When did the conspiracy start?

Check out a Sunday mass at your local church. Priests and Pastors make claims in contradiction to reality all the time, and it gains them nothing but prestige. They tell of magic and mysticism, worlds beyond our own, and people eat it up.

I've been to plenty of masses and I don't recall the priest ever claiming to have special knowledge about the shape of the earth.

Claiming to have special knowledge of the world has always brought prestige. It's the reason traveling medicine shows of the 1800's were so popular, despite a distinct lack of clinical trials for those products.

Funny that you should bring up 19th century medicine and a lack of clinical trials.  Tell me again about Dr. Birley's wondrous elixirs and how many clinical trials they were subjected to.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:22:13 PM

Check out a Sunday mass at your local church. Priests and Pastors make claims in contradiction to reality all the time, and it gains them nothing but prestige. They tell of magic and mysticism, worlds beyond our own, and people eat it up.

I've been to plenty of masses and I don't recall the priest ever claiming to have special knowledge about the shape of the earth.

People go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of the world. His claim of special knowledge gains him prestige.

Funny that you should bring up 19th century medicine and a lack of clinical trials.  Tell me again about Dr. Birley's wondrous elixirs and how many clinical trials they were subjected to

Rowbotham did claim that trials were performed on his Phosphorous products. And indeed, it is agreed today that there are many medical benefits to phosphorous.

Plato's absurd globular theory was also motivated by cult ideology.  As the shape which is most similar to itself, Plato believed that the sphere was a divine form, and sought to promote this laughable premise by deliberately lying to the public and pretending he believed it himself.

For the 4th time, please supply proof of your ravings.

BTW James, it doesn't really matter to me if you want to comply with this. The more you refuse to engage with my request, the more it looks like you're talking out of the wrong orifice.

People go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of the world. His claim of special knowledge gains him prestige.

No, people go to church because they believe in God and want to worship him. They don't go there to worship the priest. 

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2012, 04:58:49 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:22:13 PM

Check out a Sunday mass at your local church. Priests and Pastors make claims in contradiction to reality all the time, and it gains them nothing but prestige. They tell of magic and mysticism, worlds beyond our own, and people eat it up.

I've been to plenty of masses and I don't recall the priest ever claiming to have special knowledge about the shape of the earth.

People go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of the world. His claim of special knowledge gains him prestige.

No, people go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of God.

Quote

Funny that you should bring up 19th century medicine and a lack of clinical trials.  Tell me again about Dr. Birley's wondrous elixirs and how many clinical trials they were subjected to

Rowbotham did claim that trials were performed on his Phosphorous products. And indeed, it is agreed today that there are many medical benefits to phosphorous.

Do you have any resources that can confirm that Rowbotham's products were subjected to proper clinical trials?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 05:09:40 PM

People go to church because the priest claims to have special knowledge of the world. His claim of special knowledge gains him prestige.

No, people go to church because they believe in God and want to worship him. They don't go there to worship the priest. 

The priest claims that invisible and super-natural entities exist, that we have a soul, and that we just need to put our hands together and ask for something to be granted our heart's desires. The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality, and gains prestige based on this.

The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.

So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality? You are of course expected to supply proof of whatever example you give.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 05:19:31 PM

The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.

So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality?

The whole thing. I don't see any magical fairies in the sky granting wishes or causing magic. The teachings of Christianity most certainly contradicts reality.

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:23:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 05:19:31 PM

The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.

So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality?
You are of course expected to supply proof of whatever example you give.

The whole thing. I don't see any magical fairies in the sky granting wishes or causing magic. The teachings of Christianity most certainly contradicts reality.

Tom doesn't see fairies, therefore that's proof that fairies don't exist.
I don't see germs, therefore that's proof that germs don't exist.
BTW I have added back in the little bit of my post that you deleted, as I consider it quite important.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 05:32:04 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:23:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 05:19:31 PM

The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.

So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality?
You are of course expected to supply proof of whatever example you give.

The whole thing. I don't see any magical fairies in the sky granting wishes or causing magic. The teachings of Christianity most certainly contradicts reality.

Tom doesn't see fairies, therefore that's proof that fairies don't exist.
I don't see germs, therefore that's proof that germs don't exist.
BTW I have added back in the little bit of my post that you deleted, as I consider it quite important.

The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive claim. In this case the burden of proof is on those who believe in magical fairies, just as the burden of proof was on those promoting germ theory hundreds of years ago.

The burden of proof isn't on me or anyone to prove that magic invisible fairies *don't* exist. That's stupid. You're here claiming that magical fairies do exist, and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.

See: Russell's Teapot.

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:35:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 05:32:04 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:23:43 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 05:19:31 PM

The priest claims to have knowledge that is in direct contradiction to reality.

So tell me Tom, exactly what teachings of a religion - let's use Christianity as an example - are in direct contradiction to reality?
You are of course expected to supply proof of whatever example you give.

The whole thing. I don't see any magical fairies in the sky granting wishes or causing magic. The teachings of Christianity most certainly contradicts reality.

Tom doesn't see fairies, therefore that's proof that fairies don't exist.
I don't see germs, therefore that's proof that germs don't exist.
BTW I have added back in the little bit of my post that you deleted, as I consider it quite important.

The burden of proof is on he who makes the positive claim. In this case the burden of proof is on those who believe in magical fairies, just as the burden of proof was on those promoting germ theory hundreds of years ago.

The burden of proof isn't on me or anyone to prove that magic invisible fairies *don't* exist. That's stupid. You're here claiming that magical fairies do exist, and therefore the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.

See: Russell's Teapot.

Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.

See: Russell's Teapot.

Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.

Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.

See: Russell's Teapot.

Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.

I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.

I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.

Umm...  Who said that God, Jesus, angles, etc., live in the sky? 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 06:12:36 PM

I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.

Umm...  Who said that God, Jesus, angles, etc., live in the sky?

The Bible.

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2012, 07:45:59 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 06:12:36 PM

I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.

Umm...  Who said that God, Jesus, angles, etc., live in the sky?

The Bible.

Where in the Bible?  You do realize that there is a lot of symbolism in the Bible that shouldn't be taken literally, don't you?

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 06:07:24 PM

Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.

See: Russell's Teapot.

Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.

I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.

Yay! So I can use this as a proof against the Antimoon and all that stuff? Really Tom, you are trying to get us to accept that you think if you look for something and can't find it, it proves its non-existence? It very much depends how you look for something though doesn't it? So if invisible kangaroos existed, and you looked for them and couldn't see them, you'd take that as proof they didn't exist and be wrong. I looked in the sky for earthworms and didn't see any, therefore earthworms don't exist.
You're a joke.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 06:12:36 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 06:07:24 PM

Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.

See: Russell's Teapot.

Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.

I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.

Yay! So I can use this as a proof against the Antimoon and all that stuff? Really Tom, you are trying to get us to accept that you think if you look for something and can't find it, it proves its non-existence? It very much depends how you look for something though doesn't it? So if invisible kangaroos existed, and you looked for them and couldn't see them, you'd take that as proof they didn't exist and be wrong. I looked in the sky for earthworms and didn't see any, therefore earthworms don't exist.
You're a joke.

If no one has ever seen an invisible kangaroo, that would be evidence that invisible kangaroos do not exist. In terms of germ theory, the anti-moon, etc, people have seen those things. Therefore there is some evidence of their existence. They are not completely invisible to human experience.

Perhaps if you show me where I can look to find God, Jesus, angles, etc., those things can start existing. Until then, they do not exist.

If no one has ever seen an invisible kangaroo, that would be evidence that invisible kangaroos do not exist. In terms of germ theory, the anti-moon, etc, people have seen those things. Therefore there is some evidence of their existence. They are not completely invisible to human experience.

I can find plenty of pictures of germs.  Would you care to show me a picture of the anti-moon?

Perhaps if you show me where I can look to find God, Jesus, angles, etc., those things can start existing. Until then, they do not exist.

God is a spiritual being.  Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 03, 2012, 04:43:10 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 06:12:36 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 06:07:24 PM

Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.

See: Russell's Teapot.

Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.

I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.

Yay! So I can use this as a proof against the Antimoon and all that stuff? Really Tom, you are trying to get us to accept that you think if you look for something and can't find it, it proves its non-existence? It very much depends how you look for something though doesn't it? So if invisible kangaroos existed, and you looked for them and couldn't see them, you'd take that as proof they didn't exist and be wrong. I looked in the sky for earthworms and didn't see any, therefore earthworms don't exist.
You're a joke.

If no one has ever seen an invisible kangaroo, that would be evidence that invisible kangaroos do not exist. In terms of germ theory, the anti-moon, etc, people have seen those things. Therefore there is some evidence of their existence. They are not completely invisible to human experience.

Perhaps if you show me where I can look to find God, Jesus, angles, etc., those things can start existing. Until then, they do not exist.

People have seen the antimoon?

There's absolutely no record of it.

God is a spiritual being.  Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.

I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.

People have seen the antimoon?

There's absolutely no record of it.

Quote from: markjo on September 03, 2012, 11:01:11 AM

God is a spiritual being.  Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.

I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on September 03, 2012, 11:29:36 AM

People have seen the antimoon?

There's absolutely no record of it.

Nice painting!

Even if it was a time-lapse photo, such a massive object has never been detected.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2012, 12:03:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 03, 2012, 11:01:11 AM

God is a spiritual being.  Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.

I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on September 03, 2012, 11:29:36 AM

People have seen the antimoon?

There's absolutely no record of it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg

Nice painting!

Even if it was a time-lapse photo, such a massive object has never been detected.

The lunar eclipse is evidence of its existence.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on September 03, 2012, 12:15:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2012, 12:03:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 03, 2012, 11:01:11 AM

God is a spiritual being.  Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.

I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on September 03, 2012, 11:29:36 AM

People have seen the antimoon?

There's absolutely no record of it.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TRIpl4Qz4VI/AAAAAAAALCI/KMdXwMtC2aE/s1600/lunar-eclipse-photo.jpg

Nice painting!

Even if it was a time-lapse photo, such a massive object has never been detected.

The photo is evidence of its existence.

That's not a photo.

It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.

It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.

There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.

Can you please refrain from low-content posting?

It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.

Precisely.  I'm not sure how it's any better evidence than the silly ISS video that always gets posted.  Nothing about that montage is evidence of an anti-moon.

I'm not trying to nit-pick, it just seems like you're oddly selective about which blatantly photoshopped images you're willing to trust.

Quote from: markjo on September 03, 2012, 11:01:11 AM

God is a spiritual being.  Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.

I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.

And the concept of a metaphor escapes Tom once again. 

Would you care to point out exactly where the anti-moon is in that picture?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2012, 12:03:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on September 03, 2012, 11:01:11 AM

God is a spiritual being.  Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.

I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.

And the concept of a metaphor escapes Tom once again. 

Yes, it was almost Parsifalian in its deliberate obtuseness.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2012, 03:20:46 PM

It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.

There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.

Can you please refrain from low-content posting?

The Anti-Moon (sometimes called the Shadow Object) is a body which comes between the sun and the moon, casting a shadow upon the moon. Under RET this body which comes between the sun and moon is the earth. Under FET this body cannot be the earth, as the earth is flat and does not move between the sun and moon. Therefore it must be some other body which comes between the sun and moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. This body is colloquially known as the anti-moon. The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence of its existence.

The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on September 03, 2012, 03:23:36 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2012, 03:20:46 PM

It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.

There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.

Can you please refrain from low-content posting?

The Anti-Moon is a body which comes between the sun and the moon, casting a shadow upon the moon. Under RET this body which comes between the sun and moon is the earth. Under FET this body cannot be the earth, as the earth is flat. Therefore it must be some other body which comes between the sun and moon. This body is colloquially known as the anti-moon. The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence of its existence.

The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. All celestial bodies are unseen in the day, as the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.

Funny, John Davis claims the Antimoon is between the earth and the moon and is directly in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse. Which would mean it would blot out stars.