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 - The Philosopher

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
61
Flat Earth Debate / Re: the equivalence principle . . .
« on: March 08, 2007, 01:14:40 PM »
This deserves its own thread.  He's evaluating the FE model with superior understanding of the equivalence principle, which FE'ers have begun referring to as much as the FAQ, and this could put a huge hole in the flat earth, so to speak.

62
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: and uh Why?
« on: March 07, 2007, 07:00:25 PM »
The Cavendish Experiment and the Sinking Ship effect is perfectly in tune with FE. These observations have been brought up countless times. The mechanisms were accurately described in Samuel Birley Robotham's book over one hundred years ago.
Care to respond to the last section of what I said?
Quote
It's not about making a comeback, it's about scientific advances.  Scientific experiments (such as the Cavendish experiment), as well as easily observable phenomena (ships hull, curvature of the horizon, et cetera), confirms the earth as a sphere, so long as the earth is not an anomaly of almost every pattern that can be observed in our universe.  The FE theory relies on this.
Why is Earth an anomaly to the rest of the universe?

Quote
Then, you must admit that there is considerable profit incentive to perpetuating the Round Earth Conspiracy.
I don't see how you interpreted what I said the way you did.  I simply mean I have my opinion and you have yours, and neither of us is going to change the other's mind because there's no real proof either of us can provide; this argument is based on pure speculation.  But continue twisting my words around however you please.  I'm getting used to it.

Quote
Maybe not war, but there have been lawsuits over the shape of the world.
Reference? (So long as it's from the past century)

Quote
Charles Johnson describes his reasons for believing in a Round Earth in his quarterly newsletter entitled Flat Earth News. There is a Newsletter archive in the Information Repository. Some of his theological arguments may be a bit iffy, but his scientific arguments are certainly sound.
Care to point me directly to one of his "sound" scientific arguments?

63
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 07, 2007, 06:46:04 PM »
That wikipedia article jogged my memory.  I remember learning about this paradox in a probability and game theory class. 

64
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coriolis force proves Spherical Earth
« on: March 07, 2007, 06:24:08 PM »
I'm just saying that the evidence in favor of the Coriolis Effect isn't exactly solid nor credible. It could be simply the result of a coincidence.

~D-Draw

Why don't you respond to the OP...
Another small-scale experiment anyone can do is stand with his/her back against the wind, lower air pressure will be to the left in the Northern hemisphere.  For example, if you hold a barometer with your back to the wind which is coming at you from the west, and your friend is around 50-100 miles north of you, you will see that your friend has a lower pressure reading.  This is due to the fact that air moves counter-clockwise around a low pressure center(Coriolis Effect).  This experiment is easier to observe with both of you on the same side of a frontal system.

I am happy to explain anything further.

65
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: March 07, 2007, 06:06:52 PM »
I don't understand what you mean by "believing in God because of Pascal's Wager" as I don't see how this is even possible. One can want to believe because of Pascal's wager, but belief in a proposition means that you actually think the proposition is true. Pascal's wager does not in any way help decide the question of whether the proposition "god exists" is true, it only suggests that we have a motive to try to believe it. That does not, in any way, make us think the proposition is any more likely than it was before we considered the wager.

Say someone was raised to believe in God, but began to question that belief.  If he was caught directly between the two possibilities, thinking both were equally likely, saw Pascal's Wager, and decided to believe in god, would his belief still be less valid?  It just helped him answer his original questioning of his faith.

66
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: horizons
« on: March 07, 2007, 05:39:47 PM »
Pictures don't prove anything. Here's an picture of the flat earth taken by Space Shuttle Endeavor from it's maiden flight on May 7th 1992, at an altitude of 195 nautical miles. It is an untouched photograph taken from a 35mm camera with a diagonal of 43 mm. It uses a normal lens of 50mm focal length. No zoom is applied.

http://i17.tinypic.com/2rwn4i1.jpg
(Bold emphasis mine) Umm... The EXIF data would suggest otherwise...

Haha nice call Ambassadork.

Tom, you're pretty good with Photoshop CS2.... You should get in on all that conspiracy money.

For everyone that wants to check, just save his image, go to properties, and go to summary.

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Roald Amundsen
« on: March 07, 2007, 01:12:09 PM »
To MooBs,
Do you understand that this forum is for serious debate and discussion.? Take your silliness to General Discussion.

His points are completely valid, most of them anyway.  Skrotnisse narrowed down the possibilities to suit what he believed, which is antithetical to the whole idea of trying to unveil the truth.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Roald Amundsen
« on: March 07, 2007, 12:06:09 PM »
No its not, tom bishop wouldn't have been able to eat his whole body, people struggle to eat a full meal let alone a fully grown adult

Q.E.D.

And to answer yer first question bacardi, picture yerself the Artic circle, that's the south Pole, the north pole dosent exist cus the world is flat. If ye think that the pole that dosent exist is the opposite off the pole that did exist, that would make the north pole that do exist the other south pole. And there is no such things as poles. Just as it would be on the opposit end to the cross section off the middle off the  earth. If ye divides the cosinus off the cross section with pi, ye get an idea off how hard it would be to make an magnetic field that stretches across a globe that dosent go counter clockwise. And that leads me to something i have wondered about.

Does the earth have an magnetic field?
1) Yes, the earth has a magnetic field.  Geographic north is magnetic south, and geographic south is magnetic north.
2) I couldn't really follow any of your rationale.  Could you word it a little more clearly?

69
The Lounge / Re: Statistics Center
« on: March 07, 2007, 12:03:44 PM »
WHERE ARE THE STATISTICS

Go to the forum index and at the bottom there's a statistics panel, just click to see more statistics.

70
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun as a Spotlight
« on: March 07, 2007, 11:55:47 AM »
Sometimes it's spotlight disk, sometimes it's a radiant sphere, other times it's a sphere that behaves like a spotlight. It all depends what suits the particular argument at the time.

So I've noticed, but I was hoping Tom would respond, since he's always invoking the sphere as a spotlight model.

71
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: March 07, 2007, 05:07:48 AM »
I get that, but I thought what you were trying to get across was that, why doesn't everyone accept that there is a God? I was displaying my opinion on the subject. I wasn't debating the reason for religion here.
I must have misinterpreted what you said.  The question I'm asking now, though, is regarding this hypothetical situation:
Quote
A person, who was previously unsure, decided to believe in God (in ADDITION to following church laws) because of Pascal's Wager.  His belief is sincere, he just decided to believe in it (possibly instead of being agnostic) due to logic.
Is his belief any less valid, just because he agreed with the logic of Pascal's Wager?  He still believes in God out of faith.  His decision to believe (since he was previously unsure), however, was rooted in both faith and reason.

72
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: March 07, 2007, 04:52:38 AM »
The problem is that religion was introduced to humanity, it was not something innate in the human being, so not everyone will accept it as the truth.

I don't know what you mean.  I personally think religion was the most primitive form of government.

73
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 07, 2007, 04:40:58 AM »
What about liquid metal, or liquid nitrogen?

74
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: March 07, 2007, 04:27:39 AM »
But if they're believing because of Pascal's wager, are they actually believing, or are they just pretending to believe in case it turns out that the form of Christianity they're following is correct?  If they actually believe, I don't see how it could be because of Pascal's wager.
Like I said in the hypothetical situation described above, the person decided to believe for a different reason, but he still sincerely believes.  He was previously unsure about whether or not to believe in God, and after seeing Pascal's wager he decided to believe.  His belief in God is just as sincere, he just came to believe it in a different way.

One of the problems I have with Pascal's Wager is that it's based in the pre-supposition of the Christian god. There are how many deities (or representations of deities or however you want to word it) out there? 100s? 1000s?

What if Pascal's Wager applies more to Zeus?

As stated above:
Quote
You're right, though, this wager only truly works for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity).  Any religion that claims the existence of positive and negative consequences to your actions fits this rationale though.

Quote
IMO, it's a pathetic attempt on the part of Christianity to convert through subterfuge.
If it was created with this purpose in mind, I might agree with you.

75
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: March 06, 2007, 11:11:43 PM »
I'd say yes, it is a lesser form of faith.
Just thinking "I'd be shot to hell if he was true and I didn't believe him, so I better go to mass now" is wrong.
Unfortunately, knowing about Pascal's Wager makes you think like that, so if you have read about Pascal's Wager and believe in god, your reasons will always be tainted by Pascal's Wager.

Therefore, you have doomed all god-fearing people who have read this thread.:P
Only if those people have no mental strength

Anyway, I'm not talking about a person obeying all the church laws because of Pascal's Wager.  I'm describing a hypothetical situation in which a person, who was previously unsure, decided to believe in God (in ADDITION to following church laws) because of Pascal's Wager.  His belief is sincere, he just decided to believe in it (possibly instead of being agnostic) due to logic.

If this were a lesser form of faith, then all faiths that arose after birth would be lesser faiths.  Most people that have faith gained it for one reason or another during their lives.  I don't see why logic should be a less valid way of deciding to believe something.

76
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: March 06, 2007, 10:55:54 PM »
Pascal's Wager is useless, since god is supposedly an omnipotent and omniscient being. Being omniscient, he knows if your reasons for praising and believing him are pure and true (purer faith), and could act accordingly (to hell with you, muhuhuhahahah!).

Ok I guess I'll rephrase what I previously said, and quoted.  If a person is unsure about whether or not to believe in God and rationalizes their decision to believe in God with the logic of Pascal's wager, is this a lesser form of faith?  I think they would be the same.  Even if a person justifies his decision to believe in God with Pascal's wager, he still believes in God out of faith.

77
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: March 06, 2007, 10:24:29 PM »
Another significant problem with the wager is the fact that bible clearly states that you have to believe in Jesus/God in your heart.  Simply following the teachings of the bible is not enough, according to the bible, to get into heaven.  So if you follow Christianity based on Pascal's wager, you're still going to hell.

Quote from: The Philosopher link=topic=11262.msg142708#msg142708
I agree that believing something due to logic or believing something due to faith are two completely different experiences.  What if a person was unsure what to believe, though?  Could a person use reason to justify his or her accepting a belief on blind faith, and would THIS be the same experience as believing something solely on faith?

78
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 09:31:14 PM »
The substance it conveys is subject to constant change as nutrients are absorbed. Unlike the oil pipe which delivers all of it's substance, the intestines only deliver a fraction of it's substance.

But the nutrients that are absorbed enter other, smaller pipes.  One might say our bodies are an incredibly complex system of pipes, at least our circulatory, respiratory, digestive, excretory, lymphatic, and reproductive systems.  All in all, they form a very controlled system.

79
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: March 06, 2007, 09:23:28 PM »
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?

I agree that believing something due to logic or believing something due to faith are two completely different experiences.  What if a person was unsure what to believe, though?  Could a person use reason to justify his or her accepting a belief on blind faith, and would THIS be the same experience as believing something solely on faith?

You're right, though, this wager only truly works for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity).  Any religion that claims the existence of positive and negative consequences to your actions fits this rationale though.

The point of the wager is that it doesn't matter in the end if you're wrong, because the loss here on earth would be finite. Also, you would have had the same probability of being wrong from choosing to believe in any other deity or force (provided there's no logical evidence to indicate that one religion is more likely to be true than another), with the promise of similar punishments and rewards.

This doesn't reflect any of my personal beliefs, by the way.

80
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Pascal's Wager
« on: March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM »
Quote
  •     * You believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
        * You do not believe in God.
              o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
              o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?



81
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 08:52:44 PM »
The Pipe IS a controlled environment, regardless of the environment the pipe exists in.

Example A: The oil pipe that runs through Alaska. It pipes a substance through a hostile environment.

Example B: An intestinal track. Because the environment is not controlled (the intestines digest and absorb neutriants all along the way, thereby gradually reducing what is being "piped" through) it is not a pipe.
I would argue that the intestine IS a pipe, though.  It's just a pipe that functions in a more complex manner.

82
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 08:40:48 PM »
A pipe is a tubular object used to convey a physical substance from one location to another in a controlled environment. This substance can be a solid, a liquid, a gas, or a plasma.
So a pipe outside of a controlled environment would cease to be a pipe?

To make a serious comment pertaining to the real discussion at hand, I see where you are going with this discussion but I believe you displayed it with the wrong example. A pipe is something that is taken for what it is and nothing else.

Language itself as abstract as it can be interpreted differently by anyone. One person my interpret it one way, and another may another. This is displayed in a Rorschach Inkblot test, as people interpret the same blobs as different figures.
A pipe can also be interpreted differently by everyone.  I'm sure some people would be unwilling to stop calling a cat a cat even if it was hollowed out with the intent to smoke out of it (or transport liquid).

Consider, for example, the sentence, "If this sentence is true, then Yetis live in Alaska." If the sentence is true, then it's true that "If this sentence is true, then Yetis live in Alaska", and the sentence is true, so Yetis must live in Alaska. But since it's true that Yetis live in Alaska if the sentence is true, and that's exactly the content of the sentence, the sentence is true. Therefore, Yetis live in Alaska.

That is an interesting example, but it doesn't make sense.  The first example cannot be reasoned because the first clause refers to nothing that can be proven true or false.  Yetis living in Alaska has nothing to do with the truth of the sentence.  The truth about whether or not Yetis live in Alaska can only be ascertained once the truth of the first clause is determined.  Maybe you just didn't word it right or I'm not properly understanding you.

83
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 07:21:53 PM »
I thought it might start an interesting discussion, i guess not though

84
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 06:50:32 PM »

.....It's about the abstract nature of language

85
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 06:02:00 PM »
You can take a pipe off, and then smoke from it though. So it is feasible to smoke from a pipe.

Not if it's bigger than your head  ;D

Do you really think this is what the threads about?

86
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 05:56:36 PM »
What about black pipe and copper pipe. Those arent used for smoking. Theyre used for PIPING!

Hypothetically, you could smoke from them...

Not while water if flowing through them.  Unless you'd call pipes something different when water flows through them.


87
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 05:29:00 PM »
So I can hollow out a cat and you would accept naming it a pipe?

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: and uh Why?
« on: March 06, 2007, 05:14:52 PM »
I must note here that most Flat Earth proponents are non-theists. Samuel Birley Robotham himself was an athiest. None of his work in Earth Not a Globe was inspired by a religion. The four cornered earth described in the Bible may be flat, but it is vastly different than the current FE model. Most Flat Earth Proponents you will meet on these forums do not base their flat earth beliefs from religious texts.

If the Conspiracy were to have gone the religious angle, its books might have garnered some attention, but ultimately it wouldn't have been a hit. By the 1800's the world's media was already immersed in religion. Publishing a book supporting a religious topic would have hardly batted an eye.

The Conspiracy knew exactly what it was doing in fabricating its lies. Its theories were calculated to be intriguing, yet sensible enough that a common man might take a second look at the publication in the book store. As you can see, the idea of a Round Earth caught on. Today children are brainwashed with Round Earth propaganda at the age of three. The entire world is so obsessed with the idea of a Round Earth that is is much too late for the Flat Earth to make a comeback.
1) I don't think "The Conspiracy" knew anything... or is it now a sentient being?
2) It's not about making a comeback, it's about scientific advances.  Scientific experiments (such as the Cavendish experiment), as well as easily observable phenomena (ships hull, curvature of the horizon, et cetera), confirms the earth as a sphere, so long as the earth is not an anomaly of almost every pattern that can be observed in our universe.  The FE theory relies on this.
3) I have no further argument about the logic behind the conspiracy as it isn't going anywhere.

Quote
Round Earthers are so adamant about the shape of the earth, yet they cannot show one iota of proof to support their claims. The earth is round just because. It's an inherent belief stronger than any religion. A religion so strong that a Round Earther never questions the shape of the earth even once in their life. At least the idea of God is questioned.
1) Support above.  How 'bout yours? I heard you say in one thread that one of Rowbotham's experiments could not be explained by the RE model.  Im interested to hear what he did and the conclusions he drew.
2) Nobody ever went to war over the shape of the earth.
3) I would argue that the FE model is founded on blind faith rather than the RE model.  Read this article by your former president Charles Johnson:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

He talks about how senseless the RE theory is, just as you are, without giving a single reason why he believes that.  It must have been hard for that author to write 7 pages about nothing but speculation and denunciation.

I personally like this quote:
Quote
"Wherever you find people with a great reservoir of common sense," he says, "they don't believe idiotic things such as the earth spinning around the sun. Reasonable, intelligent people have always recognized that the earth is flat."

He pauses for a sip of coffee, his eyes sparkling with animation.

89
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 04:16:59 PM »
How do you define what a pipe is?

90
Philosophy, Religion & Society / This is Not a Pipe
« on: March 06, 2007, 03:11:35 PM »

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5