1923 to be exact.
But, and this is important, a lot of really smart people knew it was true long before the mainstream accepted it. Because they dismissed all evidence and possibilities of the real nature of things, based on beliefs, the majority of experts and scientists were simply wrong. Because of beliefs that were simply wrong, but still perceived as the truth.
This is so common in the history of science, it
… has it’s own term, a “paradigm shift”.
Thank you.
Thanks - when I finish my wife’s sentences, all I get is a dirty look…
…that lets me know I shouldn’t have said anything.
What a great idea for a
…game show.
Cite please
Oh, we have *got *to introduce the two of them.
Can you do it in a forum I don’t moderate?
(bolding mine)Did you mean to say “message board”, or perhaps “internet”?
No. A lot of ‘smart’ people did not ‘know’ it.
Some people speculated but had no supporting evidence just as people speculate about all sorts of stuff all the time.
It was not until the early 20th century that the conjectures were resolved with evidence. Until then experts in the field had fundamental disagreements over the size of the universe and each could muster supprting evidence for their positions.
The Great Debate in 1920 was a milestone event in the history of astronomy.
Read my claim narrowly. For Cecil’s take on God: Is there a God? - The Straight Dope
And be sure to catch Part II: Is there a God (revisited)? - The Straight Dope
Spinoza’s claim about God and nature: Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In the discussion thread, a poster directed me to the cosmological argument, which I unfortunately have not reviewed. Der skewers one version of Spinoza’s presentation earlier:
Of course that doesn’t exclude Gaia or other large-body consciousnesses. Other speculations involve the emergent properties of large social communities that possess language or chemical signaling in the case of insect colonies. I’m also frankly unfamiliar with this alleged limit as my background in physics is weak, though I seem to recall the claim made in various popular sources.
Well, that’s the sleight of hand in Column I: if God is First Cause, following Saint Thomas, He is not necessarily sentient. Define Him narrowly enough and (or broadly enough, if you want to blur the issue) and His existence becomes undeniable except as a matter of faith.
You are conflating 2 different issues. According to St. Francis God loves the animals: these teaching make up a core aspect of Sunday School teachings. Like most religions, Christianity encourages kindness to others, so it doesn’t reflect ego-mania as commonly understood. But it does possess a certain lack of imagination insofar as anthropomorphizing is considered.
Novelty Bobble: I’m not going to watch an entire freaking video. I’m fairly open minded about the ideomotor effect for a small number of options such as “Yes”, “No”, and “Maybe”, and I accept that it explain dousing. But as for spelling out words on the Ouija board I maintain that a sort of universal consciousness is operative: specifically there’s a comedian in every group and occasionally a gullible person as well. Nice link though.
Given that approximately 1/3 of this board is theist, and the public humiliation of Camping in 2011, I suspect the ground is shifting under our feet. Sociologists have studied religion for a while: we might be seeing some edgier presentations over the next few years.
Medically, I understand that attending church advances better health outcomes, but that might be understood to be related to the benefits of membership in a wider community. That said, “When compared with weekly attendees, those who attended less than weekly or never had a 66 percent greater risk of dying from respiratory diseases and a 99 percent greater risk of dying from digestive diseases.” http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/4132
Here’s a better table from a lit review in American Psychologist Jan 2003
Table 1
Hypotheses Tested and Summary of Strength of Evidence for Them
Hypotheses Mediated Model(a) Independent Model(b)
1. Church/service attendance protects against death. Persuasive Persuasive
2. Religion or spirituality protects against cardiovascular
disease. Some Some
3. Religion or spirituality protects against
cancer mortality. Inadequate Inadequate
4. Deeply religious people are protected
against death. Consistent failures Consistent failures
5. Religion or spirituality protects
against disability. Inadequate Consistent failures
6. Religion or spirituality slows the progression of
cancer. Consistent failures Consistent failures
7. People who use religion to cope with difficulties
live longer. Inadequate Inadequate
8. Religion or spirituality improves recovery
from acute illness. Consistent failures Consistent failures
Religion or spirituality impedes recovery from
acute illness. Some Some
9. Being prayed for improves physical recovery from
acute illness. Some Some
a
Studies include adjustment for the demographic confounders of age,
gender, ethnicity, education, poor health, and disability.
b
Studies include adjustment both for the demographic confounders of age,
gender, ethnicity, education, poor health, and disability and for established risk factors
including aspects of a healthy lifestyle (e.g., smoking, alcohol, physical activity, diet),
social support/integration, and depression.
“There seems to be a terrible misunderstanding on the part of a great many people to the effect that when you cease to believe you may cease to behave”:dubious:
Here, have a comb, you look disheveled.
never mind
Porn needs a Tim Tebow, doing with “John 3:16” via anal bleaching what Tebow did with eye black.
Whew, now that that’s out of my sytem, I’ll go back to tolerating theists and everyone can be happy.
Doesn’t the title bother anyone else?
And,
How can you be upset enough about something to rant about it, and not able to spell it??
I was going to…but then I considered the source.
Generally I won’t fix spelling mistakes unless I’m asked to, by the person who made the mistake. Sometimes I fix coding mistakes without being asked, especially when it’s something where leaving off the / on the end of a quote, with multiple quotes, screws up the rest of the post.
In this case, though, I think it gives us yet another reason to snicker at the OP.