I've waited too long to get to this:
My pal, Pete Campbell (we went to Jr. High school together) thought you guys might enjoy seeing what science is showing us (as opposed to the childish NewAge pipe dreams above) so - along with this piece - here's a bunch of breathtaking photos Pete sent me from the Hubble Telescope, including the first two that I just found this morning. Thanks, Petey!!!
UPDATE - I've also cut in the text from my favorite comment of the day (courtesy of reader JRN) because it fit the theme of this post's title so well:
If some nut-job decided 500 years ago, 200 years ago or yesterday that the sun is actually a burning tree stump 37 miles from Earth and then gathered a following, why would any rational person bother examining that claim with “logic and intellectual rigor”?
If part of the followers split off with a new “belief system” that the sun is actually a frozen ping-pong ball 4 miles from Earth, is the difference really a “bloody important” semantic point because they organize themselves differently?
Could it really be “a little dangerous to equate” these two?
What would the danger be?
Whatever belief system is presented is the facade that hides and compensates for stupidity, fear and disordered thinking, or power and greed over the stupid.
Giving up meat on Friday, not eating pork or throwing a virgin into a volcano are all the same behaviors (with different levels of drama).
If someone smeared shit on their naked body and walked down the street claiming he is Madonna, why intellectualize the shit and Madonna?
He likely chose them because they were handy, and then built the rest of his story (belief system) from there.
He will also spontaneously mutate the belief system to counter any intrusion of facts.
He may have a motive, but he has no argument.
A lie, intentional or not, is not the other side of an argument.
It’s just a lie.