Is there any disadvantage if science was served as it is?

Textbook writers are clowns, they act as if they were novel writers and then students go perverted. Technocrats are dreaming.

So what's the point of this tragedy?
Is it a necessary lie or what? 🤔

This tragedy of science stems from a rather arcane source imho. The Book of Revelation. Let's explain, since ppl won't get it otherwise. The Jewish people grew out of a culture that looked around at people's potential to destroy themselves. We can only assume that like in the Noah movie, they used to have factories. In their own history, they had prophecies of both victory against their enemies and destruction. This stems our of their historical tendency to get enslaved by other people or lose wars whenever they lost their sense of national pride (especially when they worshipped other gods). You might wonder why I am talking about the Jews. Well, around the point of Roman occupation, a man named Jesus told them that the defenders of their national culture (the Pharisees) had basically become enormous hypocrites and predicted the destruction of their temple. We'll set aside divine claims of this man for the time being and just talk about his place in history. He was kinda right. The Roman Empire faced against the Jews who hadn't turned from their ways and become Christians. The Christians tended to turn the other cheek. The Jews fought back and were slaughtered quite a bit, then their temple was smashed up. Here's something you probably don't know about. There were three signs against the temple (the cloth that the priests could turn white stayed red meaning sins of the Jews were not forgiven, the doors of the temple swung open meaning the security of the people was not guaranteed, and the light of the temple that was to stay lit burnt out meaning God withdraw his favor). Revelation is not a Christian book. It's actually a book written by Jewish "Christians" about Gentiles. It's a fantasy about revenge. But this paved the way for self-destructive apocalyptic thinking. Either hedonism ( " we're all gonna die so I'm gonna make as big a mess as I can! ") or alarmism ("we need to be safe and keep those stress levels up") or a sense of religious hypocrisy (like the Pharisees). What you aren't hearing is the Good News that death holds no claim on us. Technocracy and globalism grew out of control groups. People who read this, saw God as an enemy to be opposed, and made world governments ironically alot like these systems.  Tomorrowland is a good movie to watch. Revelation is something that could happen, if we feed the wrong wolf. But this isn't the option we want or need.

Textbook writers are clowns, they act as if they were novel writers and then students go perverted. Technocrats are dreaming.

And why do you say they are clowns? Because they accept facts like pi is roughly 3.14 which doesn't match your fantasy?

This tragedy of science stems from a rather arcane source imho.

No, it doesn't.
Instead it stems from an honest attempt to try to understand the world.

As that understanding doesn't match your fantasy, you look for whatever excuse you can to reject it.

@bulmabriefs144
Good point. All the nation are being busy with quarrels which makes their potentials got hidden, mostly the theme of quarrels is just a small issue.

The effort to make school like a joke, is to make truth hidden. In fact truth is the best weapon to beat darkness.

It's always interesting when hearing "death holds no claim on us." 
Can you explain it please?

@JackBlack
Your calculation is right, but since the size of everything gets bigger and bigger all the time and in every moment, while your experiment refers to the present size, you'll always have difficulty to find 3.14.

@bulmabriefs144
Good point. All the nation are being busy with quarrels which makes their potentials got hidden, mostly the theme of quarrels is just a small issue.

The effort to make school like a joke, is to make truth hidden. In fact truth is the best weapon to beat darkness.

It's always interesting when hearing "death holds no claim on us." 
Can you explain it please?

I'd suggest reading this passage (focus on where it says Report of the Guards). Then think about why it was that Jesus's resurrection has to be covered up by the ruling powers.
https://www.biblehub.com/bsb/matthew/28.htm
Jesus died ostensibly for not paying taxes, and for disputing the religious authorities, leading both the Romans and the Jews to have a case against him.

But I want you to think about this. Suppose you are a state official, and you have just sent a person who everyone says is innocent to lethal injection. It's bad enough that most of the public disagrees with your judgement. But what if the injection doesn't take? You've just lost all your reputation.

Rome at those times had a similar problem. Not for lack of trying, because they indeed did kill the guy. So think about this. Most oppressive regimes rule by fear.
Only really good ones rule by consent of the governed, and as they become more corrupt, bad leaders undermine that principle, as they want to be kings. So if you don't bother with consent of the governed (foolish not to, but dictators are foolish), you necessarily have to rule using fear.
Okay, so what happens when despite killing someone, it doesn't take (there have been cases of people who were dead coming back to life and clawing at the inside of their coffin, so this isn't complete miracle)? Naturally, if he came back and it was exposed, this would undermine their power. But if more people began to raise from the dead? Rome would lose ALL power. How can you threaten to kill people if they don't obey your rules... if you can't kill people?

This is precisely why brutal dictatorships always outlaw supernatural faith, or try to discredit it. Not just Christianity, but anything with a developed afterlife system. It's a threat to their fear system.

By extension, this means that the motive of trying to convince the public that nothing supernatural exists has a hidden agenda of later trying to rule them by fear. Religion is necessary for a free state, because without the governed being afraid of their government, consent must be granted by the governed. Dictatorships give way to more civilized republics. Whereas secular science leads to brutalist powers.

Lastly, there is a great myth that religion is somehow opposed to science. But as some books (The Discoverers, for example) have pointed out, science came about as a result of religion that believed it was possible to know God and understand his creation. Islam is somewhat anti-science ( but more importantly, they don't believe we can know God or his creation). Likewise, as science secularizes, the things that are developed are not created with humans in mind. Defective or unsafe inventions. Or things used for war, rather than human progess. Or things that create nuisance to life (I've spoken before about the tendency of plastic to clutter nature with toxic waste that ends up in oceans). Ethical science springs from ideas where life is sacred.

Your calculation is right, but since the size of everything gets bigger and bigger all the time and in every moment, while your experiment refers to the present size, you'll always have difficulty to find 3.14.

Things don't magically get bigger all the time.

It's always interesting when hearing "death holds no claim on us." 
Can you explain it please?

They are appealing to their religious BS.
The same kind of BS which allows absolute tyranny, where people claim they are appointed by God or have a God given right do control others.
Where people are sentenced to death for heresy and apostacy.
Where lives are seen as worthless with leaders happy to throw people to their deaths for conquests.
Where you can convince people to kill themselves in terrorist attacks.

Nothing to be proud of.

This is precisely why brutal dictatorships always outlaw supernatural faith, or try to discredit it.

Pure BS.
Most cling to it, with a claim that they are permitted to rule by right of God.

Religion is necessary for a free state

No, religion is necessary for a dictatorship where the governed are conned into believing the dictator is there by right of God.
When there isn't an existing religion for that, they just make a new one.
An actual free state does not need religion.
This is why we see some of the most brutal regions, like Saudi Arabia, are quite religious. Even places like North Korea are "religious" in the sense of establishing a cult like following of their supreme leader.
Conversely, more free locations are less religious, having a larger portion of the population being atheist and not enforcing a religion through the state.

Lastly, there is a great myth that religion is somehow opposed to science.

That isn't a myth.
Religions support science until science shows the religion is wrong; then science is opposed by the religion.
Even Islam, which you deem to be anti-science, had a golden age where they allowed scientific pursuit. This was supported by Mo valuing education.
In this age, Al-Biruni determined the radius of Earth, using the angle of dip to the horizon.
But those in power eventually realised religion was a way to keep it and science doesn't help with that and in fact makes it harder.

Likewise, as science secularizes, the things that are developed are not created with humans in mind. Defective or unsafe inventions. Or things used for war, rather than human progess. Or things that create nuisance to life (I've spoken before about the tendency of plastic to clutter nature with toxic waste that ends up in oceans). Ethical science springs from ideas where life is sacred.

Pure BS.
People have tried to make "unsafe inventions", things used for war, for eons. Look at a sword, and the development of weapons like that.
That was long before any secularisation.
With religion life is not sacred.
With religion life is worthless and can be tossed aside.
That is because with religion, you believe in an afterlife. Where if you are good, such as getting in killed in the line of duty to your king/god, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. Where if you make a mistake and kill someone who was innocent, then it doesn't matter as they will be better off in the afterlife.
But without that BS, this life is all you have.

See, these are the sort of people who are employed by this Deep State that wants to keep you in fear. Appeals to lies, and appeals to fear of death. America was founded on the principle of consent of the governed, an idea that more or less goes back to the Magna Carta, a charter made under the church, against the idea of the king having absolute power. The Magna Carta was drafted to defend the rights of free men, and to bind the king to the rule of law. But what I have seen under COVID is the true face of globalism. A system where tin pot tyrants basically use the power of fear to bully people into compliance. You might wanna read up on what happens to dictators before you try that. Dictatorships fall apart, ironically because when someone uses fear as their primary tool to assert power, rule of law, civility, and all the rest fly out the window. The more they make people afraid, the more afraid they become of their people. Turning the other cheek is a luxury on your behalf. If people really stop being afraid of death, and you've been bullying them, expect to be in for alot of pain. So dictators never take any risks. Given an approach that in the long run makes people easier to rule (letting them have fun, letting them worship whatever religion they want) and in the long run makes people much harder to rule, they choose the latter. That sounds insane, but short run results of trying to stamp out religion and replace it with fear of state is that you can bully them to work harder. But dictators often have to answer to the oligarchs that put them in power, for failure means they abruptly get killed. And those oligarchs better hope nobody knows where they live. In a democracy, presidents can expect to write their memoirs. But as a republic becomes a dictatorship, that's off the table. You're lucky if you get to retire.

They are appealing to their religious BS.
The same kind of BS which allows absolute tyranny, where people claim they are appointed by God or have a God given right do control others.

Your problem, Jack Black is that you buy the official claptrap in history class, and don't bother to understand that constitutional monarchy was set up by the church. That the king's power is limited by all those ceremonies. If the king really had divine right, China would tell you a story about mandate of heaven, and how that divine right can easily be lost. You've seen that coronation ceremony, how it takes place in the church, and how the archbishop basically signs off on the king? What do you think would happen if during the ceremony, you managed to piss off the archbishop? Likely, he declares you ineligible, and the next in line is chosen.

It is a myth that religion is opposed to science. If you chase down this myth, you find that it originate in about the 18th century by some pop theorist. Then you have alot of revisionist history about Copernicus or Galileo being hunted down by the church. Are you aware that they were employed by the church?
https://www.chicagocatholic.com/vatican/-/article/2018/07/05/church-has-long-history-of-supporting-science

The religious orders have nurtured scientists and their work for more than a thousand years. Among the scientific writings of 12th-century Benedictine abbess St. Hildegard of Bingen are a catalog of the local plants and animals, and a primitive theory of evolution. In 1979, St. John Paul II called her a "a light for her people and time," and in 2012, Pope Benedict XVI added her to the church's formal list of saints and recognized her as one of the 36 doctors of the church, for both her spiritual and scientific insights.

More than a thousand years. But some crackpot says religion and science are at war, so it must be so. I'll bet you don't have the nerve to call Islam out on being anti-science and backward, or call them a brutal bunch of thugs. This is a religion opposed to science. Christian faith is not, nor is Judaism.

What they are  opposed to is technocracy. The idea of science being a god in itself, and we must all "follow the science" when it leads to tyranny. 

See, these are the sort of people who are employed by this Deep State that wants to keep you in fear.

You mean by this deep cult.
With you routinely lying, and appealing to fear to try to scare people into your cult.

America was founded on the principle of consent of the governed

And a key part of that was freedom of and from religion.
To go against the King that was the head of the Church of England and claims to govern by the right of God.

But what I have seen under COVID is the true face of globalism.

No, you haven't.
You are yet again trying to pretend everything you don't like is globalism.
You have seen a result of globalism, where an illness in one location can very quickly spread to others.

That sounds insane, but short run results of trying to stamp out religion and replace it with fear of state is that you can bully them to work harder.

Again, dictators often use religion, claiming they are working for God, and that if you defy them, you are defying God and not only will suffer in this life, but in the afterlife as well.

Your problem, Jack Black is that you buy the official claptrap in history class

You mean I don't just wilfully reject reality.

constitutional monarchy was set up by the church.

Except it wasn't to do anything like what you pretend.
Do you know what the Magna Carte originally was?
A treaty to have the King "respect" barons.
Not ordinary people, just other rulers.
And it was so the Church can retain power.

You've seen that coronation ceremony, how it takes place in the church, and how the archbishop basically signs off on the king? What do you think would happen if during the ceremony, you managed to piss off the archbishop? Likely, he declares you ineligible, and the next in line is chosen.

i.e. it is a dictatorship lead by the church.

It is a myth that religion is opposed to science.

No, it isn't.
It is a fact based upon the contradictions between religion and science.
Religion will support science to a limited extent. When it starts showing the religion is wrong, then it starts opposing it.
Until eventually enough people from that religion cave and basically admit their religion is BS by trying to modify it to match reality or more specifically what is known about reality through science, and then they can support it some more.

That is not really being supportive of science.
That is being supportive of inquiry into the natural world to back up your cult.
If they were really supportive of science, they would accept when the science shows the religion is wrong.
Instead, they had the conclusions already made, and wanted to find evidence to support it.
That is not scientific.

Again, it is about control.
They want to be in control, to choose what findings are made known and which should be buried to keep the church in power.

Then you have alot of revisionist history about Copernicus or Galileo being hunted down by the church. Are you aware that they were employed by the church?

And what happened when their findings conflicted with doctrine?

I'll bet you don't have the nerve to call Islam out on being anti-science and backward, or call them a brutal bunch of thugs. This is a religion opposed to science. Christian faith is not, nor is Judaism.

Then you clearly haven't seen my post history and just what I have said about Islam.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are in the same relationship with science.
They will happily "support" science when they think it can support them. But they will oppose it when they perceive it to be a threat.

What they are  opposed to is technocracy. The idea of science being a god in itself, and we must all "follow the science" when it leads to tyranny.

And that is yet another lie from you.
Science never tries to be a god.
And following the science does not lead to tyranny.
It is always a choice by a person, not science itself, which leads to tyranny.
Science can only tell you what is and what will be. It cannot tell you what you ought to do.

e.g. with COVID, it can tell you that there is a virus which has a significant ability to infect people and kill people.
It can tell you that if you do nothing, the virus will spread, infect a very large number of people, and kill a substantial number.
It can tell you that if you implement various protective measures, that will limit the spread, or reduce the number of people who are infected, or reduce the strain on the hospital system.
It can even give you some indication of what various protective measures will do.

But even with that, it cannot tell you what do to.
That requires a choice by a person.
Someone could value freedom, and refuse to put in any restrictions, and just let loads of people die.
Others could value life, and put in quite severe restrictions with severe penalties for violating them, and try to stop the spread.
This would have also been very minimal if they did it right at the start.
Others could value remaining in power, and not really care about freedom and life.
They wouldn't want to be seen as over-reacting, so they will do nothing initially and let people die. Then only once enough people die will they actually start to do anything about it, after which it will be too late.

Likewise, science can allow you to understand nuclear energy.
It is then the choice of people if they want to make weapons from it or powerplants, or nothing.

If "God" really ordained you as king, wouldn't he have said so?

Instead, absolute monarchies by divine right have a strong tendency to fail. This should tell you loads about the implication of claiming God appointed you to reign.

In actual fact, we humans do not have the right to rule over each other. (1 Samuel 8 ) We have a privilege of rulership granted by other people, which can be taken away any time they no longer want to be ruled.

The same goes for "heresy." This is priests behaving as though they are kings, setting down rules for the people.

You're forever blaming God for what people do.

Learn the difference. God created the world, makes living things live, and gives us minds to reason morality.
Human priests tell us what God does or doesn't like, as though they have a monopoly.

Answer this question: what problem does God have with pork?

If "God" really ordained you as king, wouldn't he have said so?

Conveniently, there is no evidence of any gods existing, and they don't tend to talk to people at all.

Instead, absolute monarchies by divine right have a strong tendency to fail.

Given enough time. Typically giving way to a democratic system.

In actual fact, we humans do not have the right to rule over each other. (1 Samuel 8 )

You appeal to a story, where God made someone king, and how rejecting the king means rejecting God, to try claiming people don't have a right to rule?
A story about choosing a king causing suffering to the people, rather than accepting their god appointed king?

That sure seems to be opposing the idea of a king/ruler chosen by the people, and instead advocating for a ruler chosen by God.

The same goes for "heresy." This is priests behaving as though they are kings, setting down rules for the people.
You're forever blaming God for what people do.

If you want to accept reality, and accept that religions are just made up by people, then yes, it is people.
However, if you want to believe that a god exists and made rules like the 10 commandments, then it is god.

Answer this question: what problem does God have with pork?

You can do that about anything.
What problem does God have with worshiping other gods?
What problem does God have with people working on the Sabbath?
What problem does God have with beating a slave to within an inch of death?
What problem does God have with rape?
What problem does God have with murder?
What problem does God have with people eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
What problem does God have with homosexuality?

Conveniently, there is no evidence of any gods existing, and they don't tend to talk to people at all.

DNA, theory of evolution, Big Bang, complexity of life, the fact that the carbon dioxide in the air doesn't decide to turn into diamond rain and slice you open. All of these are evidence that there is a God.

As for being able to talk to you, a number of religious ideas (Atman and Paramatman, Jiva and Ajiva, Holy Spirit) say that God indwells in the human spirit. You're talking to God right now. Indirectly of course. Anything you actually wanna ask him? Aside from that, God is know for occasionally giving people significant dreams and even warning them through such things. Occasionally, prophets can piece out (slightly) more of what God wants. Maybe.

Given enough time. Typically giving way to a democratic system.

Like most liberals, you are under the delusion you live in a democracy. While I dunno what country you live in (probably US) but most civilized countries based on the US model are constitutional republics. We vote for electors based on districts. Democracy is summed up as a lynch mob. A bunch of people tyrannizing the population minority is not the system you live in. Nor would you want to. It's far too easy to be on the wrong side of that. Democracy is currently hard at work not defending the rights of Jew-haters to be Jew-haters, causing them to lose their jobs as people report on them. This is a democracy. Not the organized system where you vote at elections.

You appeal to a story, where God made someone king, and how rejecting the king means rejecting God, to try claiming people don't have a right to rule?

You might want to try actually opening that book once in awhile instead of assuming you know what it says. Context: Jews asked God's prophet for a king, Samuel (prophet in question) brought back word that God said that kings will take all your stuff, use your women for his pleasure, and all the men for war. He tells them they'll complain, but God will basically say "told you so". They persisted, so they got the kings they wants. Translation: God's own feeling about kings is that no, they aren't elected by him. They just say they are. Ironically, you talk all about how divine right of kings is so terrible, but you never condemn the practice of having leaders.

You can do that about anything.

Nope. What problem does God have with pork?

It's a simple question. And it answers all the other ones.

He doesn't.

 God made pigs, by the very account of the same book that tells at one point not to eat pork. The warning only extends to avoiding trichinosis by thoroughly ensuring the cleanliness of the meat. You can also get trichinosis from wild game though.
Why would God make something and then forbid it?

This was a prohibition that had to do with Jewish culture. Either Moses loathed pork for some reason, or he was playing a prank on the Jews, or the lot of them got worms so many times there had to be a law about it.
Likewise, homosexuality may give you AIDS. Masturbation may make you drained. Many of these laws were medically based.

These laws aren't from God. Our ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong (i.e. making judgement calls) is from God. You're resenting a bunch of humans for telling other humans what to do, yet you have not respected my right not to have a vaccine or not to have a smart meter.

In other words, you resent "God" for telling people what to do, but are all too eager to order people around yourself. Hypocrisy.

DNA, theory of evolution, Big Bang, complexity of life, the fact that the carbon dioxide in the air doesn't decide to turn into diamond rain and slice you open.

Great job listing a bunch of things which are in no way evidence of a god.

As for being able to talk to you, a number of religious ideas (Atman and Paramatman, Jiva and Ajiva, Holy Spirit) say that God indwells in the human spirit. You're talking to God right now. Indirectly of course. Anything you actually wanna ask him? Aside from that, God is know for occasionally giving people significant dreams and even warning them through such things.

Or, more likely you are just "talking" to your imagination.
There is no reason at all to think it is a god.

Like most liberals, you are under the delusion you live in a democracy. While I dunno what country you live in (probably US) but most civilized countries based on the US model are constitutional republics. We vote for electors based on districts. Democracy is summed up as a lynch mob. A bunch of people tyrannizing the population minority is not the system you live in. Nor would you want to. It's far too easy to be on the wrong side of that. Democracy is currently hard at work not defending the rights of Jew-haters to be Jew-haters, causing them to lose their jobs as people report on them. This is a democracy. Not the organized system where you vote at elections.

There are different levels of democracy. A constitutional republic counts as one.
It is indirect democracy, where you elect people to represent you. But it still has elements of more direct democracy, such as changing the constitution.

You might want to try actually opening that book once in awhile instead of assuming you know what it says.

Good advice, maybe you should follow it.

Context: Jews asked their current God appointed leader for a new king. God objected and said that when you ask for relief from the king YOU HAVE CHOSEN FOR YOURSELF, he will say no.
i.e. God chooses, not you.

but you never condemn the practice of having leaders.

That depends on exactly what these leaders are doing.

Quote

You can do that about anything.

Nope. What problem does God have with pork?
It's a simple question. And it answers all the other ones.
He doesn't.

Which really means YOU don't.
You are rejecting God and replacing it with you.
You ask yourself what problem does God have with X. If you can't think of one, you think it is fine.
If you can think of one, regardless of how good it is, you can then say God forbids it.

Why would God make something and then forbid it?

Why would God make the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and then forbid eating it?
Why would God make anal sex pleasurable, and then forbit it?
Why did God make mankind with a foreskin and demand it get cut off?

The answer is simple, but does depend on if you want to believe a god exists or not.
If you do, the answer is simple, God likes fucking with people. Just like he loved tormenting the Egyptians to show off.
If you don't, then the answer is simple, someone pretending to be God made that rule for whatever reason.

This was a prohibition that had to do with Jewish culture. Either Moses loathed pork for some reason, or he was playing a prank on the Jews, or the lot of them got worms so many times there had to be a law about it.
Likewise, homosexuality may give you AIDS. Masturbation may make you drained. Many of these laws were medically based.

And if God made AIDS, surely it must be good.

See, there would be the option of God not making those worms, or making it so mankind can eat such parasites without it being an issue.
Homosexuality does not magically give you aids.
You need to have sex with someone with HIV. And that includes heterosexual and homosexual sex.
But again, god could have chosen not to make HIV.
And that certainly isn't the reason for its prohibition in the Bible given HIV is a relatively new occurance, long after the Bible.

These laws aren't from God.

That's right, they are laws from men. Men who appealed to a god to try to make the laws more persuasive.

Our ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong (i.e. making judgement calls) is from God.

No, its from evolution. And it varies from person to person.
Some people think homosexuality is fine. Others think it is an abomination.

yet you have not respected my right not to have a vaccine or not to have a smart meter.

As I have said repeatedly, if you don't want a smart meter, tell the power company to disconnect you, and go off grid.
You are not respecting their right to use whatever meter they want to bill you for the service they are providing you which you want.
As for not having a vaccine, if you keep away from society, that is fine. But if you want to interact with society, rules can be put in place to restrict what you can do; and during a pandemic it is the right of society to decide those who are not vaccinated are not allowed to interact with it.
You seem to just expect to be able to do as you please and demand others fall in line.

In other words, you resent "God" for telling people what to do, but are all too eager to order people around yourself. Hypocrisy.

None of that is true.

Great job listing a bunch of things which are in no way evidence of a god.

Right, because pointing out several things that are so nuanced that them happening on their own is a statistical impossibility is not at all proof of God.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 28, 2023, 07:36:47 PM

As for being able to talk to you, a number of religious ideas (Atman and Paramatman, Jiva and Ajiva, Holy Spirit) say that God indwells in the human spirit. You're talking to God right now. Indirectly of course. Anything you actually wanna ask him? Aside from that, God is know for occasionally giving people significant dreams and even warning them through such things.

Or, more likely you are just "talking" to your imagination.
There is no reason at all to think it is a god.

As in, you have plenty of things you'd like to ask, but fear keeps you in the delusion that because something can't be seen, it must be imaginary. There are plenty of things that can't be seen, but God is not one of them. Having worked through the idea of God being imaginary myself, I came to realize there is a difference between something actually being imaginary, and something being omnipresent. Quarks have never actually been directly detected, yet you accept they exist. Science uses dark matter, antimatter, dark energy, and so on to explain this unified theory of how things work. But alot of this simply can't be proved to exist. Imaginary. Go outsid, walk in the forest at night. God is omnipresent. You'll see the moon, the night sky, the wind brushing the trees, the wolf as it attacks you. In that moment, you'll know God is all around you, and that he provided easy prey for this doggo.

There are different levels of democracy. A constitutional republic counts as one.
It is indirect democracy, where you elect people to represent you. But it still has elements of more direct democracy, such as changing the

  Oh wow. I thought I was the only one who manages to make dangling paragraphs. But no. Democracy is not sime blanket term for civilized government. I means "rule by the people." The very people who proposed a republic mentioned that a real democracy is the worst sort of government. The only way you can actually make a real democracy ( and by that, I mean "doesn't suck") is when you don't have government official or Deep State leaders. What this looks like: rather than a president or other leader, you have no human veto system at all. A ballot is sent out for every law imaginable. There are no leaders above the law, so no secret government with a vested interest to, say, raise taxes. Anyone can type up a law and send it in, volunteers scan it into a computer, computer prints it off, and the public basically does the job of Congress and Senate. Already, you should see this is quite different from a republic. Three major problems with this: (1) to be an actual democracy and not a figurative one , no oversight is allowed so any law at all can be passed, including mandating public nudity; (2) whatever the majority says, you have to do; (3) you have to vote on EVERYTHING, unless abstaining is allowed. Because of the last one in particular, most people don't want to do a real democracy, so what democracy really looks like is a mob beating people up because civilized state didn't do what they want.

Good advice, maybe you should follow it.

Context: Jews asked their current God appointed leader for a new king. God objected and said that when you ask for relief from the king YOU HAVE CHOSEN FOR YOURSELF, he will say no.
i.e. God chooses, not you.

The same God that you say doesn't exist. Hmmmm. Now who is delusional? You tell me God can't be proven but then you blame God for poor political choices. Seems as though I understand that when I make a choice of leader, I cannot blame God for what happens.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 28, 2023, 07:36:47 PM

but you never condemn the practice of having leaders.

That depends on exactly

Dangling paragraph? Exactly what, exactly?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 28, 2023, 07:36:47 PM

Quote

You can do that about anything.

Nope. What problem does God have with pork?
It's a simple question. And it answers all the other ones.
He doesn't.

Which really means YOU don't.
You are rejecting God and replacing it with you.
You ask yourself what problem does God have with X. If you can't think of one, you think it is fine.
If you can think of one, regardless of how good it is, you can then say God forbids it.

Hahaha no. You are replacing yourself with me with God. Basically telling me that I would do something that I honestly don't care about.  It isn't that I can't think of one either. I just gave trichinosis as a potential reason. But all of this is manmade law. Unless, of course, you want to confess to me that God exists.

None of that is true.

Pretty sure this is how hypocrites behave. They say one thing and do another. You say God doesn't exist and blame God. You say God's laws are abhorrent and make rules on what I should do.

Right, because pointing out several things that are so nuanced that them happening on their own is a statistical impossibility is not at all proof of God.

But you didn't do that.
And you entirely ignore the fact that a god just pushes the problem back and makes it worse.

As in, you have plenty of things you'd like to ask, but fear keeps you in the delusion that because something can't be seen, it must be imaginary.

You sure do love clinging to fantasy.

Oh wow. I thought I was the only one who manages to make dangling paragraphs.

My bad, distracted.

Democracy is not sime blanket term for civilized government.

That's right. And I never said it did.
A representative democracy is still a democracy.
A direct democracy is not the only possible kind of democracy.

The same God that you say doesn't exist.

Yes, the god of a fictional fantasy, with me talking about what is happening in that fantasy.

Now who is delusional? You tell me God can't be proven but then you blame God for poor political choices.

Still you. As you can't address what I say so you appeal to fantasies.
I don't blame god.
But I did point out the damage caused by religion.

Hahaha no. You are replacing yourself with me with God. Basically telling me that I would do something that I honestly don't care about.

No, I pointed out how you aren't using a god. You are using yourself.

Pretty sure this is how hypocrites behave.

You mean like yourself?
How you have to lie about what I say?

How you cling to so much crap to pretend renewable energy is bad; while ignoring all the damage caused by fossil fuels?

Come election 2024, I could write in God for the candidate. Would God be elected? No. Does this mean God doesn't exist? No. It means the process of government is not, and has never been, run by God. If anything, God only determines whether our leaders are good or corrupt. You are blaming God for what people do. Again. So all this divine right crap? I don't know why you're upset about it. Just more humans taking God's name in vain. If you wanted to do government as God wanted, you would need to make a raffle using all 300 million or so legal Americans, draw it, contact them, and redraw if they refuse. As you know, God plays the lottery with the universe.

Come election 2024, I could write in God for the candidate. Would God be elected? No. Does this mean God doesn't exist? No. It means the process of government is not, and has never been, run by God.

And do you know why?
Because God doesn't exist.
But that doesn't stop people pretending to rule by divine right. It doesn't stop people pretending

If anything, God only determines whether our leaders are good or corrupt. You are blaming God for what people do.

There you go with a contradiction, and outright lie yet again.
If God decides if leaders are good or corrupt, isn't it to blame?
But no, I don't blame God because God doesn't exist. I blame the people pretending to be doing the work of God. I blame religion, which does exist.
I also note that if God does exist, it is to blame as well.

So all this divine right crap? I don't know why you're upset about it. Just more humans taking God's name in vain.

Because you want to pretend religion is required for a civilised society, where people are free; when typically it does the exact opposite.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 03:34:40 AM

Come election 2024, I could write in God for the candidate. Would God be elected? No. Does this mean God doesn't exist? No. It means the process of government is not, and has never been, run by God.

And do you know why?
Because God doesn't exist.
But that doesn't stop people pretending to rule by divine right. It doesn't stop people pretending

Yet you accuse God of being a tyrannical POS.

Make up your mind. Either God is not a tyrannical POS, and humans are wholly responsible for their pretending to be giving the right to rule by God. Or God doesn't exist (and humans are wholly responsible for their pretending to be giving the right to rule by God), in which case, you have to let this go and stop the blame game.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 02:55:08 AM

If anything, God only determines whether our leaders are good or corrupt. You are blaming God for what people do.

There you go with a contradiction, and outright lie yet again.
If God decides if leaders are good or corrupt, isn't it to blame?

Not a contradiction. It's your inability to see the larger picture that keeps you from understanding religion. Think about this... Joe Biden was a godsend to woke liberals (probably), and a worthless leader to conservatives. Trump was a breath of fresh air to conservatives after Obama, and a racist xenophobe to liberals.

What's the difference? Perception. If I could somehow not be subject to such perceptions, I would see that God did nothing more than allow people the leaders they wanted. Those people just happen not to be me. Why then should I blame God for making you happy? Isn't the problem actually that your happiness depends on my unhappiness? The problem isn't God. It's that you, a person, are a tyrannical POS.

But no, I don't blame God because God doesn't exist. I blame the people pretending to be doing the work of God. I blame religion, which does exist.
I also note that if God does exist, it is to blame as well.

Actually, I vaguely remember either you or Data using the word "tyrannical POS" alot. You do blame God. This is a bigger contradiction than my supposed contradiction.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 02:55:08 AM

So all this divine right crap? I don't know why you're upset about it. Just more humans taking God's name in vain.

Because you want to pretend religion is required for a civilised society, where people are free; when typically it does the exact opposite.

I am a student of both history and religion. The evidence bears this out. Far more wars have been fought over land or money/power than whether the Virgin Mary is the Queen of Heaven, and the Pope is the supreme authority. Not just wars, either.  Genocides, slavery, and horrific actions. Not done because of religion, they've been done because greedy bastards stopped seeing their fellow humans as children of God, and instead saw them as property.

Today, atheist globalists twist notions of mercy by pointing to poor suffering (illegal) immigrants, obscuring the reality that such immigration often enables human trafficking. Translation: without religion, if we followed the moral example of atheists, the abolition of slavery would be undone in America. Meanwhile, Christianity was instrumental in doing away with this evil.
https://americainclass.org/the-religious-roots-of-abolition/

Not only are most wars fought for reasons other than religion, not only do many genocides and cruel actions take place without religion being involved, but religion is actually a mitigating force against some of the more immoral actions, and the cruelty of fascist or communist systems was made all the worse by the godless and immoral systems that propped them up. When people don't worship God, they tend to embrace the state as God. There is little more tyrannical than as you say it, people pretending to be the hand of God, and dictating the personal lives of others (actually, God lets people make choices, even to reject him, making those pretenders quite far off the mark). You have only to look at Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il/Un, Stalin, and Lenin to see that all of these had an atheist mindset in common. "But what about Hitler? He was a Christian." Bullshit.
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/adolph-hitler-was-never-a-christian-and-hated-christianity.html

But to believe Hitler was a Christian is like believing the four guys from the music group the Village People were really a policeman, a cowboy, a sailor and an Indian chief.

It turns out that dictators manipulate, lie and deceive. Who knew? And Hitler had lied and deceived over and over again: he lied to the rest of the world when he said he wanted only peace. Then he lied that he wouldn't pursue any territory after acquiring Czechoslovakia. He lied to the Russians when he signed a treaty that he wouldn't go to war with them. He lied and deceived the world about his plan to annihilate the Jews and all other supposed "undesirables."

Hitler himself bemoaned that Germany was stuck with Christianity, which he considered "the wrong religion," and "meek and flabby." He preferred the Japanese fatherland approach, or even "the Mohammedan religion."

Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis: "They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized." In other words, not Christian.

Still not convinced? It is virtually impossible to find a speech, especially in his later years, whereby he spoke of love for God or Christ. By contrast, he demanded the world to pledge allegiance to him, the Fuhrer —not to God, Jesus or any other higher power.

Secular leaders always betray the faith of the people and their freedom to instead enforce worship of the leader.

Or as Machiavelli said, referring to the state. Machiavelli is often cited by politicians, who point (out of context) about how it's better to be feared than loved, because love as he sees it, is fragile when compared to the whims of the public. But here's what else he says.

...the prince must consider, as has been in part said before, how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches. It makes him hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain. And when neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content, and he has only to contend with the ambition of a few, whom he can curb with ease in many ways.

You see, if people hate you enough, they lose their fear of you. If you fuck with peoples' women (such as making them obnoxious through feminism) or their property (such as creating a surveillance state that penalizes people for "environmental crimes" by bugging their houses with smart tech), you risk the public revolting. The more overt you are about this, the more openly they oppose you.  Lao Tzu said similar.

In the highest antiquity, the people did not know that there were rulers.
In the next age they loved them and praised them.
In the next they feared them.
In the next they despised them.

It is better that a ruler uses such little force that nobody knows (or cares) about their existence. This is closest to the rule of God. Next best is a ruler who everyone loves. Seeking to be feared is not a good goal as a leader, as people indeed can stop being afraid and just hate you. Around that point, your days are numbered.

 It's your inability to see

bulmabriefs144 That you’re still citing some video that has been debunked.

Prime example how “FE science” is a failure. 

Yet you accuse God of being a tyrannical POS.

There is no accusation.
The fictional character known as God, is depicted as an evil tyrant and an evil POS.

Again, the issue at hand in this thread is not your imaginary fiend. It is your claim that you need religion to be free, when the exact opposite is repeatedly seen, with more religious countries being worse to live in, and where people are less free.

Not a contradiction.

Yes a contradiction.
If God decides what those leaders are, then God is to blame for those leaders.

What's the difference? Perception.

And the distinction there, if you did want to claim a god causes a leader to be good or bad, would be some people would say god is doing a bad job and others would say a good job.
That wouldn't mean god isn't to blame.
But this just further demonstrates a god is not giving humans their ability to tell right from wrong; or if it is, it is fucking with us and giving each person a different idea.

I would see that God did nothing more than allow people the leaders they wanted.

i.e. your god did nothing and is not the reason the leaders are good or bad, directly contradicting what you said.

It's that you, a person, are a tyrannical POS.

Your irrational hatred of me, and wanting to defend your evil POS doesn't magically make me a tyrannical POS.

You do blame God.

No, I don't.
Repeating a lie wont help you.

I am a student of both history and religion.

And did you fail all your classes?
Because the evidence shows you are wrong.
Reducing religiosity typically results in MORE freedom.
This is also shown by a correlation between lack of religion in a country and more freedom.

Far more wars have been fought over land or money/power

And how many of them has used religion to justify it?
e.g. the Crusades.
Were they about land/power or religion?
Given religion is primarily about power and controlling others, wouldn't that be a natural extension?

Genocides, slavery, and horrific actions.

Like those commanded in the Bible?
Like those defended by people using the Bible?
Like those committed by those claiming to be doing God's work?

Translation: without religion, if we followed the moral example of atheists, the abolition of slavery would be undone in America.

You mean the slavery defended by plenty of Christians? From a religion perfectly fine with beating your slave to within an inch of death as it states the slave is your property?

religion is actually a mitigating force against some of the more immoral actions

No, it isn't. As it entirely devalues life. It treats people not of the same religion as heretics that deserve to burn in hell; and that if an innocent dies, they go to heaven.
It leads people to strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up along with plenty of innocent people.

by the godless and immoral systems

As opposed to the godfull and immoral systems like Christianity?

When people don't worship God, they tend to embrace the state as God.

Or, far more often, they just don't have a god, as they don't need one.

actually, God lets people make choices

Actually, God does nothing, as it doesn't exist.

You have only to look at

You mean you only have to cherry pick a few people, while ignoring the rest, and ignoring any complexities of it.
Notice how you happily excuse the evils of the religious; but then want to pretend these power hungry people did so because of atheism?

It is better that a ruler uses such little force that nobody knows (or cares) about their existence.

If a ruler is so ineffective that no one knows about its existence, how is it a ruler?
That would be an apathetic bystander.

This is closest to the rule of God. ... Seeking to be feared is not a good goal as a leader

Yet is what the Biblical god does.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 08:05:50 PM

 It's your inability to see

bulmabriefs144 That you’re still citing some video that has been debunked.

Prime example how “FE science” is a failure.

It has never been debunked. You have told us repeatedly that it's debunked using a fallacious theory of an impossibly large sun being on the other side of the Earth as it spins. Even as impossibly far away as you then claim it is, it only takes away a minority of the sky. You have two options, both of which refute your own theory.
1. The distance from sun to Earth under RE theory diminishes the light of the sun to the point where it is smaller than the sky and smaller than the Earth.  But FE theory agrees that light diminishes and even angles out of sight. A much smaller and closer sun would do the job, and the fact that light does not continue indefinitely but there is wavelength breakdown should be enough to refute the refutation. But there is a further problem with this "refutation". If the sun is this small on Earth, it should be even smaller to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (never accepting the dwarf planet theory). None of them should have sufficient light to provide any measure of heat.
2. You tell me repeatedly that light does not break down over any measure of distance. Okay then.The sun gives off infrared light which creates heat. What does a sun that is several times the Earth and several times its temperature do millions of miles away if you say light does not have a breakdown point?

As you can see, the sun is supposed to be big enough to engulf the Earth in flames. Not something that diminishes to the size of a fraction of the sky.

Nothing about your theory refuted mine. By contrast, I have refuted you twice over.

Now, moving on to JackBlack.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 08:05:50 PM

Yet you accuse God of being a tyrannical POS.

There is no accusation.
The fictional character known as God, is depicted as an evil tyrant and an evil POS.

Again, the issue at hand in this thread is not your imaginary fiend. It is your claim that you need religion to be free, when the exact opposite is repeatedly seen, with more religious countries being worse to live in, and where people are less free.

This is objectively not true. North Korea is a country that is officially atheist. The religion in the absence of proper religion (nature abhors a vacuum) becomes the state worship of the Kims. You can literally compare them to South Korea. Both North and South Korea have roughly 60% non religious. The difference is that one of these is a state atheism, and the other allows free exercise of religion. Care to tell me that the state atheism is freer than  South Korea? More prosperous?
 Lenin and Stalin killed millions. While communism produced bread lines, thugs who steal property and kill you, and authoritarianism, the West all through the 50s and 60s was in an era of prosperity. The general public, having rejected the lie of altruism, instead became prosperous in a country where people were free to make their own choices.

And yet again, you're talking both sides of your mouth.

I am putting a theoretical cake on a table. You can either have it (leaving it on the table) or eat it. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

Either God is absent from your life and faith, or you know he exists. God cannot not exist AND be a tyrannical POS.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 08:05:50 PM

What's the difference? Perception.

And the distinction there, if you did want to claim a god causes a leader to be good or bad, would be some people would say god is doing a bad job and others would say a good job.
That wouldn't mean god isn't to blame.

God gives us Knowledge of good and evil, accoeding to the text of the Bible. It is us that decide that a ladder is a good ladder or an evil ladder. A president who builds roads and bridges (both Trump and Biden promised this) might be considered good if he doesn't deliver on this promise because he's constantly getting impeached, just as one who manages it might be considered overzealous. Why would building roads and bridges be a bad thing? If it raises our taxes. Or if the particular ones chosen didn't need repair and others left unrepaired did need it. Or in our case, they left a non-gradual gap because the road is arched rather than flat.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 08:05:50 PM

It's that you, a person, are a tyrannical POS.

Your irrational hatred of me, and wanting to defend your evil POS doesn't magically make me a tyrannical POS.

I don't hate you though. I pity you. You are a living example of someone who would be alot happier if they put blame where it properly goes. Your parents first, and then your rotten choice of politicians second. You want freedom to choose people who put rules for your life. You're a mess.  You blame God like Jimmy Buffet blames a woman.


You use the word tyrannical POS against someone who has left you alone to your atheism, while you yourself tell others what to do.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 08:05:50 PM

You do blame God.

No, I don't.
Repeating a lie wont help you.

You cannot call someone a tyrant and not blame them for your problems. Example: Dominion Energy has made the tyrannical decision to force everyone to switch meters.

Do I blame Dominion Energy? Damned right I do! But somehow there is a disconnect where you think you not only can have the right to blame someone and tell me they exist at the same time (logical paradox), but that I'm somehow lying, when I'm repeating your own words back to you. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 08:05:50 PM

I am a student of both history and religion.

And did you fail all your classes?
Because the evidence shows you are wrong.
Reducing religiosity typically results in MORE freedom.
This is also shown by a correlation between lack of religion in a country and more freedom.

Ask survivors of Russian communism how forcing their Christianity underground made them more free. I betcha they'll laugh in your face.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 29, 2023, 08:05:50 PM

Far more wars have been fought over land or money/power

And how many of them has used religion to justify it?
e.g. the Crusades.
Were they about land/power or religion?
Given religion is primarily about power and controlling others, wouldn't that be a natural extension?

Oh yes, I was wondering when you'd pull out that little gem. The Crusades you say.

Do you actually know what the Crusades were about?

So let's give an example:

You live in a Christian country (years later in America, you get to live in a country that lets you worship as you wish, but this comes out of Christianity surviving to that time; for the time being, at least Sunday prayer is required). You blame God for being a tyrannical POS, making you go to church. That's your right and your hangup.
But if you live in Spain or Turkey, you are constantly having to run to a new town, because Muslims are invading your home over and over again, and I can bet that you are spineless enough not to stay and fight for your land.
So more and more land are told by an ACTUAL tyrannical POS and his prophet that they must worship five times a day, that they must make a trip to Mecca, that they must do all the rules to be a Muslim. Or they can keep their religion (during certain times, Islam arbitrarily allows jiyzha, other times there aren't any "people of the Book" and non-Muslims can expect to be killed; you'd be first on the list as a nonbeliever) if they pay a tax. That's right, Christian and Jew get a tax just for existing. Atheists and Buddhists don't even get this right. They are put to the sword.

The "tyrannical POS" of Christianity let you live in relative peace in his lands, but this new god wants Christians to pay taxes and for you to die immediately.

So all of this goes on for years, while the technology prior to the Dark Ages has kinda fallen away (we've forgotten how to make decent cement, we forgot Greek fire, etc) and people live in unhygenic conditions. Eventually , they take Spain and Turkey, and the Pope notices the Hagia Sophia (it's kinda a big deal) is being trashed by Muslims. Maybe sorta kinda these people are at the point where it's time to stop them? So for 90 years they do.

Later historians proceed to claim that this was about "conquering the Holy Lands" or "finding the Holy Grail." No, it was because an entire group of people who were threatening our safety and peace and prosperity had been for centuries trying to take Europe over, and we finally drove them all back. You've been lied to by a bunch of hack historians. A defensive war that forever gets claimed by Muslim apologists as some kind of atrocity. Tell you what, I'll crowdfund sending you to Saudi Arabia or Iraq, and you can tell me whether it's freer to live under Islam or in a country that secured your right to be an atheist.

The " tyrannical POS" that is God gives you a culture that lets you have running water, a job, electricity, internet, and all sorts of good things. Are you thankful? No, you proceed to work with the people who would take all these rights away, because they are against God. Then you blame God for tyranny when you have support the tyrants.

It has never been debunked.

Sigh.

It was debunked here.

Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92080.0

The reality of the sun as the earth rotates.




The reality of a light staying a certain height coming straight at the viewer.




The whole point of your video is its claim the horizon cuts off the sun before there could be a change in apparent size.  That is false for people in some place like the USA where any change in distance from the viewer by the sun should create a change in apparent size.


On a FE the apparent speed would be slow after sunrise.  It would appear to speed up as it traveled overhead then would appear to slow down for sunset.


You lie.

Your video and you have failed to explain the actual apparent size and speed of the sun as it travels the sky. 


FE science has failed.

This is objectively not true.

My statement is objectively true.
Yes, there are outliers. But the general trend is that as religiosity goes down, freedom goes up.

North Korea is a country that is officially atheist.

Yet it has effectively invented its own religion.
The cult of the Kims.

Lenin and Stalin killed millions.

And there really isn't any indication Stalin was an atheist. Instead he wanted his appointed religious leaders in charge.
Lenin allowed religion.

the West all through the 50s and 60s was in an era of prosperity.

With countries in the west becoming less and less religious.
Resulting in things like homosexuality being accepted rather than homosexuals being put to death.

Either God is absent from your life and faith, or you know he exists. God cannot not exist AND be a tyrannical POS.

I am capable of describing a fictional character.
And again, the main focus is on RELIGION, not your imaginary fiend.

God gives us Knowledge of good and evil, accoeding to the text of the Bible.

Wrong again.
According to the Bible God explicitly did not give us that and punished us for getting it.

It is us that decide that a ladder is a good ladder or an evil ladder.

Stop contradicting yourself.
This is what you claimed not too long ago:

If anything, God only determines whether our leaders are good or corrupt.

That is you saying God is the one determining it.

I don't hate you though. I pity you. You are a living example of someone who would be alot happier if they put blame where it properly goes.

Yet you feel the need to blatantly lie about where I place the blame.
Again, I realise your imaginary fiend doesn't exist, so why would I blame it?
I just recognise that if it did exist, it would be to blame.

Conversely, you are in an abusive relationship with your imagination, wanting to pretend your imagination can do no wrong and that anything bad that happens is entirely out fault.

You use the word tyrannical POS against someone who has left you alone to your atheism, while you yourself tell others what to do.

Again, your imaginary evil POS hasn't done anything to me, as it doesn't exist.
But in the fictional stories of the Bible it is an evil POS, it is an evil tyrant.
It tormented the Egyptians to show off.
It set Adam and Eve up to fail just so it could torment them.

You cannot call someone a tyrant and not blame them for your problems.

Yes, I can.
You not liking that wont change reality.

Dominion Energy has made the tyrannical decision to force everyone to switch meters.

Why is that tyranny?
Why shouldn't they have the choice of what meters they want to use to charge for the service they are providing?
Again, you have the choice of disconnecting your power so you don't have their meter.

For someone who so strongly opposes regulations, you sure hate when companies have freedom.

that I'm somehow lying, when I'm repeating your own words back to you.

You aren't repeating my words back to me.
You are inventing a fantasy because you can't accept reality.

Ask survivors of Russian communism how forcing their Christianity underground made them more free.

You mean the country with an official religion, even today?
Orthodox Christianity was still dominant during the USSR.
It was not as atheists as dishonest theists want to pretend.

What you are doing now would be like saying how Christians need to hide their Christianity in the middle east to avoid persecution by Muslims.
The "problem" which they had to hide is that they had the wrong religion.

Oh yes, I was wondering when you'd pull out that little gem. The Crusades you say.

Yes, the crusades, religions continually fighting for control.
Would you prefer the Inquisition, which tortured and killed atheists?

You live in a Christian country (years later in America, you get to live in a country that lets you worship as you wish, but this comes out of Christianity surviving to that time

No, it doesn't.
You even demonstrated that with the 10 commandments. Demanding worship of God.
It was opposing religious control which lead to freedom of religion. It is violation of the commands of Christianity which lead to freedom of religion.

But if you live in Spain or Turkey, you are constantly having to run to a new town, because Muslims are invading your home over and over again, and I can bet that you are spineless enough not to stay and fight for your land.

And I'm sure someone such as yourself which loves religion would be happy with that, with them instituting their religion as law.

Later historians proceed to claim that this was about "conquering the Holy Lands" or "finding the Holy Grail." No, it was because an entire group of people who were threatening our safety and peace and prosperity had been for centuries trying to take Europe over, and we finally drove them all back.

You mean a bunch of religious people were trying to force their religion onto people and other religious people with a different religion didn't like and wanted to force their religion onto people.

The " tyrannical POS" that is God gives

Again, your imaginary fiend doesn't exist. It gives us nothing.

a culture that lets you have running water, a job, electricity, internet, and all sorts of good things.

None of that comes from your imaginary fiend, or your cult.

It has never been debunked. You have told us repeatedly that it's debunked using a fallacious theory of an impossibly large sun being on the other side of the Earth as it spins.

You are the one claiming it is a magically huge sun.

Even as impossibly far away as you then claim it is, it only takes away a minority of the sky. You have two options, both of which refute your own theory.
1. The distance from sun to Earth under RE theory diminishes the light of the sun to the point where it is smaller than the sky and smaller than the Earth.  But FE theory agrees that light diminishes and even angles out of sight. A much smaller and closer sun would do the job, and the fact that light does not continue indefinitely but there is wavelength breakdown should be enough to refute the refutation. But there is a further problem with this "refutation". If the sun is this small on Earth, it should be even smaller to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto (never accepting the dwarf planet theory). None of them should have sufficient light to provide any measure of heat.
2. You tell me repeatedly that light does not break down over any measure of distance. Okay then.The sun gives off infrared light which creates heat. What does a sun that is several times the Earth and several times its temperature do millions of miles away if you say light does not have a breakdown point?

As you can see, the sun is supposed to be big enough to engulf the Earth in flames. Not something that diminishes to the size of a fraction of the sky.

Nothing about your theory refuted mine. By contrast, I have refuted you twice over.

No, none of that is a refutation.
It is just spouting the same ridiculous nonsense.
Again,



The sun is very large, and far away.
We know it must be very far away due to how its angular size remains constant.
It also explains the observed illumination patterns, and a RE explains the sunset.
Conversely, a FE explains nothing.

Light doesn't magically break down or go weaker.
It spreads out.
As it spreads out, the power per unit area goes down, but it is still there.

Mars, being roughly 1.7 times as far from the sun as Earth, would have roughly 0.36 times the energy per unit area.
This will make it colder. But it doesn't magically mean it will have no heat.

Yet again, you are spouting pure BS with no justification at all.

And again, regardless of how big something is, with enough distance it shrinks to a point.

The sun cannot be large and just very far away. This is what I've been trying to tell you for several threads now. Light and heat particles diminish and break down over distance? Yes or no?

• If Yes: then we can see for ourselves that the sun's temperature at its core and surface should be subtract or divided by the number of miles away Earth is from the sun. Let's subtract the hottest portion of the sun by how many miles away it is (we don't even need to divide!) and we get 27 million degrees minus 93 million miles. You know, I don't think we'd feel it this far away? More importantly, at this distance, it would be well above any curves. For roughly half the day, it should appear as though a very distant star is directly above us due to angle. But the light of such a star, and its heat would be so dim as to revert the Earth to Ice Age conditions.
• If No: then during Fourth of July, all the people doing cookouts or shooting of fireworks would have hellish burns from all other nearby cookers, as the light and heat of all the cookers scatters and mingles with orher heat and light. A typical flame is between 600°F and about 1100° (you can look up online how hot a match is) for a roaring fire, but as it scatters, the waveform also breaks down. 600° becomes a more cook safe 400° after some time passes and even a small distance away from the source of fire. More importantly, even if the distance of the sun were small enough to make it appear quite tiny, the light and heat is another story! The light of the sun should instantly burn out our eyes, but actually you can look directly at the sun if there's enough haze, especially if it's started to set. I did it one day for nearly an hour (it was pretty misty). And you can look indirectly (slightly around it) at the sun with no fog or haze with no problems, during sunset. During sunrise, the sun is kinda painful to look at directly.  This is because the sun's UV radiation has a breakdown point due to proximity. But more importantly, if the sun does not disperse or break down, its heat at the core is 27 million degrees and the surface is supposed to be 10,000 degrees. More importantly as we've discovered with sprinklers, heat is a product of mass. Only the sun would be much much more massive than Earth and instantly destroy it.

This is a Morton's Fork. Regardless of whether you answer yes or no, the answer to this fantasy of yours is no. Btw, the theoretical heat of this sun being so much greater at the core than on the surface disproves this theory, which is literally impossible due to actual laws of thermodynamics.

Instead, the sun's heat scatters and breaks down over distance. This, not curvature, is why the sun appears to set. Also it's why south of the equator in summer, there are winter conditions, because the radius of the sun is off center from the southern hemisphere. In a model where  the sun is distant and light and heat continue indefinitely, seasons shouldn't exist because a big ball blankets the Earth in light, just before incinerating it. And if the sun was that distant, and light and heat do not continue indefinitely, then we should instead freeze to death.

The sun is alot closer and smaller than those giving the RE narrative say it is. If the sun has less mass than the Earth, and if heat (and light) are products of mass, which science of sparklers says they are, then it can give off heat and light, while being safe to those standing on Earth.

Btw, we have climate nutjobs saying the sun "could" destroy the Earth in 2025. Sure, just as dinosaurs "could" rise from their graves and kill us all. If it didn't happen centuries ago, why should it happen next year?

The sun cannot be large and just very far away. This is what I've been trying to tell you for several threads now.

And like many things you try to do, you do so with mutually contradictory arguments. You simultaneously try to argue that it being so large would make it take up the entire sky, while also claiming the distance means it will be a tiny point.

This shows just how ridiculous your claims are.
Try making a coherent argument.

And you continually just assert nonsense with no justification at all; like the above, which you have NOTHING to support.

Light and heat particles diminish and break down over distance?

No. They spread out, or are absorbed/scattered.
In space, the main effect is spreading out.
This follows an inverse square law.
However, black bodies follow a T^4 law.

Spreading out is not breaking down.

then we can see for ourselves that the sun's temperature at its core and surface should be subtract or divided by the number of miles away Earth is from the sun. Let's subtract the hottest portion of the sun by how many miles away it is (we don't even need to divide!) and we get 27 million degrees minus 93 million miles.

And doing so you end up with an entirely meaningless number.
This is because you yet again ignore units.
Lets try your dishonest, delusional BS, but with different units.
27 million degrees minus 1 AU.
That gives us 26 999 999 BS units.

This shows your claim is pure garbage just like normal.

We can even try it with your BS sun. How hot is it? Well given its colour and what we know about black bodies, it would need to be 6000 K. The standard idea for a FE is that it is 5000 km up.
That means when overhead it should be 1000 K or roughly 727 C, incredibly hot.
But near sun set it should drop to below 0.

Why not try doing it honestly?
Even doing it roughly honestly, the radius of the sun is ~700 000 km. The distance from the sun to Earth is roughly 150 000 000 km. That means the distance to Earth is roughly 200 times the distance from the core to the surface.
As it follows an inverse square law, and temperature follows an T^4 law, this results in a roughly inverse sqrt relationship. And the sqrt of 200 is roughly 14.
As the SURFACE of the sun is roughly 6000 K, that means the average temperature of Earth should be roughly 430 K. Quite different to your claim.
However, as the Earth is also emitting that energy when not facing the sun, that cuts the temperature by another factor of sqrt(2) ~1.4.
That cuts it down to roughly 306 K.
That is roughly 33 C, or 91 BS units.

You know, I don't think we'd feel it this far away?

What I know is that you are spouting pure BS, which makes no sense.
You are happy to do this because you are looking for whaterever excuse you can to dismiss it.

More importantly, at this distance, it would be well above any curves. For roughly half the day, it should appear as though a very distant star is directly above us due to angle.

Why?
Yet again you just spout delusional BS with no justification at all.
That is like saying the sun should appear as a tiny point, directly in the centre of your vision, regardless of which way you look.
It makes no sense at all.

As it is far away, it will subtend an angle of roughly 0.5 degrees.
It will appear directly overhead the sub-solar point.
To those away from the subsolar point, it will appear to drop with an angle of elevation of 90 degrees minus the angular separation to the subsolar point.

This is a Morton's Fork. Regardless of whether you answer yes or no, the answer to this fantasy of yours is no.

No, the answer to your fantasy is no.
Because none of that BS of yours was based upon reality at all.
Instead, you yet again spout delusional nonsense with no justification at all, to pretend the RE model is wrong.

Btw, the theoretical heat of this sun being so much greater at the core than on the surface disproves this theory, which is literally impossible due to actual laws of thermodynamics.

You sure love spouting delusional BS don't you?
Just what "actual laws of thermodynamics" does it break?

The fact that the heat is generated at the core means the core MUST be hotter. It is just a question of how much hotter.

Instead, the sun's heat scatters and breaks down over distance. This, not curvature, is why the sun appears to set.

And more dishonest BS.
If that was the case, the sun would slowly fade and appear to shrink until it vanishes while still high in the sky.
And the ability to see the sun would be based entirely upon distance to it.

Instead, we observe the sun appear to set, as if it is going below Earth, with Earth blocking the view.
In a manner entirely inconsistent with distance on a FE, as the further south you go during the southern summer the longer you can see it for. When if it was based upon distance with a north pole centred FE, it should appear for less time the further south you go, at least for locations south of the tropics.
Likewise, there would be no way for roughly the entire world to have roughly 12 hours of daylight on the equinox.

In a model where  the sun is distant and light and heat continue indefinitely, seasons shouldn't exist because a big ball blankets the Earth in light, just before incinerating it. And if the sun was that distant, and light and heat do not continue indefinitely, then we should instead freeze to death.

Wrong again.
As above, we would not freeze to death.
And the difference in temperature comes from a difference in angle.
During winter, light is spread over a larger area than in summer.

The sun is alot closer and smaller than those giving the RE narrative say it is.

All the evidence shows otherwise.

Stop just asserting delusional BS.
If you can't come up with any problem with the RE model, try being honest for once and admitting that.
Lying like you are, with such clearly BS claims, just shows how dishonest and desperate you are.

I could fight you about this distance thing, but I don't really care.

Look, it's like this.

Globalists themselves are not someone I hate, but rather someone I in vain try to reach.  I look at them, and I see a past of myself that I don't really like. While you quibble about how its "delusional BS" :sigh: that a sun that is neither way too hot (as would be the case if the heat and light of the sun did not break down) nor too cold (as would be the case at that distance from any sane assessment of how heat scatters and dissipates, from any time we have a fire in our backyard brick fire pit) and therefore must be far closer and cooler than claimed, you miss the point which is this topic.

Is there any disadvantage if science is served as is?

Yes, I think we could say so. There are far too many dystopian novels, and some of them have a very real chance of coming true. Off the bat, Matched and 1984 would not require extraordinary effort. But the whole Eloi/Morlock thing from The Time Machine is not that big a stretch given COVID hysteria and a couple hundred generations of populations divided into people who "shelter in place" and those that get fresh air.  More interestingly, AG1 strongly resembles soylent green powder. Keep in mind, the Soylent Green film told us that the stuff was made from "plankton".

So while you shill for God knows what else, keep in mind that the agenda of such people is very well within the idea to keep population low, get us to eat vegan/actual bugs, and create an enslaved second-class that doesn't eat real food.

Every election year, I actually wish I could just sit out the entire process. You see, the more deranged and hysterical these systems are,  Despite claims that I'm far right or whatever, I'm a moderate. Or rather a centrist. I vote right only because government has all appearance of being waaaaay too far towards authoritarian left, so the scales must tilt the other way. And no, it doesn't matter whether it's fascism or communism. I don't like dystopianism taking over my state. If it was at peach, and I could be convinced that it would stay that way, I'd rather skip elections entirely. In other words, the more you try to push Big Tech control, they more you are convinced you are without flaws, the more people have to oppose you. Until people can say, "It could be a mistake to create enough lifelike humanoid robots to be considered an army, especially when we have all sorts of people not having children, and we never know whether in addition to being sex bots that replace productive sex, they also try to kill us all" or "Maybe we should think about the implications of trying to bring back former presidents, like maybe they weren't as good as we idealize them, or maybe Martin Luther King will eat our brains.     

When you can't admit maybe something could be a mistake before doing it, yeah that's what's sad to me.  A sense of arrogance combined with a willingness to change people's lives dramatically because you think something would be good, that's the mindset of a child who has never been told no. No. I don't want your zombies, I don't want robots, I don't want to eat bugs, unless I go to a restaurant and order silkworms deliberately. Therein lies the difference. If you choose to eat bugs, nobody should stop you. But someone making you eat them, on flimsy reasons about saving the environment (cattle provide a key role in helping land thrive), that's not kosher. Just stop.

Pffft. I think eating bugs actually isn't kosher. Those Jews knew bullshit diets when they see them.

The sun cannot be large and just very far away.

It can because the earth rotates around the sun.  The sun sends charged particles to the van Allen belts.  We have sent and used probes to study the sun.  We know by retrograde the inner planets they orbit the sun.  We know the earth is farther out in its orbit from the sun than Mercury and Venus.  We can verify Venus’s distance from earth with radar.  We can verify Earth’s relative motion to that of Venues. 


Then sun isn’t a fiery orb orbiting at a fixed altitude above the earth in the atmosphere and not in the van Allen belts.

The sun as repeatedly modeled wouldn’t set on a flat earth of our dimensions.

The sun would have to visibly turn relative north and roughly travel along the North American coast after passing over California. 


And lastly, the video you cling to has been debunked.  The only place the sun on a flat earth wouldn’t change apparent size is at the very point of the North Pole.

For anyone in the USA, the sun would be changing apparent distance and thus apparent size throughout the day.

The claim your video makes about the sun “setting” (which it wouldn’t do on a flat earth as explained and modeled scores of time for you) before it could change apparent size is BS.  It’s wrong.  There is no bases for such a claim.

I could fight you about this distance thing, but I don't really care.

Because evidence shows your wrong.  And all you have is debunked videos. 


So you now back to derailing the thread.


The topic of the thread is “ Is there any disadvantage if science was served as it is?“

It’s been showed how your flat earth “science” fails and can’t even take the time to look through a decent telescope. 

It’s been shown how your FE talking heads lie.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 28, 2023, 05:57:56 AM

North is toward the center, south is away from the center.

What drives that for a magnetic compass on a flat earth.

It’s explained by a spherical earth with a spherical spinning iron core making north and south magnetic poles.

The whole visual thing of “south” doesn’t work for flat earth either.





Now.  If you’re done using lies to change the subject.

FE doesn’t explain the most basic aspects of the night sky.

Like how the North Star stays the same magnitude of brightness and size.  But as one travels south towards the equator it gets lower and lower in the night sky.  Then once far enough south across the equator, the curvature of the earth physically blocks it from view.

FE “science” fails to model what is witnessed and observed.