Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Theodolite

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion poisons everything
« on: April 18, 2013, 08:22:36 AM »
Thanks for your responses.  I felt like I was talking to morons on Ray Comforts Facebook page, and needed a gentle reminder ;)

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion poisons everything
« on: April 16, 2013, 11:40:26 AM »
I agree with LordDave. It's people that poison things, not religion. Religion is simply a means to an end.

I think that statement ignores the fact that religion is a creation of man, which in turn, causes it to merely reflect the will of the biased flawed creator (person)

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion poisons everything
« on: April 16, 2013, 11:28:06 AM »
I am fairly certain Taoism has never hurt anyone nor does it teach that anyone is special or that you will get some sort of mysterious afterlife goodies.

Taoism encourages antisocial behavior.  Nothing related to loving or helping your community is encouraged.  People will feel less need to stay with, and provide for their children in a Toaist belief system.

The encouragement of pacifism allows people to justify immoral actions, such as observing when people are in need of help, such as in cases of rape, ethnic cleansing, murder and other atrocities.  Another word for pacifism is appeasement.

The somewhat negative attitude towards intense emotions that speaks out of many of the ancient texts. Admittedly, people are often bothered far too much by their transient fears or anger over things that are actually of very minor importance. However, our emotions are also what makes us human (no other animals are capable of such a broad range of feelings) and they are also what makes life worth living. I would never want to be detached from my own feelings. Rather, I want to learn how to accept them better the good ones and the bad ones and how to use them in a way that is good for me and others.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion poisons everything
« on: April 16, 2013, 11:05:31 AM »
I won't pretend that I had some kind of revelation, my opinion is based in listening to rational statements from other people.

Here is a great example, if you have the time, of why all religions are harmful in every situation:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Christopher Hitchens Explains Why Religion Poisons Everything

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion poisons everything
« on: April 16, 2013, 10:55:28 AM »
for which I am prepared to defend, and provide evidence
You should have done that in the OP. That's why this is a shit thread. There is nothing to examine or debate.

It's a very broad statement, and rather than making a massive wall of text, I chose this style (which I agree is lazy); but I assure you I will make up for it in my responses

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion poisons everything
« on: April 16, 2013, 10:48:38 AM »
Although now that I think about it, I wonder what buddism poisoned....


I will start with one of Buddism's most harmful teachings, that enlightenment makes you morally infallible, like the pope, but more so.  Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion.

'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom.

But what troubles me most about Buddhism is its implication that detachment from ordinary life is the surest route to salvation. Buddha's first step toward enlightenment was his abandonment of his wife and child, and Buddhism (like Catholicism) still exalts male monasticism as the epitome of spirituality. It seems legitimate to ask whether a path that turns away from aspects of life as essential as sexuality and parenthood is truly spiritual. From this perspective, the very concept of enlightenment begins to look anti-spiritual: It suggests that life is a problem that can be solved, a cul-de-sac that can be, and should be, escaped.

Although Buddhism seems so different from religions like Christianity and Islam that it doesn't look like it should be in the same category, it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake -- or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion.

This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions. Although it's more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of luck, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion poisons everything
« on: April 16, 2013, 10:07:59 AM »
False.
People poison everything. Religion is fine so long as people don't run it.

Do you have an example of a religion which didnt poison everything (in your words, one that was run without people?) 

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Religion poisons everything
« on: April 16, 2013, 10:07:06 AM »
This will be far from a shit thread, as long as it isnt just trolled.

I have asserted my position, and await an attempt to refute it, for which I am prepared to defend, and provide evidence

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Religion poisons everything
« on: April 16, 2013, 09:54:05 AM »
Every aspect of life is better without religion.

10
I would expect a legitimate space agency to show me accurate pictures of the earth, not inaccurate pictures taken with fish-eye lenses.
their is lots of photos out their with no fish eye distortion. you just seam to have a bias for posting only fish eye photos. that's your own fault.

Interesting anecdote. 

11
I would expect a legitimate space agency to show me accurate pictures of the earth, not inaccurate pictures taken with fish-eye lenses.

Tom, fish eye pictures are chosen specifically for their distortion effect.  The first thing that you need to accomplish when you want someone to see what it is they think they will see is to slightly distort the image, so that their imagination can make them take the necessary leap to see the allegedly round earth, moon landing, weapons of mass destruction or whatever else you are manipulating them into seeing

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: If you invented Time Travel
« on: March 19, 2013, 02:03:17 PM »
What do you mean "If" I invented time travel
Oh noes, Theodolite is a time-traveling NASA agent trying to prevent the Great Reveal of the Ultimate Truth of 2044.

I'm actually opposed to evidence which proves anything.

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: If you invented Time Travel
« on: March 19, 2013, 01:03:14 PM »
Freedom of Idealogy, wouldn't that be something else.

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: If you invented Time Travel
« on: March 19, 2013, 12:20:11 PM »
All you have to do is decide you want to build a time machine.  If you succeed you will get instant results.  I will tell you one thing, those pyramids are a mofo to build.

Didn't succeed.

Haha, you shouldnt have told me, who do you think prevented your success?

Oddly enough, I provided your work to my past self, it is critical in my design

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: If you invented Time Travel
« on: March 19, 2013, 12:11:24 PM »
What do you mean "If" I invented time travel

Guess he's currently working on it.

All you have to do is decide you want to build a time machine.  If you succeed you will get instant results.  I will tell you one thing, those pyramids are a mofo to build.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: If you invented Time Travel
« on: March 19, 2013, 12:02:50 PM »
What do you mean "If" I invented time travel

17
Flat Earth General / Re: RErs ... earn $10,000
« on: November 01, 2011, 05:36:38 PM »
Well you have an address Markjo and logicalskeptic. If you have all the answers, write him and tell him. It would be interesting to see if any of you can claim the money.

Wow... if that's still his address he lives about 20 minutes from me.

He lost me once he mentioned scripture.  You can't prove anything to a religious fanatic.
Religious fanatics still have money that is as fun to spend as anyone elses.

The test isnt whether they can correctly provide the answer, but whether this moron can comprehend it

18
That is true, in fact there are no examples that I can think of where the human eye is the best tool to determine anything.
This is its relevance.  You said nonsense.  Its the best tool for identifying known objects or unknown objects in your field of view.

As I said, this is your opinion.  Im pretty sure a robot eye connected to google can identify unknown objects faster than a human can identify objects that are unknown to it

19
the eye is useful for identifying known objects that are in the center of your field of view.  That has nothing to do with this conversation.

Identifying objects is not the same as determining distances and orientations

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: China
« on: October 31, 2011, 10:06:41 PM »
GPS tracking.
A GPS would be entirely as successful at describing your path on any map of the Earth. Case in point: Mercator is commonly used in GPS.

Mercator...  snort

21
The human eye is clearly the best tool for identifying almost everything in everyday experience.

Well, that is the opposite of reality, but most unscientific beliefs are

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: October 31, 2011, 03:48:03 PM »
The existence of a network of pseudolites consistent enough to replace satellites is definitely not proven. Even on this forum the evidence shown is nearing zero.

No one on this forum has presented evidence that satellites are broadcasting the signals. The evidence shown on this forum is nearing zero.

I have posted evidence from multi station gps tracking surveys that I have conducted that conclude the satellites altitude and speed are correct.

Source? GPS signals don't send out altitudes.

If you set up 3 receivers at 3 locations around 30km apart, you can tell when each satellite comes into your field of view.  This is a common survey practice, you can determine that the satellites almanac data is correct.  Then you record of all the data the satellite transmits while it is visible, then you can calculate speed, and altitude.

You can make the arguement that the satellite is very low (like in your pseudolites), but this would fail simple tests of structure masking.  You can note when valley walls, mountains, and buildings mask the signal.  It is also very easy to test and confirm the behavior of the 2 frequencies, which act as an additional check.

Would you like to discuss why there are only 4 satellites in each of the 6 orbits, and how each satellite is visible every 11 hours at a point along its orbit?

23
That is true, in fact there are no examples that I can think of where the human eye is the best tool to determine anything.  It is a useful tool for us, you can think of it as being similar as the human hands ability to freedraw a straight line, it works, kinda, but is definitely not the best way to do it.

24
But no cartographer can agree with you.
Most can, in fact. All maps in existence are projections.

Maps exist and coexist in many different scales. Apparently, this notion is alien to you.
Yes, including variable scales. Have you looked up what a Mercator projection is yet, or have I been wasting time mentioning it ever so often?

Ive been lurking and chuckling about the references to mercators.

I will let this go on a while longer before i pounce.


25
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: October 31, 2011, 02:09:27 PM »
The existence of a network of pseudolites consistent enough to replace satellites is definitely not proven. Even on this forum the evidence shown is nearing zero.

No one on this forum has presented evidence that satellites are broadcasting the signals. The evidence shown on this forum is nearing zero.

I have posted evidence from multi station gps tracking surveys that I have conducted that conclude the satellites altitude and speed are correct.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: October 31, 2011, 01:51:41 PM »
So little information about pseudolites. Do they even exist?

There isnt a lot of info as there isnt a lot of use for them, or many in existence.
Stop trolling. The fact that there are so many "satellite" televisions in the world demonstrate that there are lots of pseudolites and/or stratellites.

Actually, the existence of the pseudolites is a hypothesis, not a conclusion

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: October 31, 2011, 01:33:08 PM »
So little information about pseudolites. Do they even exist?

There isnt a lot of info as there isnt a lot of use for them, or many in existence.


28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The merged ultimate challenge for FE'ers
« on: October 31, 2011, 01:25:04 PM »
You can edit your post, and quote more posts in it, so you dont bury your own wall of statements....



I don't see the reason why you want to use anything more complicated than this.
It's not complicated at all. You're just dismissing it without even trying to think about it. It's like with people who say maths is hard because they don't pay attention in class.

Fortunately, I never had teachers like you.


Using the simples laws of geometry (and why should it be different because we are dealing with flat surfaces), we know that any distance in square F12 = the ones in V5.

This is valid using any scale.
Of course, including a variable scale, such as that of the Mercator map or the FE map.


Can someone explain this guy that we don't need a variable scale?

FE = flat map = euclidean geometry
Incorrect.


Can someone prove of disprove that guy?

Just imagine you take a photo of FE, from space.

Then you draw a map directly from the photo.

There you have your FE map.

I'd just like to see what it looks like.

29
i am 100% familiar with every detail of every fact involving the flat earth and atmolayer.

I probably have the answer you seek, as I have already invested 100% of the required time to research these facts

30
It doesn't work for you so Theodolite is trolling?
No. Like I said, I suspected that he was trolling. Now that others have confirmed that this picture is an illusion, I understand his point, even though I can't see it myself. Nonetheless, it's interesting that you would try to misinterpret my words like this.

Try the link, there is another illusion there.
Hmm, that kind of works, yeah.

And I'm not trolling, I provided significant evidence that zetecism is flawed due to the human eye being unreliable.
Oh, I absolutely agree. What we see with our eyes can serve as evidence, but not proof.

Also, no one has answered my question about putting stakes in line
Depends on what kind of precision you're expecting. I could probably make a good try, but it's likely to be imperfect.

Definitely, in fact the error is typically around 4 times greater then the average person imagines, due to people incorrectly believing/imagining that their field of view is 180 degrees

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29