as one can do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virgili)
    It's not irrelevant and the fact you won't even take a few minutes to read it to understand my point shows you can't be trusted to comment on things I have no understanding of.
    And funnily enough, Asimov's Relativity of Wrong has these words;

    The Earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere
    :lol:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I've read the few relevant paragraphs. The argument is that the flat-earth theory was "almost" right (itself a laughable proposition) and that the theory lasted a long time because of this and that it had some justification based on the methodologies they possessed,

    I'm sorry but you're simply not very bright if you're incapable of understanding the obvious irrelevance your argument that they had some justification for this belief based on their methodologies and the knowledge they possessed has to the fact that modern Muslims base their belief in the flat earth on religious documents.

    We're not talking about a distinction of the finer sort either. You are so desperate to talk about the Asimov theory in that short essay that you've completely lost sight of what the debate was actually about. You really want to talk about that, rather than the actual subject of debate. And when someone doesn't play ball and shift the topic to what you want to talk about, you become hysterical and make laughable claims that this shows the person has "no interest in learning".

    The deficit of interest is entirely yours, and it is your lack of interest in discussing the subject at hand.
    Really?

    It's relevant because one of the very first posts I made to you explained the lack of progress in the Arab world is due to lack of development not superstition or values. They believe these things because in the past there has been some basis to it, you can either to try to understand it (as I have done above) or condemn it. Which is more useful?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    And funnily enough, Asimov's Relativity of Wrong has these words;



    :lol:
    Yes, which is wrong, it's the argument being used on itself again since it's an old essay. At the very least we have discovered it is not spherical, which undermines your pretense to knowing more than those Islamic scholars.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virgili)
    Really?

    It's relevant because one of the very first posts I made to you explained the lack of progress in the Arab world is due to lack of development not superstition or values. They believe these things because in the past there has been some basis to it, you can either to try to understand it (as I have done above) or condemn it. Which is more useful?
    That the people who believed the earth is flat in the 7th century had some basis for this belief in terms of their own methodologies for scientific understanding has no bearing on

    (1) That the belief has no justification according to modern science

    (2) That the fundamentalists believe this based on their interpretation of verses like

    And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.
    So these fundamentalists haven't gone back to the original science and said, "Hmmm, that makes total sense". They are simply looking at a few verses and accepting that the earth is flat based on them. Therefore, for the modern fundamentalists who hold that belief, they do so entirely based on religious fervour
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virgili)
    X
    Oh dear, you're still denying that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

    You really are quite desperate to justify flat earth theories, aren't you? Embarrassing. I don't perceive any profit in further debating with someone who believes in a flat earth.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Oppose it. That is as much as one can do.
    Oppose what exactly? And how?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Oh dear, you're still denying that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

    You really are quite desperate to justify flat earth theories, aren't you? Embarrassing. I don't perceive any profit in further debating with someone who believes in a flat earth.
    I have already said it is an elipsoid, you're like a broken record.

    Summary:
    - Flat earth was originally based on geographical generalisations of the ancients limited cultures.
    - This is why it is accepted in early Arab culture.
    - This is not a stupid belief since it was a fairly clever observation of the natural features within their own cultures, i.e they didn't really observe a lot of the things that would later suggest it is spherical (or not since it isn't)
    - History then thought it was spherical - Which you said it was.
    - It isn't spherical mathematically speaking since it is not perfectly round.
    - An oblate spheroid is not a sphere. It's an elipsoid.
    - I point out you are just as ignorant as flat earth theorists for saying it is spherical.
    - Suddenly I believe in flat earth theory.

    Nice one, excellent logic 10/10
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by okey)
    Oppose what exactly? And how?
    Oppose fundamentalist Islam, by bringing attention to its problems.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virgili)
    X
    All we really need is this quote of yours

    there are legitimate scientific arguments to be made for flat Earth
    You really are extremely butthurt when it was pointed out the ludicrousness of flat earth theories and so you desperately clutch to any vain hope you have, first denying that the earth is an oblate spheroid and second attacking me for ridiculing belief in the flat earth and my pointing out that fundamentalist Muslims believe it based on a few nebulous verses with no scientific content

    Your psychological attachment to the flat earth is clear. As GoodBloke said, your credibility is shot. Not going to waste my time further debating with you
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by Attempt)
    "Islam has a proud tradition of peace and tolerance" - Barack HUSSEIN Obama
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virgili)
    I have already said it is an elipsoid, you're like a broken record.

    Summary:
    - Flat earth was originally based on geographical generalisations of the ancients limited cultures.
    - This is why it is accepted in early Arab culture.
    - This is not a stupid belief since it was a fairly clever observaiton within their own cultures, i.e they didn't really observe a lot of the things that would later suggest it is sphereical (or not since it isn't)
    - History then thought it was spherical - Which you said it was.
    - It isn't spherical mathematically speaking since it is not perfectly round.
    - An oblate spheroid is not a sphere. It's an elipsoid.
    - I point out you are just as ignorant as flat earth theorists for saying it is spherical.
    - Suddenly I believe in flat earth theory.

    Nice one, excellent logic 10/10
    You know, if in having a debate about Islam you feel you must divert it to a debate about what shape the earth is, it says a lot about how little confidence you have in your views.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    All we really need is this quote of yours



    You really are extremely butthurt when it was pointed out the ludicrousness of flat earth theories and so you desperately clutch to any vain hope you have, first denying that the earth is an oblate spheroid and second attacking me for ridiculing that belief.

    Your psychological attachment to the flat earth is clear. As GoodBloke said, your credibility is shot. Not going to waste my time further debating with you
    There are legitimate scientific explanations to be made it's not the same thing as saying they are not right. The trouble is you don't understand the scientific method. Saying that flat earth theory is scientific because they thought if you evened out all of the depressions you would be left with a flat world is not the same as saying it is right.

    You can post this on any science forum i'm very confident of its result.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Virgili)
    X
    What is most ironic is that you are so thick you don't even understand Asimov's essay and the point he makes about comparative beliefs being relatively "more correct". Thus you attack me for colloquially saying the earth is a sphere rather than an oblate spheroid and assert that thus I know less than people who believed in a flat earth.

    This is extremely funny insofar as it proves you don't even grasp the essay you cite. Anyway, we're all done now. Go away troll
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 11, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.