I missed this comment of mine ...

Here is a video I already reacted to:

losing faith | my departure from theism
4th of July 2015 | TheraminTrees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xqCkx6WQBE

Here is a previous collection of my reactions:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Reacting to an Apostasy Story
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2019/08/reacting-to-apostasy-story.html

And here, starting with a comment I didn't include in above, is a debate:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12:15 So, you do not believe the Sun goes around the Earth each day, and does this roughly in time with stars, specifically those of Zodiac (ecliptic plane if you prefer), and that the Sun goes around the Zodiac backwards each year?

You have told me what you believe, could you tell me why you believe it?

Thomas Maughan

Good questions. Think of a 6 year old child in Fargo, North Dakota, being told there's such a thing as "mountains". Why do you believe it? I have seen them!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Thomas Maughan Yes, but have you been at the edge of the universe with a really good telescope and verified from there that Earth goes around Sun?

The point is, Heliocentrism is among the things you have not seen.

Mad _

@Hans-Georg Lundahl The scientific community that discovered what you agree against don't want to receive you. their whole job purpose is to find interesting things out. To see why the sun appears to fly around us. To see why we get sick, why there are glowing dots in the sky. They want to find a conclusion, not work backwards from one.

+ @Hans-Georg Lundahl So tell me, why don't you believe millennia of scientific discovery from all around the world at many different times? Why do you believe in a Geocentric model of the solar system?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mad _ Let's break some down ...

"their whole job purpose is to find interesting things out"

And also to find out if they really genuinely found out, right?

"To see why the sun appears to fly around us."

OK ... you say it appears to fly around us, meaning you think it doesn't. Now, first appearances are our first, not our only, clue to sth being the case. Some things certainly may trump a first appearance. In many countries with no or few hills, the ground appears to be flat. Magellan's voyage trumps that appearance, and so do the measures of angles by Eratosthenes.

Now, you tell me, in your words, what you think trumps the appearance of the Sun flying around us ...? And note, not the fact someone counts as a scientist, but what he did to prove what he proved. Like, not "Magellan" but "Magellan's journey".

"To see why we get sick"

I think the theory of four humours is an adequate approximate explanation for sicknesses like diabetes and cancer. And part of the explanation for why we get infected by germs. Germs are another part of it. But not of diabetes. Now, the four humours theory is made by examining and classifying carefully things like nutrition and body movement and heat and cold in surroundings and what effect they have on states of the body. Medieval doctors would have been very adequate in advising a case of dormant diabetes to do things to avoid actually getting diabetic. They were also very well of things that actually do kill germs, even if they were not aware that killing germs was how they worked. Precisely as a Renaissance sailor would use a compass, thinking magnetite was made by Mars influencing element earth to make it iron, and Venus influencing iron to make it magnetite. The compass would still point North and that was what the sailor needed, he had no need for Maxwell's theory for that. But Maxwell's theory is arguably correct. It can be tested that electricity in coils around a bar of metal will create inductive magnetism, and that magnets rotated in coils will create electricity.

In other words, this part of the game is part theoretic and part practic, and we have been adequate for precisely millennia, as you state your case.

"why there are glowing dots in the sky."

Astrophysics became directly testable ... when? Did you ask Superman to move around Sirius to a very gigantic pair of scales to weigh it? Or to check his speed and then the time it takes him to fly through Sirius to get the correct diameter? I mean, as invulnerable, he would perhaps do it ... or did you perhaps (or the scientists you refer to) use less direct means, more at a distance, like a safe distance if you are correct it's hotter than the sun? Now, science at a distance .... can you motivate it is science? Eratosthenes and his slave actually saw on the spot what angle the Sun's light struck Earth both in Alexandria and in Assuan. And Magellan actually was on spot on more than one of the places that together make an East-West circle around Earth. You didn't ask Clark Kent to do Sirius on spot? Too bad ...

"They want to find a conclusion"

No, they want to make a conclusion and they want to find an explanation. They also want to conclude their explanation is the right one.

You are confusing conclusion and explanation or even conclusion and discovery. Sure, a discovery involves an element of conclusion, like "I see the Sun strikes Alexandria and Assuan at different angles, but sunrays are parallel, therefore the flat ground at Alexandria and Assuan have different angles" but a discovery is not in and of itself the only type of conclusion and involves more things than concluding, like observing.

"not work backwards from one"

When you explain, you work from conclusion to the things observed you conclude from.
When you conclude, you work from the last part of an explanation to the things you explain it from.

"So tell me, why don't you believe millennia of scientific discovery from all around the world at many different times?"

There is absolutely no such refusal in the case of Geocentrism. All actual discovery can be accounted for geocentrically, as Riccioli did encyclopedically less than half a millennium ago.

"Why do you believe in a Geocentric model of the solar system?"

Of the Universe. You mentioned the reason yourself. The Sun appears to fly around us, and so does Sirius. Until sth other trumps that appearance - my invitation for you to supply that stands - the appearance keeps the final word.

Mad _ also has made a nice comment on another part:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

25:55 You know, I am more or less up against atheists trying to rationalise my belief ... as something I'll get over.

I have spent fifteen years writing essays and entering debates, there is still a network waiting for the day when I'll "get over it" and accept their mentoring. Fifteen, sorry, that's how long I'm out of Sweden, actually 18. I started my internet presence in 2001, the year I turned 33.

Mad _

I'm ashamed of that side of the community and I'm sorry you have to deal with them. The rest of us don't want you to grow out of it, we just want the religious communities to let us be and because there are some religious people that push their religion on others, people become hostile to religion because that's all they see it. that's the best way I can rationalise it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mad _ Thank you.

In that case you won't mind my reposting the discussion on Geocentrism under the other comment, I hope!

Mad _

@Hans-Georg Lundahl That's alright

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Mad _ Thank you.

I would in fact have reposted anyway, but I prefer to hear, I get no quarrel about it.

The post is in preparation, and will be on the blog sth like 16:11 on Doom Sunday, 21.XI, which gives us time to add more to it if you wish (see other comment)!

+ The blog is Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere, on blogpost, so you know. Youtube doesn't allow me to post links.