How many degrees in their orbit do the planets travel in one Earth year?

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 3:25:06 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Crap snipped..
There, fixed that for you, dim bulb. Next time come up with your own comics.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:18:44 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

I agree with Savard, you are overstating your case. Strongly.

A matter of opinion, of course.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:53:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Incorrect. For immigration purposes, a background check on major crimes committed by the applicant in his/her native country gives a rather good idea of his/her moral character.

No, it doesn't. It provides a good idea of his legal history. A lack
of criminal record is little indicator of moral character.

Then absent such a record, you would have nothing by which to decide.

Nonsense. We all make judgments of moral character, seldom considering
criminality. By my standards, you are an awful person. Somebody of the
lowest moral character, worse than many criminals. You, no doubt, see
things differently. A great deal of moral judgment is subjective.

It is both. Religion is naturally an intellectual failure, because
theism and religion represent irrational thinking.

Incorrect. Since you follow no religion you are not qualified to comment.

I need follow no religion to have an opinion on the matter. I am
better educated in theology than 99% of the religious.

Religion and theism depend on believing things without evidence,
indeed, frequently believing things that are contradicted by evidence.
That is the definition of irrational thinking.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:16:51 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:03:41 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge. One
day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.

If so, shouldn't religion then also be seen as a disqualufication for
residency as well?

Yes. But I recognize that as an ideal, not something that could
possibly work in today's world. I see it as an endpoint in societal
development, where being religious is simply seen as so far beyond the
realm of acceptable thinking that there would be no significant
societal objection to limiting rights or privileges based on it.
Obviously, we're nowhere near that yet. But it's a laudable goal.

On Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 5:31:43 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:16:51 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 22:03:41 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge. One
day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for immigration.

If so, shouldn't religion then also be seen as a disqualufication for
residency as well?

Yes. But I recognize that as an ideal, not something that could
possibly work in today's world. I see it as an endpoint in societal
development, where being religious is simply seen as so far beyond the
realm of acceptable thinking that there would be no significant
societal objection to limiting rights or privileges based on it.
Obviously, we're nowhere near that yet. But it's a laudable goal.

Not all religions depend on believing things without evidence or contrary to evidence. Would you disallow worship of kindness and altruism?

Astronomy in its most encompassing state is a series of inspirational discoveries and none more so than the reasoning which accounted for the Earth's position and motion in space as it is seen to overtake the outer planets -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

People can see the motion of Jupiter as it covers greater distance against the background field of stars compared to the further Saturn and this is how the solar system is arranged, at least the outer planets when seen from a moving Earth.

People who can't be inspired are normally full of convictions handed to them by others and often at an early age. Even the vibrant perspective of Copernicus which introduced the moving Earth to account for why the planets temporarily fall behind in view as it overtakes them is lost to those who lack the ability to inspire and be inspired hence the support for Newton's notion -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

A genuine test as to whether people are both scientific and religious is certainly this technical issue. Newton conjured up a notion of 'apparent motion' as opposed to 'true motion' and wove a vocabulary of absolute/relative around this conception however no such distinction exists. A cult atmosphere is when there is an absence of individual originality as normally the insight of Copernicus clicks in and especially using contemporary time lapse whereas there is nothing that can be done with the empiricist view of Newton on the same technical issue.

So, still on topic, I suggest people look at the time lapse footage and admire how Jupiter covers a greater distance than Saturn even in retrograde motion as it takes the Earth longer to overtake the nearer and faster Jupiter..

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:31:42 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
No. It just means that moral character is difficult to judge.
One
day,
religion may rightly be seen as a disqualification for
immigration.


If so, shouldn't religion then also be seen as a disqualufication
for
residency as well?


Yes. But I recognize that as an ideal, not something that could
possibly work in today's world. I see it as an endpoint in societal
development, where being religious is simply seen as so far beyond
the
realm of acceptable thinking that there would be no significant
societal objection to limiting rights or privileges based on it.
Obviously, we're nowhere near that yet. But it's a laudable goal.

That means you want to remove freedom of thinking and freedom of
opinion. That also means removing democracy...

What about politics, shouldn't we do the same there? Bad political
ideas can do more damage than bad religious ideas. So why not also
throw out people with non-optimal political ideas? Of course the
nation should then also be run by one single party which has the
optimal political ideas and all other parties should be outlawed
since they'll just do damage to society. Wouldn't that too be a
laudable goal?

Finally you have one problem: if you want to throw out all people
from the nation who have ideas you disapprove of, where should all
these people go? They're not citizens of any other nation, so you'd
forcera them to be refugees. The situation would be similar to
today's Syria where the citizens flee en masse, with the main
difference that today's Syria is an islamic dictatorship while your
ideal country would be an atheist dictatorship.

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:25:42 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:18:44 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

I agree with Savard, you are overstating your case. Strongly.

A matter of opinion, of course.

?ndeed that is what the phrase "? agree" means, an expression of
opinion. And since you"re willing to outlaw those who disagree with
you, don't you think yourself that you are overstating your case?

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:28:56 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Religion and theism depend on believing things without evidence,
indeed, frequently believing things that are contradicted by
evidence.
That is the definition of irrational thinking.

That's also the case for many (most?) everyday decisions. Our lives
would stop dead if we refused to make any decision at all without
solid evidence to support the decision.

"Like all poetical natures Jesus loved ignorant people. He knew that in the soul of one who is ignorant there is always room for a great idea.But he could not stand stupid people, especially those who are made stupid by education: people who are full of opinions not one of which they even understand, a peculiarly modern type, summed up by Christ when he describes it as the type of one who has the key of knowledge, cannot use it himself, and does not allow other people to use it, though it may be made to open the gate of God's Kingdom.." Oscar Wilde

That us a succinct statement of the modern empiricist type, full of opinions but lacking the spirit needed to connect the individual with their greater surroundings.

Both the method and insight of the original heliocentric astronomers involved the temporary falling behind in view of the outer planets against the background stars due to the orbital motion of the Earth and empiricists refuse to use this view as they opt for a wayward notion of apparent/true via Newton's false statement -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Like music, astronomy is about enjoying the spectacle and now made so easy with the instruments that create time lapse -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

People will know if they are religious or not by what they feel when they see how the observed motions of the outer planets are resolved for the reasoning by Copernicus is inspired.