what do you call it when people can't admit they are wrong?

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Dec 29, 2008 at 23:25

Mr. bayezid, frantic in his efforts to insist he can't be wrong writes:

"is the grand infidel using an intellectual force field to deflect my points, or does it have to do with the natural disposition of an infidel ?"

Your point is not clear. Do you mean that 'infidels' use logic and reason against fantasy and Muslim requests for suspension of disbelief ? (or more accurately, suspension of belief in rationality?)
Fantasy and imagination have their place - but are not good substitutes for calm rationality when we make sense of our world.

GI wrote originally:

The original claim by Mr.Bayezid was that Muslims were the first to realise that the sun had a regular path around the 'heavens'. I pointed out the fact that this was well known to ancient peoples. I used 2 examples which are located in Europe - NewGrange in Ireland and Stonehenge in England. There are many more - and these continue to be discovered - with some notable but much smaller structures being found in Eastern Europe recently. Many other civilizations had detailed astronomical knowledge - the non-Islamic Egypt and China being other good examples. Hipparchus in the 1st century BC noted the precession of the equinoxes - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_precession ."

Bayezid twists this to say "he (GI) keeps on arguing that primitive calendars made of wood and stone had the ability to determine the movement of the entire solar system (the sun moving with all its planets around a ifxed orbit). "

That is not at all what I said . I explained that the builders of Stonehenge used it as both a lunar calendar and to determine the oprbit of the year when the sun is at its winter solstice - which was an important point for people living in harsh European winters as it signiifed the return of warmth and light - and therefore food. At no time did I indicate that Stonehenge was designed to indicate the extremely slow orbit of the Sun around the galactic centre in the Sagittarius constellation. You have misrepresented what I said - and are creating arguments against that.

A 'red herring' again.

"......if the infidel had only but been more informed of those devices, he should have known that they did not have the ability to do that."
Grand Infidel was perfectly aware of that, as are children in grade school. The Grand Infidel is surprised it comes up as a point in Mr.Bayezid's 'argument'.

" ....they merely set a course of the suns rising and setting. the movement the stonehenge meant was that of from our perspective here on earth. it was not talking about the solar apex. the solar apex had been discovered between the 19th and 20th century. much to the dismay of many like minded infidels, sicce it reinforced the claims of the quran."

But surprisingly, given the great clues in the Koran, and the wonderfully clear desert skies the arab scientists never discovered the Sun's slow rotation around the galactic centre in the 1400 years before the discovery by Infidels of fact that the sun is in orbit around the rim of the Milky Way.
Why is that?
why didn't they discover it and announce it to the world? They had 1400 years to do so - and 400 of those years they had access to telescopes invented by Infidels living around the Mediterranean and in Europe. The reason is perfectly clear - because the totally ambiguous and vague 'proof' offered by Mr. Bayezid - was ONLY offered as 'proof' - AFTER THE FACT of the discovery.

".....the solar system takes 226 million years approximately to make one revolution."
Google's great isn't it?

"the scientists claim that so far only 25 solar apexes have been assumed with modern tools of science. "
Yes, they 'claim' that. How many do you and the Koran claim?

"in order for the druids with wood and stone to detect it it would require tem to live for millions of years !!! a rather foolhardy claim for them therefore."
The real foolhardy claim was for you to suggest that I even thought the Druids were measuring the procession of the Sun around the galactic centre.

".......besids, if the entire solar system moves, dosent it mean the earth moves too?
how is that detectable since all those things are in their places. the sun does not have the ability to detacch itself and move from the rest of the planets."

Let me see - some Set theory - now the earth is a part of the solar system, the solar system moves - then does the earth. move? It's insulting to yourself, a learned Muslim, to consider that your audience is not at least as intelligent as yourself. People will just be reinforcing their opinions about the blindness and arrogance that supremacist belief system engenders in its adherents.

"the best the druids did was detect the suns moement through the sonstellations. but this is scientifically proven as illusory since its the earth thats moving, and not the sun. the druids were talking bout that movement.",
NewGrange in Ireland calculated the paths of the Moon, Sun and Venus over 150 year cycles. But as I have stressed many times, and which you fail to acknowledge , no claim was made that they track the Sun around the galaxy. You fail to acknowledge this because it helps you in your crazy cause to prove some vague and ambiguous passages in the Koran are talking about tracking the Sun around the galactic centre.

>>
GI wrote initially wrote:

That's stating the obvious. But what does it actually say - that leads you to believe that it was actually talking about the sun's revolution around the galactic centre? Could you quote the exact passage please?
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the unknown passage is probably ambiguous and may be open to several interpretations."

"....so according to the infidel, 1400 years ago it was common knowledge of the suns movement along the solar apex ? "
Again, the Infidel did not say that - and has made it perfectly clear that is not what was said.

"....he is more deluded than it seems. he keeps on confusing of the illusory movement of the sun through the constellations with the actual revolution of the sun with all its planets with it."

As explained - that is not what I said at all. Your own childish desire of wanting to prove an 'infidel' wrong and continually stating something that was not said keeps you from seeing this

i will gladly present ayahs from the quran regarding its claim of the suns movement.

--sura 14, verse 33:
"For you (God) subjected the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses. And for you He subjected the night and the day."

"It is He Who created night and day and the sun and moon, each one swimming in a sphere. (Qur'an, 21:33)"

"And the sun runs to its resting place. That is the decree of the Almighty, the All-Knowing. (Qur'an, 36:38)"

"these ayahs clearly show the movement of the sun. the originl arabic language further elucidates this matter as one reads these verses from the noble quran."

Remember my prediction above - "I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the unknown passage is probably ambiguous and may be open to several interpretations."
These 'ayahs' do not clearly make the points you say they make. They are totally ambiguous and open to interpretation.
As expected - you have provided no proof. The first passage you present simply means the Sun's apparent course as seen from the earth.
If it does not mean that obvious fact - why would it in one sentence be vaguely referring to a concept the arabs did not have at all?
Is it in the very same sentence referring to the Moon's motion around the galactic centre as well?
Or is it expecting the arabs to know that by referring to the Sun it was referring to the Sun's path around the galactic centre - but two words later, when referring to the Moon - it was only referring to the Moon's movement around the earth?

" subjected the sun and the moon, both diligently pursuing their courses. And for you He subjected the night and the day."
Why would the Koran be talking about the sun going around the galactic centre - and then mention that we have night and day in the VERY NEXT sentence? "
It is perfectly obvious it is talking about the apparent course of the sun and moon as seen from Earth and that because of this motion the earth is subjected to light and dark periods.
You do not have the ability to make a plausible case about why it is talking about the travel of the sun around the galactic centre ( a concept the arabs did not have) - and then speaks of night and day.

"the sun runs to its resting place. " ??
Which resting place is that - where it appears to set on the western horizon - which would be an understandable poetic metaphor and not a scientific truth? Or the resting place it DOES NOT have - as it is in continuous orbit around the galactic centre?
BTW In other parts of the Koran the sun's resting place was a muddy marsh.

GI wrote initially :
"
No, 'Allah' did not make them so lacking in insight that they had to build a monument to prove the sun rose and set. Stonehenge was designed as a lunar calendar and to accurately indicate when the winter and summer solstices occurred - the most important being the winter solstice which indicated the ending of the privations of their harsh winters."

"....no matter how insightful ALLAH may have made the kafir's ancestors (which is doubtful, however) they were human beings. "
who are you to comment on the intelligence of BUNJIL's creations? Perhaps next you'll be saying you are even more intelligent than the arabs.

"......and i believe ALLAH kept this 'common' knowledge for the descendants of the druids to later discover and be awed. lol ."
As I pointed out - using your logic - by keeping this 'common knowledge ' for the Infidels to discover 1400 years later, 'Allah' once again subjects the arabs to embarrassment - as they had (in your mind) the 'facts' staring at them in the Koran and totally failed to see it!

"by his dissatisfaction the kafir seems to have been blinded to the truth in the quran.Little does he realize that it was lucid enough for everyone to understand. "
So lucid even the arabs missed the point!

"it was all explained in laymens terms for everyones convenience"
In those three 'ayahs'? You jest sir.

."........and little does he realize tht if ALLAH indeed used words like solar apex and trajectory of the sun, the people would be more confused than enlightened."
Actually, I wish those words WERE used. It's a little less confusing than 4,000 horns on a gigantic cow, standing on a fish swimming in jelly, standing on a gigantic 'farista', whatever you imagine that is.

" im sure the infidel knew that such terms were not heard of back in those days."
Well, the word 'apex' as you might know, is a Greek word. The Greeks invented trigonometry and would indeed have understood the simple concept of 'solar apex' even 2500 years ago..

" .............i leave the rest for him to consider. if he does leave tie for himself to contemplate on things, that is."
if you really had presented some intelligent arguments - then he Grand Infidel would consider them. All you've really done is embarass yourself.

GI wrote originally :

"Pure myth and wishful thinking on the part of an Islamist who believes and would like others to believe islam is responsible for all the great advances in the world. Spain had its renaiisance only AFTER it had kicked out the invading Islamists. If anybody is to be thanked - it s the Irish priests and monks who preserved previous knowledge in the arts and sciences, mostly written in Latin in their remote castles and monasteries."

".............after spain kicked out islam using the muslims own strength that is, it sank back into a lesser version of what spain was under islamic rule. fact !! "it must be quite embarassing for the infidel to realise that he had never heard of the university of cordoba,"
Your arrogance knows no bounds or you are deliberately stating untruths to get a response.. Why assume the Grand Infidel had never heard of the University of Cordoba?
speaking of which - here's an example of the golden age of tolerance in Moorish controlled Spain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Cordoba

".............which was the pivtal point to europes staggering success later on. "
Garbage. How little you know of European history. Cordoba university was prominent in its region around the year 1200. There were many centres of learning in bothg western and eastern Europe
during the Middle Ages. Italy, France, Croatia, Poland, Bohemia, Germany, European Russia.

" one can only wonder at the ungrateful nature of our european ancestors."
You have European ancestors? Lucky you. They only became ungrateful when they realised what a crock Islam was.

"if they did, how, oh how, could they know that the sun moved along a set path discovered only recently? a fact discovered in the last century. the infidel becomes boggled by his own wordplay "
See the points I've made previously. The Koran definitely does not refer to the sun's slow trip around the galactic center. You have become boggled by the Koran.

GI wrote originally:

"Again - you need to provide proof of this statement that is clear and unequivocal. A verse that just says that the sun travels across the heavens does not constitute proof."

Mr. bayezid replies:
"the proof has been provided in the beginning of this post . i used the ayahs nd not just one of the quran which show the sun moved along a set path."
No proof has been provided at all. In fact, not even a good supposition.

"i do believe the kafir is seeking assurance from the quran here."
You might like to think that 'the kafir' thinks that - but it is not so. If I want information on the nature of the cosmos - one of the last places I'd look is the Koran. And not because I'm being willfully ignorant as you , one always trying to find ways to discredit people, would say but because I know there are no scientific facts there beyond what you'd learn about in grade school. And even then they are totally open to interpretation.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".