[geocentrism] short on politics of Religion.
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2008 09:01:58 +1000
Paul said..
"Here I feel I must point out some embarassing truths. Judaism is much older
than 2000 years. It has changed little and is still vibrant. Zoroastrianism is
at least as old though not widely practised. The religion of ancient Egypt was
diverse, and evolved, but in essence it survived for greater than 3000 years.
I'm pretty sure that the Isis cult still exists, though again it is not widely
practised either but that would make it older by far than Judaism. So some may
be considered as good as dead and many of the religions of the past are truly
of the past. They lost their power to sway their followers as more and more
instances of Black vs Red were lost to reason."
Why does it embarrass you? I admit I should have been more explicit and less
confusing.. so that you got a clearer picture. Judaism has diversed and
changed, and certainly had no centre of government such as the Vatican has
maintained. The temple was destroyed.. And I was being specific to the
Government of the Church with all its bad and good recorded history, as
compared to Egypt or China which falsified and glorified its dynastic history
never a mention of its evils. .
Otherwise I may from a religious angle have added the Judaism part of history,
as the foundation of Catholicism, just as it is the foundation of modern Islam,
Juda and all the Denominational Christians. Judaism (OT) likewise has not
falsified its history to favor itself, as indeed has the Egyptians you mention.
Though a quick read of the Talmud will show you how false the jews became as
regards history after the temple was destroyed, in their attack on the
continuing Judo christian sect, as well as mutilating the scripture they
maintained where it fortold the advent of Christ..
The religions you nominate are not dynastic, as I intended the Vatican
Government to appear. The whole world uses the Calandar of Rome for example.
However I could point out that the Judaeo -Christian era as a composite
Christianity surpasses all of the religions for durability and power despite
its honest history of bad churchmen.
Philip. .
PS It has changed little and is still vibrant (jewish religion)
Before the advent of Christ, the Jewish religion had sunk into multiple
errors.. divided among the pharisees and other diverse views.. The continueing
true Jews were a minority who followed the Scriptures truthfully without error,
and it was they to whom Jesus came, and was welcomed by them. The modern Jew
follows the errors of the Pharisees and more the Talmud, than Scripture...
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 10:53 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: antagonistic and antagonism to science
Philip M
We seem to be initiating another exercise in technicolour exploitation.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May, 2008 11:04:02 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] antagonistic and antagonism to science
Paul said.
"Your side has resolutely dug in its heels and refused to change position
with the state of knowledge but instead bases its position on distinctly
minority interpretations of biblical text, backed up with attacks on science by
exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any
unexplained phenomena (anomalies)."
In answer to my protest "Whereas we on the religious side, merely select
science on the basis of long standing traditional interpretation of scripture,"
he commented
Ah! Yes -- what bothers me is the expression "... select science on the
basis of ... " [emphasis mine]
But Paul the reason why people select alternative theories should not worry
anyone.
That is the point I am making. If someone is allowed to select a favored
theory because it favors Atheism , and we don't object about their reason, even
though they may not admit it, why should the opposing theory be opposed because
our reason is objectively the opposite. But many in science do not hide their
opposition to religion, and openly use it as proof of their opinion... Your
choice of the word "select" for our reasons, indicates your objection of us
doing likewise, as though we are breaking the rules..
I have no arguments with this. By 'science' I meant to imply data not theory.
Next:
Why? Perhaps it is because we do claim that modern interpretation of the
bible, and modern interpretation of the philosophy of physics has it roots in
antagonism of religion, however well concealed this may be, the former being a
direct result of the influence of the latter.
I think this is a bit unfair. It is easy when others take a view different
from our own -- possibly cherished -- views to assume that we are being
attacked. But while the position taken can readily be shown to be threatening,
this is overwhelmingly a result of just the conflict of ideas and
underwhelmingly the result of deliberate attack.
Paul somehow I just anticipated this reply from you, which is why I chose the
words carefully and vetted for many minutes their accuracy. Notice.. I said
the modern philosophy had its ROOTS in antagonism. This is not saying that the
people today are acting antagonistically. You say unfair correctly if this was
aimed at you and your friends. But obviously the roots in question are in
history, and unless you have had the history as I have it, you cannot be
objective in calling me unfair in relation to these historical individuals.
Yes -- it's historical. But religion is all about being right, being right
all the time and the agreement of all of its subjects that this is so. If you
claim ultimate truth, then you are unable to change your position. Curiosity
and investigation however is only concerned with discovering truth and
following it where it may lead -- change is the name of the game. Inevitably
this will lead to conflict when religion says 'Black' but investigation
discloses 'Red'. This is why religions die out. See below.
Admittedly it may be claimed that History is written to favor the writers. ..
And in politics I would agree wholeheartedly. However I can quickly prove and
show that the Church in its own authorised history , is one big self critism,
haveing more to condemn than to praise in the doings of church men..saved only
by the saints who are rare but great indeed.
Such is one of the proofs offered in evidence of the Divine nature of the
Church, that no purely political or earthly institution/dynasty could survive
for such a long period as 2000 years, or ever has survived in the worlds
history, with the amount of internal strife confusion and outright rebellion
that has plagued it since its institution, and is one of the reasons it is
proud to ensure it to be well recorded in its history.. Whereas political
institutions/dynasties do the opposite.
Here I feel I must point out some embarassing truths. Judaism is much older
than 2000 years. It has changed little and is still vibrant. Zoroastrianism is
at least as old though not widely practised. The religion of ancient Egypt was
diverse, and evolved, but in essence it survived for greater than 3000 years.
I'm pretty sure that the Isis cult still exists, though again it is not widely
practised either but that would make it older by far than Judaism. So some may
be considered as good as dead and many of the religions of the past are truly
of the past. They lost their power to sway their followers as more and more
instances of Black vs Red were lost to reason.
Which leads us to the second part of the error. You said, exploiting
"reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena
(anomalies)."
Let me ask you.. What do you think is the proportion of what is certain in
science to that which is uncertain. I would think we have lots and lots of
uncertainty to "exploit" uh I mean discuss, question and explore; and lots of
that is in most of the consensus accepted scientific theory as certain
. I'm not too sure that anyone genuinely infused with the principles of
science would claim that anything was truly certain. Certainly I do not. But
there are aspects of science which generate great confidence. I think I'll just
rest here on this point.
Then in saying that you are admitting the error in choice of words as regard
our exploitation of a reduced areas of uncertainty.. That we are in fact
merely asserting alternatives that question your great confidence.
Not entirely sure what you are saying here.
Philip..
Thanks for the offering... I'm glad you chose not to dissect my arguments,
addressing each in depth . But you are welcome...
I'll give you the last choice of colour.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:15 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Philip M
I appreciate you hold your view on all these matters on the basis of
evidence which you find convincing. Similarly, I hold to my position on a
similar basis but of opposing viewpoint. I have had occasion to applaud some of
your points and you have been kind enough to support some of mine. I think we
understand each other. It would not bear any fruit to dissect your arguments,
addressing each in depth so I won't.
However there were a couple which I found interesting so I'll slip a
comment or three in below in colour.
In my defence, this was not carefully thought out and planned -- I just
wrote it down as it came to mind.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism list <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, 7 May, 2008 2:00:07 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Paul said.
"Your side has resolutely dug in its heels and refused to change position
with the state of knowledge but instead bases its position on distinctly
minority interpretations of biblical text, backed up with attacks on science by
exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any
unexplained phenomena (anomalies)."
Wash your mouth out! That is not true! You are mean mean mean.. (Ah la
Boston Legal LOL) OK see below for the specific errors you make.
1. "dug in its heels and refused to change position with the state of
knowledge" ..
Nonsense.. We just went with the minority view which took a different path
circa 1900, and have taken on board heaps of new knowledge from both sides of
science with many changes of perspective since then. Am I not evidence of that?
2. "but instead bases its position on distinctly minority interpretations
of biblical text,"
Minority interpretation? Among todays population perhaps. But God and the
Bible would be intrinsically false to itself, if it were not true then , the
same today and as tomorrow. So yes we are conservative. Thus if you were to
take our view with the view held over the last 2000 years, it is certainly not
a minority.
3. "backed up with attacks on science "
Who is attacking whom? Just take the secular non-religion based movie
"global warming Swindle" This was a purely defensive scientific production
against a politically influenced scientific group. And just how much was it and
those in it attacked, banned and prohibited. Public pressure alone forced the
ABC to air it, and wow.. Was that a favourable attack? Whereas we on the
religious side, merely select science on the basis of long standing traditional
interpretation of scripture, and face attacks for doing so. Ah! Yes -- what
bothers me is the expression "... select science on the basis of ... "
[emphasis mine]
Why? Perhaps it is because we do claim that modern interpretation of the
bible, and modern interpretation of the philosophy of physics has it roots in
antagonism of religion, however well concealed this may be, the former being a
direct result of the influence of the latter. I think this is a bit unfair. It
is easy when others take a view different from our own -- possibly cherished --
views to assume that we are being attacked. But while the position taken can
readily be shown to be threatening, this is overwhelmingly a result of just the
conflict of ideas and underwhelmingly the result of deliberate attack.
4. "by exploiting the steadily reducing areas of uncertainty and
particularly any unexplained phenomena (anomalies)."
You mean of course exploiting the areas of uncertainty, and not the
reducing thereof.
This is a twofold error of thinking on your part. If I were to question the
corpuscular theory EMR in favour of the wave/aether theory of propagation, it
is not exploitation, but a valid scientific method of debate. It is not our
valid scientific question that causes the charge of exploitation, but the well
advertised religious convictions of the persons putting forward the arguement.
The aether tends towards God, ( ha ha , joke) The corpuscular theory tends
against God. ( very good theory that)
Which leads us to the second part of the error. You said,
"reducing areas of uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena
(anomalies)."
Let me ask you.. What do you think is the proportion of what is certain in
science to that which is uncertain. I would think we have lots and lots of
uncertainty to "exploit" er hm I mean discuss, question and explore; and lots
of that is in most of the consensus accepted scientific theory as certain. I'm
not too sure that anyone genuinely infused with the principles of science would
claim that anything was truly certain. Certainly I do not. But there are
aspects of science which generate great confidence.
No aether? Is that certain.. ? Of course not.. It may have a majority of
consensus, but even you know that consensus is obtained by peer affiliation,
and is not scientific certainty.
unexplained phenomena (anomalies)." Facts just the same. And should be
"exploited". Or do you support sweeping them under the carpet. I won't wait
till the end of the paragraph (let my impatience witness my urgency) NO NO NO!
To a first order of approximation, every reasonable objection should be
investigated. I realise 'reasonable' is interpretable. I also assert that
'investigated' does not imply 'investigated perpetually'. Now if a modernist
comes up with an "UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE" to dispense with these annoying bugs,
its not exploitation , is it, ? Just valid science...
OK just a final word on the modernist religious movements or "churches" who
have allowed the infection of modern science to sway them from the traditional
interpretations..
Luke18- 8...But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think
you, faith on earth? ..
John14 30 For the prince of this world: cometh: and in me he hath not any
thing.
Jesus was talking about the latter times , the last days, when the Prince
of the world, (of science ) rules most hearts and minds. They (the churches)
had their warning, and chose the wrong side. Quite a big lift for the minority
view, don't you think?
Don't think Paul, that we do not have a big battle to stay true to faith
against such a powerful and concerted opposition. People in general are truely
frightened to go against the tide. Hence consensus is easy to manipulate. From
grade school onwards one is laughed out of the class if he dares to question
the facts the teacher espouses.. And the whole class laughs with the teacher..
Yet because modernism is built on so much uncertainty, our ability to see
this, makes the task so much easier.. In fact I am amazed that we are such a
small minority..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 7:19 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: acceleration calcs attachment
Allen D
Allen -- you really must read more carefully. You said -
I still dont know what your postion is now....
I said (in part) -
Since your position is that you don't consider that the tides are
caused by the Sun/Moon and I do, ... [Emphasis added]
I'm beginning to regret making this point. It was in part a small
light-hearted test to see if you were awake and comprehending.
I accept your position that you make statements which assume the position
you are arguing against and that is a valid tactic, but it is always safer to
make that point.
Now considering the tides, I don't agree that your hypothesis that if the
tides are caused by the Moon/Sun gravity, that this demonstrates that
acceleration -- specifically in this instance the varying acceleration during
the time of one elliptical orbit -- means that that acceleration is detectable
by an accelerometer. Regner has disagreed with you on this point, and both
Philip and myself -- poor though our efforts may be in comparison -- have
strenuously made the same point. Your unwillingness to address the reasoning
behind my attack -- distilled down to the proposition of the red sphere and the
green sphere -- just scream vulnerability and thus error. Your response -- or
rather, no response -- confirms me in that view.
You also said -
... you state you dont accept the standard deffintions of grav,
inerita, velocity ect ...
What I said was -
Fourth, I do accept the standard definitions of gravity and inertia,
velocity and speed, mass and weight etc [Emphasis added]
My position re the Earth moving in an orbit -- the Heliocentric model --
was developed, like so much of human knowledge, by noticing that the current
model has short comings. I don't know the origins or the parentage of the round
disk on the elephant on the swimming turtle's back idea, but someone noticed
that it had shortcomings. Again I admit ignorance, I don't know how many
iterations occurred before Aristotle stated -- and his statement was believed
until the renaissance -- that the Sun, the Moon and the planets and the stars
and the comets -- actually I'm not sure about the comets -- orbited the Earth.
In fact, if I recall correctly, the church was of the opinion that EVERYTHING
orbited the Earth. Somewhere in the interval that this theory held sway, the
planetary distances were 'determined'. Enter Galileo, who noticed the phases of
Venus which, if true, meant that the distances were wrong or there was some
other error -- calamity. Enter Tycho. What if the planets orbited the Sun which
orbited the Earth. Problem solved. Then Galileo, not satisfied with pointing
out the Venus discrepancy, announced that something was orbiting Jupiter.
Calamity. Further, astronomers noticed that planets were not where they were
predicted to be. Calamity compounded. Enter Copernicus. If the Sun is at the
centre, the system becomes simple, and intriguing ratios emerge.
Is it true? You say no but I disagree and that's why we're here. Enter
Newton. He explains certain laws of physics, which, if true, support
Copernicus. Your side disagreed and still disagree but have offered no
alternative theory which fits observations, and especially have offered no
supporting physics.
The science which has emerged since the renaissance, has recognised that
there is precious little proof -- if any -- and is satisfied with progressively
refining both our state of knowledge and its accuracy and thus increasing our
degree of confidence in our theories. Your side has resolutely dug in its heels
and refused to change position with the state of knowledge but instead bases
its position on distinctly minority interpretations of biblical text, backed up
with attacks on science by exploiting the steadily reducing areas of
uncertainty and particularly any unexplained phenomena (anomalies).
So we too have proposed a solution to the problem "How does the World
go?" -- that put forward by the four giants of this saga -- and it has been
rigorously tested. With every test passed, confidence grows. It's not
certainty, but life isn't certain. If I had to choose a path to orbit in a
rocket designed, built and operated by Geocentrists or one designed, built and
operated by Heliocentrists, I would much prefer to put my trust in the
Heliocentrist model. If they each were share companies, I'd choose the
Heliocentrist company in which to invest because the Geocentrist company would
waste so much fuel getting to orbit, they probably wouldn't pay a dividend.
So you see, there is no reason why one shouldn't propose a solution and
then test it. Even if you have no idea what you're on about, eventually you'll
get it right and you do it bit by bit learning as you go. You don't need
rigorous logical certainty or biblical backing. But the approach you -- Allen
-- propose, that of getting everything to the last detail logically verified
and plans (unalterable plans) drawn up for a rocket ship and an unalterable
navigation philosophy before making a single triumphant journey is a pipe
dream. At the end of the day what counts is not philosophy and not logic --
it's enterprise, and the the test is its utility.
Closing thought. With your overriding preoccupation with logic -- what
was the logical justification for Tycho putting the planets around the Sun? Or
did he simply assume something and claim success on the basis of having already
thought up the idea? Sort of a logical circular fallacy.
Paul D
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1416 - Release Date: 5/05/2008
5:11 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.9/1416 - Release Date: 5/05/2008
5:11 PM
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] short on politics of Religion.
