Atheist, what evidence did you examine?

Question

You shouldn't accept anything without examining it rationally yourself, correct?

What evidence did you rationally examine that proved to you that the Earth orbits the Sun?

You were probably told this in 1st grade or maybe 2nd or 3rd. Did you look at the evidence at that time and rationally decide it was true? If not then, surely when you became atheist and decided that the only logical path is to personally examine everything before you believe it, you went and re-examined everything every taught to you. Including the Earth revolving around the Sun. So what evidence have you personnally examined that proves this too you? Taking anothers research on the subject doesn't fly, why should you trust them?

Lets focus on the question, lets try not to play dodgeball...notice i have never said the "G" word anywhere in this question. So the "G" word should not appear anywhere in your answer. Nor the "R" or "F" words.

zienzman: I didn't ask if you did or not...I asked how you did it.

zienzman: So you actually went through the process of tracking the constellations over years and years to decide that the Earth orbits the Sun?

Captain Atheism: What did you use for your examination? I didn't ask if you did or not, I asked how.

The Dude: Using a little faith there...I am cool with that.

NH Baritone: Earth orbiting the Sun does not explain the seasons. The Moon orbiting the Earth proves nothing of the Earth orbiting the Sun. Maybe you should re-examine again

zienzman: then that is a very valid of you. I applaud your commitment to discovery.

Moiraes Fate: Math alone can not prove anything. Math is just the tool used by other disciplines to prove their theories. In this case, astronomy and physics.

And some of you need to really re-examine this. Night/Day proves the earth orbits the sun? How about that proves that the Earth itself rotates. The changing of the seasons...that is evidence that the earth is tilted on it's axis. Notice how the equator doesn't have much of a season change.

Phishpish: The moon phases is probably the most straight forward method, I agree. And if you really want to be scientific about it and start from scratch, you would have to track the stars for a few years to make sure they are consistent. If you are just looking to find evidence of existing theories, sure, you don't need years to do that.

Bad Liberal and Vishal...you know my motives too well :)

Vishal: Retrograde motion is another excellent method to prove that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. But you know this wasn't for you to answer...you just wanted to make me look foolish ;P

zienzman: I picked something that is very easily observable for a reason. Something that anyone can prove for themself with minimal observation and a little reasoning. But, even most of the respondants choose not even to do that...but they still claim they examine everything before they believe in it. How can that be?

tamyp: No, that is not what I am doing at all. I am doing something, and I'm not being 100% forthcoming with it. But that is not it.

writersblock73: Very nicely put. I can honestly say I am not trying to argue against atheism. But you may be right that I am trying to argue against arguments used by atheist...that may be very true. And if this is true, then it isn't against all atheist, just a subset of them. I may even be guilty of an atheist concept...attempting to get others to think from a different perspective.

I will tell you 5 things about me.
1) I respect everyones beliefs, even if they don't agree with mine.
2) I don't claim I can prove God, in my opinion this is as close to impossible as you can get, if not impossible. I don't wish to attempt to either.
3) I try to live my life making logical decisions and thinking critically/rationally about things.
4) I enjoy a good argument.
5) I know I am illogical(scientifically,not personally) with at the very least one thing in my life, and I have accepted that.


You are gifted in turning your ideas into words, you should be very proud of it.

tamyp: I don't believe I am violating anything. I have a question that I want answers too, I just may not be asking it directly...but I still ask a question. Report me if you must....a lot of my questions get deleted anyway.

Childish? That is a matter of perception.

Answer 1

Actually, in all honesty I did re-examine everything when I became the age to critically think for myself. I suggest everyone try it on everything, including religion.

My experiences aside... what atheists (science specific) believe is not only based on the observations of themselves but communities they can trust, such as the scientific community. It all falls back to logic and analysis (which you have asked Q's about before)... is it logical to trust someone trying to disprove a theory with real world tests and verifiable evidence or is it logical to trust someone with wild guesses and no verifiable evidence. The logical choice is option one.
We can tend to trust researchers on things because they are working to discover something different than what we know, that's the goal of science, to further knowledge. If it is found negligent or wrong or premature, it is discarded for more logical processes.
Oh, and as for evidence towards the earth rotating around the sun, track the night sky for a bit and observe rotational patterns, its really quite easy, heck, the mayans had it figured years before your god was even a glimmer in someones eye. Its called observation. You should have picked something at least moderately difficult to observe for this question.

Response to edits:
Actually, as somewhat of an ameature astronomer, I did track several stars which show obvious correllation to a heliocentric solar system. I know thats not the case with every atheist but my point is that it doesn't have to be. Its not taking it on faith if it can be verified.

Thanks for the compliment searcher, Its appreciated.

Answer 2

Do I examine everything rationally? No, not everything. Some things I take for fact since other people, with more intelligence or more discipline, or both, have researched before me. The fact that 2 + 2 = 4 doesn't really require a lot of examination. Likewise, others have spent countless hours figuring out that the earth revolves around the sun, so I haven't really considered it at length except occasionally, in class. To dispute your comments, the seasons most definitely help to show the earth revolves around the sun. Yes we have seasons because the earth is tilted. It's the tilt, combined with rotation around the sun that gives seasons. As the earth rotates around the sun the tilted hemisphere is closer to the sun, thus we have summer, while the hemisphere tilted away from the sun experiences winter. I believe that is how it works, though it's been some 25 years or so since I took basic earth science.

So your conjecture that taking another's research on a subject not flying, is simply ridiculous. If we didn't take other people's experiences (and research) we would have no basis for knowledge. We each would have to start from scratch to develop any understanding at all. From what we eat to what we believe about space or divinity or anything else would have to be individually tested and experienced before we could know that it is safe or correct. There simply isn't enough time to accomplish such a task even if each of us was completely correct in our experience every time. People used to say that weight kept us on the planet before Newton "discovered" gravity. They were not correct, but had no better explanation at the time.

The saying goes "If I have been able to see further because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

This is the best explanation of being able to further our own understanding by accepting the understanding of those that have come before us. Some things need further examination to be sure, but discounting known fact is disingenuous to say the least.

Answer 3

Yes, I was taught this as part of my basic education. Later, when I studied the concepts of astronomy and gravity in-depth, I gained further understanding and insight into the proof that the earth orbits the sun. That whole day/night, change of the seasons, and movement of stars in our night sky doesn't hurt, either, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than Apollo driving his chariot across the heavens.

As for taking another's research not flying, why not, exactly? Because you say so? Should I take your word for it? The entire point of peer review is that other scientists pick apart the arguments of the person publishing, and do their best to disprove the argument being put forth. This process usually results in a refined theory and better research. The entire scientific process is a means of coming up with the best possible conclusion given the information available at the time. Science is testable, repeatable, verifiable - god and religion and faith are not. In fact, faith, by it's very definition, is belief WITHOUT proof or IN SPITE OF proof to the contrary.

It seems like your line of argument is that if I wanted to be absolutely certain that the earth orbits the sun, I should be standing near the sun and personally watching the earth orbiting, which is patently ridiculous.

Answer 4

Actually, I do examine evidence for myself. The evidence I don't examine is evidence I generally understand has been observed by many other people and can be replicated under the right conditions. Scientific evidence is replicable. The problem with religious evidence is that it generally isn't. If somebody else had an experience where God talked to them, they cannot tell me the conditions under which I could have such an experience. If, on the other hand, somebody observed that it takes a ball exactly 2.3 seconds to fall to the Earth, they could give me the exact conditions under which I could perform the experiment and determine the validity of their conclusions.

In the case of the sun going around the Earth, the evidence I examined was the retrograde motions of some of the farther outer planets. This can be observed with a relatively simple telescope. The conclusion one draws is that those planets "change" direction relative to the Earth. The simplest explanation for why those planets apparently change direction is to posit that the Earth is moving as well, and that the apparent change of direction can be explained by proposing that all planets are orbiting the sun. Since this is the simplest explanation with predictive power that I have thus far seen, I adopt it.

Answer 5

The laws of Physics were enough for me to believe that the Earth orbits the Sun, which apply to everything around us.
The fact that the Earth orbits the sun, was assumed and later proved long time ago and there are many rational arguments for it without having to be a Nuclear Scientist in order to understand it.

Answer 6

I know, you said not the "G" word, but this is R&S, so I'm going to cave and use it anyway. Not looking for best answer ever, so I answer how I wish and not how I'm told :p
My "G" word reference will come from the "B" word; no disrespect intended for those who believe in the "A" word from the "K" word or any other people who believe in "A-Z" words.

1. God created the Earth in six days. On the seventh he rested. It says so in an ancient book written by several men over a period of many years. Many of the accounts contradict one another.

(should I examine this one? I think I shall. What is that? it sounds ridiculous? Indeed! I think I shall discard this one as having "no evidence")

2. The Earth orbits the Sun.

(should I examine this one? Well, fortunately really smart people have actually gone up there. They've made note of our trajectory. They can observe not only our path through the solar system but that of the other planets as well.
Not to mention I can clearly see that the sun rises and sets everyday in relatively the same area of the horizon, depending on season. This nugget of knowledge seems "trustworthy".)

Answer 7

Sweep your own stoop Searcher. When you got some evidence then come back and we'll compare okey dokey?

Oh by the way you only get to post a question - you don't get to dictate how it's answered - grow up.
===
"So you actually went through the process of tracking the constellations over years and years to decide that the Earth orbits the Sun?"

Take an astronomy class. It does not take years. If you're confident in your earth centrist ideas - and don't whine the 'nowhere did I say..." then be happy with them.

Even my cat knows what you're getting at in every question you post over and over and over again. And she's getting tired of it. You think that you can compare a lack of personally acquired evidence for the mundane to a complete lack of evidence for a deity and say that they are equivalent.

Look I know you think you're being deviously profound but you're really just making yourself look deluded. My little cousin does the same thing and we all nod and humor him but we laugh about it later.

++++

"No, that is not what I am doing at all. I am doing something, and I'm not being 100% forthcoming with it. But that is not it."

Ohhh so you admit you're violating the guidelines. Should I report you? *evil grin*

At any rate it's looking pretty childish. Next you'll be asking "how do you know the toilet works if you've never dismantled it" Most people get this out of their system after their freshman year in college.

Answer 8

Actually, just to argue the other side of the fence for once, taking another's research on a subject does fly, as you would put it.

Science, as a philosophy, backed by the scientific method, is a self-correcting mechanism. When one group states a find, or discovery, other groups will then verify that work. One of the idea's of the scientific method is not just that something will happen in an experiment, but that something is repeatable by others.

So any point of science, is usually backed up and verified by other scientific teams. Facts checked, math examined, and conclusions carefully studied. Especially with the competition for research monies, they watch each other like sharks.

Now on some points, I think they have gone over the top, without anything to back them up...Such as pronouncements on Spirituality, and other forms of philosophy...but in it's area, examination and analysis of the physical world and technology, it's pretty accurate. Scientists and such just sometimes forget that they don't know everything, and that their opinion on those things is just as valid as mine.

Answer 9

Taking another's research on the subject does fly, if that research is open to be disproved and recreated. I do not need to take the time to research factual information in order to verify that it is indeed a fact. I will, however, look at *beliefs* critically before accepting the belief. There is a significant difference between a scientific fact (which has been thoroughly tested, researched and verified many times over in order to achieve the status of scientific fact) and a set of beliefs. When in school, you are first taught the scientific process through which hypothesis, theories and facts are arrived at. The rest falls into place after that.

Answer 10

I studied religions & their impact on individual humans & society, religious text, history, archeology, astronomy & sociology. I started as a xian & ended a little over 10yrs as an Atheist.

I take exception to you stating "Lets focus on the question, lets try not to play dodgeball...notice i have never said the "G" word anywhere in this question. So the "G" word should not appear anywhere in your answer. Nor the "R" or "F" words." I say this because it is a better question to pose to the religious. Religious need to prove that there is a god, an Atheist has no need to prove that there isn't one. Do you get me? It is like ghosts & goblins, society does not believe these as fact without indisputable proof. The burden of proof is on the believer.