Value of Thought

Originally posted by googlefudge
I wasn't actually thinking of you in particular.

But I will note that it's not until we make a connection to the other theists here that
any of you bother to state that you don't accept/agree with Freaky's delusions either.

A fact that might be relevant seeing as he is insisting that we are the odd ones out for not
agreeing with what he is sayi ...[text shortened]... anything about morality or the nature of reality by reading holy books etc
in the first place.

What is it FreakyKBH is saying that you find extreme by the way? I'm not clear if he's just being a bit oblique about the flat earth thing or wether he actually believe that the earth is flat

Originally posted by divegeester
Maybe people aren't interested in this thread; it is quite boring after all. However, I've frequently called out the partisan nature of the theist posters I this forum, who will compromise their principles to side with their buddies.

But your comment I was referring to was about "extremist" religious views not the reading of books. Calling a book "h ...[text shortened]... mative. I don't consider the bible (in terms of pages and paper) to be "holy". It's just a book.

The bible is 'a holy book' meaning it is a religious tome. It's not a book about religion, it
is in and of itself a religious book.

That's all I meant by 'holy book'.

Originally posted by divegeester
What is it FreakyKBH is saying that you find extreme by the way? I'm not clear if he's just being a bit oblique about the flat earth thing or wether he actually believe that the earth is flat

I have no idea what he actually believes. All anyone can go on is what he says.

What he is arguing is that the earth is flat, and that he as observational evidence to back that up.
Including claiming things that are obviously and visibly false.
Including claims that; the true horizon is always at eye level regardless of altitude [including in space],
that you can visibly see the astronomical horizon [which is a mathematical construct and not a physical phenomena],
that planes that are neither climbing or descending always have their nose pointed at the horizon,
that after objects disappear 'below' the horizon they reappear if you look with binoculars or a telescope...

I could go on, but that gives you a flavour of the stuff he's arguing for.

Plus the usual lies and distortions [and/or misunderstandings] about what other people have said, as well as his
typically incoherent and [perhaps purposefully] vague posting style.

Now he could be doing this as some kind of performance art project for all I know, I can't tell.
But he seems to genuinely believe this stuff.

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes there was; here is what you said that I was referring to:

[b]"Again, the horizon is supposed to be kept in the direct line of sight--- eye level--- with the pilot."

These [eye level and line of sight] are not the same thing.[/b]

That is no equivocation at all, consistently and repeatedly explained every time it was used.
A person looking straight ahead while standing or sitting without tilting their head either forward or backward will see the horizon in their line of sight at eye level.
You even quoted where I am saying this exact same thing.

Originally posted by divegeester
What is it FreakyKBH is saying that you find extreme by the way? I'm not clear if he's just being a bit oblique about the flat earth thing or wether he actually believe that the earth is flat

I'm not clear if he's just being a bit oblique about the flat earth thing or wether he actually believe that the earth is flat
That's kind of the point, don't you think?

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have no idea what he actually believes. All anyone can go on is what he says.

What he is arguing is that the earth is flat, and that he as observational evidence to back that up.
Including claiming things that are obviously and visibly false.
Including claims that; the true horizon is always at eye level regardless of altitude [including in space ...[text shortened]... ormance art project for all I know, I can't tell.
But he seems to genuinely believe this stuff.

Including claiming things that are obviously and visibly false.
And yet I've offered proofs of these very things, including visual aids for the thinking impaired.

Including claims that; the true horizon is always at eye level regardless of altitude [including in space],
Every source you've cited in counter carries this same claim within its information.

that you can visibly see the astronomical horizon [which is a mathematical construct and not a physical phenomena],
I've not once used the term astronomical horizon in my claims, so that's another fail.

that planes that are neither climbing or descending always have their nose pointed at the horizon,
Again, false.
I have claimed that planes in normal flight have their nose pointed to the horizon, which the pilot will use to keep himself spatially oriented.

that after objects disappear 'below' the horizon they reappear if you look with binoculars or a telescope...
And there's plenty of filmed examples of this very phenomenon available.
Here's a thought experiment for you: try to prove every claim I've made true instead of false.
Let's see how you end up at the close of the effort.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Including claiming things that are obviously and visibly false.
And yet I've offered proofs of these very things, including visual aids for the thinking impaired.

Including claims that; the true horizon is always at eye level regardless of altitude [including in space],
Every source you've cited in counter carries this same claim within ...[text shortened]... ery claim I've made true instead of false.
Let's see how you end up at the close of the effort.[/b]

Including claiming things that are obviously and visibly false.
And yet I've offered proofs of these very things, including visual aids for the thinking impaired.

You have offered no proofs, you have posted links to things that confirm our position, not yours.
Likewise, it is you who is thinking impaired.

Including claims that; the true horizon is always at eye level regardless of altitude [including in space],
Every source you've cited in counter carries this same claim within its information.

I'm sorry, you think the pictures of Earth from the Moon show the horizon at eye level?
[actually none of them do, but those from space are the most extreme examples that prove the point]

that you can visibly see the astronomical horizon [which is a mathematical construct and not a physical phenomena],
I've not once used the term astronomical horizon in my claims, so that's another fail.

I didn't claim you used the term "astronomical horizon", however that is the name of the kind of horizon you have been describing.
So that's another fail on your part. But then everything you do or say is a fail.

that planes that are neither climbing or descending always have their nose pointed at the horizon,
Again, false.
I have claimed that planes in normal flight have their nose pointed to the horizon, which the pilot will use to keep himself spatially oriented.

Those two sentences mean the same thing. So not only is my assertion not false, you demonstrate yet again that you ALSO
cannot understand the English language.

that after objects disappear 'below' the horizon they reappear if you look with binoculars or a telescope...
And there's plenty of filmed examples of this very phenomenon available.

Not true, but then none of your claims are.

Here's a thought experiment for you: try to prove every claim I've made true instead of false.
Let's see how you end up at the close of the effort

No, that's not how this works.
If you want to make a claim, YOU must prove it to be true.

What any good skeptic and/or scientist will then do is try to prove it false.

So, for example:

You claim that a horizon you can actually see, is always at eye level at ANY altitude.

I find a picture of the Earth from space [say the moon, or geostationary orbit, or L1] from which you can see the horizon as
a circle a few degrees of arc across. At such distance the horizon will be [say] ~85 degrees below the horizontal [eye level]
and thus cannot be said in any meaningful way to be 'at eye level'.

This disproves absolutely your claim that any visible horizon is always at eye level at any altitude.

Having disproved your claim, I no longer need to consider it as I know it's false.

This is much faster and more effective than futilely searching for evidence FOR your claim, and helps mitigate against the
perils of confirmation bias.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Also of interest is how few theists are willing to get involved.

Maybe they don't want to be bombarded with FreakyKBH's witty and withering put downs? 😉

Originally posted by googlefudge

[b]Including claiming things that are obviously and visibly false.
And yet I've offered proofs of these very things, including visual aids for the thinking impaired.

You have offered no proofs, you have posted links to things that confirm our position, not yours.
Likewise, it is you who is thinking impaired.

[quote]Including ...[text shortened]... ching for evidence FOR your claim, and helps mitigate against the
perils of confirmation bias.

You have offered no proofs, you have posted links to things that confirm our position, not yours.
You keep saying that, but your complaint isn't supported.
I claim the horizon remains at eye level, regardless of the altitude and then point you to generalized search of the topic (so you wouldn't think I'd cherry-picked the photos).
Each and every photo found on the generalized search supported exactly my claim.
Owing to your insistence to the contrary, I had to rub your nose in it by posting other multiple pictures, each of which showed the horizon at the eye level of the photographer, and in some cases, the subjects within the pictures as well.

I'm sorry, you think the pictures of Earth from the Moon show the horizon at eye level?
What altitude are the composite shots of which you speak?

I didn't claim you used the term "astronomical horizon", however that is the name of the kind of horizon you have been describing.
No.
What I have been describing is the exact thing I have been describing: the true horizon which remains at eye level at all times--- even when it cannot be seen as a result of obstacles between it and the observer.
You don't think the sun ceases to exist just because it's hidden by clouds, do you?
In the same manner, the true horizon is at eye level even when there are obstacles between,

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm sorry, you think the pictures of Earth from the Moon show the horizon at eye level?
What altitude are the composite shots of which you speak?

The shots of which I speak are not composite shots, and funnily enough, shots taken of
the Earth from The Moon are from the same altitude as The Moon.

If you are ignorant of how far away The Moon is then a simple google search will reveal that
information. It's far enough that you can fit the entire Earth behind your thumbnail with your arm outstretched.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg

Otherwise, if we are talking about shots from L1, then that's ~1.5million km ~1million miles from Earth.

http://i2.wp.com/www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/187_1003705_americas_dxm.png

Geostationary orbit is much closer at about ~36k km.

http://www.hpcf.upr.edu/~abel/phl/earth_space/Earth_July_19_2013_5PM_EDT_GOES_EAST.png

Low Earth Orbit [where the ISS lives] is ~220km in altitude. However while you can absolutely see the
curvature of the Earth from that altitude, and the visible/true horizon is very much below the local horizontal
plane [tangential to the Earth's surface]... You are not high enough at that point to see an entire hemisphere
the way you can from higher altitudes.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/514927main_iss026e023340_full.jpg

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You have offered no proofs, you have posted links to things that confirm our position, not yours.
You keep saying that, but your complaint isn't supported.
I claim the horizon remains at eye level, regardless of the altitude and then point you to generalized search of the topic (so you wouldn't think I'd cherry-picked the photos).
Each and every photo found on the generalized search supported exactly my claim.

Nobody else agrees with you. Everyone else thinks that you are wrong.

So you are either deluded enough to think that everyone else is wrong and you alone
in all the world is right. Or you are simply lying.

Regardless, the fact that I/we/everyone doesn't agree that your so called proofs are anything of the sort.
And that is a fact. Means that everything you have shown, and said, is utterly unconvincing, and fails
as proof for anything you are trying to prove.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I didn't claim you used the term "astronomical horizon", however that is the name of the kind of horizon you have been describing.
No.
What I have been describing is the exact thing I have been describing: the true horizon which remains at eye level at all times--- even when it cannot be seen as a result of obstacles between it and the observer.
You ...[text shortened]... do you?
In the same manner, the true horizon is at eye level even when there are obstacles between,

The true horizon does not remain at eye level at all times.

The astronomical horizon does, but that's a mathematical construct, and not a visible line in space.

The true horizon is approximated by the visible horizon where the local Earth's surface best approximates
a spheroid. [most commonly with large bodies of water]

The visible horizon is what you can actually see.

As you increase in altitude the angle of the true horizon as measured down from the astronomical horizon increases.

As shown in this graphic.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Horizons.svg

From very high altitude this angle will approach 90 degrees.

Like in this picture of Earth from the Voyager Spacecraft.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/PaleBlueDot.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe they don't want to be bombarded with FreakyKBH's witty and withering put downs? 😉

Well if by withering you mean comically inept, totally empty, and devoid of impact.

And by witty you mean idiotic...

Then you might have a point.

Although, given how empty and pathetic they are, it seems particularly spineless if that
were the reason people avoided correcting his insanity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That is no equivocation at all, consistently and repeatedly explained every time it was used.
A person looking straight ahead while standing or sitting without tilting their head either forward or backward will see the horizon in their line of sight at eye level.
You even quoted where I am saying this exact same thing.

I didn't quote you because I agree with you. Do you think that every time someone clicks "reply and quote" that they are by default agreeing to what the poster said?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well if by withering you mean comically inept, totally empty, and devoid of impact.

And by witty you mean idiotic...

Then you might have a point.

Although, given how empty and pathetic they are, it seems particularly spineless if that
were the reason people avoided correcting his insanity.

The irony was obviously lost on you. 😉