Those of us trying to help Kelleher

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:11:43 -0400, Dave Typinski
wrote:

Religion and faith are not bad, even though they're co-opted by some
pretty evil people once in a while. Of course, the same can be said
for science and technology, too.

I don't know the extent to which "religion and faith" may be considered
good or bad. I think there are specific religions that are bad at their
core- Christianity, for example, which I believe fundamentally leads to
immoral and unethical behavior, because of the nature of its dogma.
Other religions- Judaism and Islam, for instance, seem less harmful.
Almost any religion approached from a fundamentalist viewpoint, however,
is damaging.

The parts of religion that deal with the big "whys" are probably fairly
harmless; when religion gets involved in questions of nature, however,
which can be reliably handled by science... that's when people are asked
to give up reason for dogma, and IMO that is always very bad.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Apr 13, 7:51*pm, Davoud wrote:
Davoud:

It's quite simple, actually, and it's supported by peer-reviewed
science. Persons of religious faith are better able to sustain illness
and loss than non-believers.

Chris L Peterson:

I don't think the evidence supporting that conclusion is very strong.
I've also seen studies to the contrary.

Perhaps. But I find the evidence supporting the notion that people draw
comfort from their religious beliefs--both the peer-reviewed kind and
the anecdotal kind to which you refer--to be overwhelming. I don't
believe that many people would cling to religion solely for the promise
of Paradise (an Arabic word, by the way). I think they stick to their
religion because it gives them something immediate. For some that may
be a sense of smug self-righteousness, but for most it is comfort. That
comfort, like some other feelings, has eluded rational analysis--but it
is real. I have seen it too many times to deny it.

I've certainly read a lot of first person accounts by well known
atheists describing their experience with death and illness, including
their own. I'd have to say, based on that sample, that secular humanists
are at least as good at dealing with loss as those who are religious.

There is nothing in the notion of religious people drawing comfort from
their faith that says that non-believers cannot also face trial and
tribulation with strength. This, I think, is Gould's "non-overlapping
magisteria." Or perhaps non-exclusive magisteria.

...Since we're mostly anecdotal here, consider
my Mom's housekeeper, who is a Jehovah's Witness. She has quite a few
long term, difficult issues in her life. But she makes little effort to
deal with them, because she is completely convinced that nothing in this
life really matters, it's just a brief stage before passing on to
something much better. (Her actual problems, lack of desire for dealing
with them, and the reasoning for that are all from her own words; I'm
not making any assumptions here.) So is such an attitude healthy for an
individual, or healthy for a culture or species from an evolutionary
standpoint? I don't know, but my gut says no.

You're doing what I said we do--painting the masses with the same brush
that you use to paint a tiny minority--or, perhaps, an individual.
Furthermore, I think that share with Dawkins an active dislike for
things religious, while I am more passive--live and let live, that sort
of thing. I have _big_ problems with many of the doctrines of the R.C.
Church. I have recited the mantra that adherence to R.C. doctrine has
resulted in unnecessary death and suffering. But when the tsunami hit
the Indian Ocean I wrote my check to Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
because I have been there and seen CRS people in action saving lives in
war and famine and disease and natural disaster, at the risk of their
own lives if necessary. The world isn't black and white. _Every_ story
has at least two sides.

Did I mention that I adore the religious works Bach, Handel, Mozart,
Vivaldi, Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Titian, da Vinci, Palladio,
Brugghen, Rembrandt, Vermeer, et al, at least as much as I adore their
secular work?

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Don't forget Galileo and the major Christian astronomers and their
work which contemporaries now mangle -

"With Herculean toil he [Copernicus] set his admirable mind to this
task, and he made such great progress in this science and brought our
knowledge of the heavenly motions to such precision that he became
celebrated as an astronomer. Since that time not only has the calendar
been regulated by his teachings, but tables of all the motions of the
planets have been calculated as well.Having reduced his system into
six books, he published these at the insistence of the Cardinal of
Capua and the Bishop of Culm. And since he had assumed his laborious
enterprise by order of the supreme pontiff, he dedicated this book On
the celestial revolutions to Pope Paul III. When printed, the book was
accepted by the holy Church, and it has been read and studied by
everyone without the faintest hint of any objection ever being
conceived against its doctrines."

http://www.galilean-library.org/manu...p?postid=43841

Let me see if you adore the work of Copernicus in an era and on a
website which can't even manage to include his name -
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Genuine astronomers and Christians would find it impossible to
consider an alternative means to resolve retrogrades yet people today
can via Newton distortion of it thereby setting the stage for science
vs religion or some other variation on the theme.Many here seem more
interested in expressing what they hate than expressing any interest
in the celestial arena beyond their own observing equipment and that
is a real shame for there is an abundance of imaging that can be put
in context.

Somebody is bound to feel the touch of those delicate sensibilities
common to all astronomers yet have a steely intellect to deal with the
cross currents of physical considerations which obscure or enlighten a
premise,conclusion or working principle.It is as much an adventure as
anything when considering the celestial arena,not just the observing
or capturing images but putting them into context and that is where
the faculties which appreciate astronomy and Christ/Christianity
intersect.

Like it or not,this forum is a different place.

It is fascinating to hear such dispassionate, intelligent and
articulate discussion of religion.

I will allow religion had real purpose in the distant past in
civilising some extremely barbaric tribes and bringing unity to some
warring nations. The problem was the total corruption of those who
assumed this new power over the people. One which completely bypassed
mere muscle and inherited wealth. It seems that nothing can separate
power from corruption in mere mortals. Religion is just a flag of
convenience for the corrupt. History recalls how few have been able to
resist this temptation into immediate corruption. The same is as true
today as it was millennia ago. We simply have not evolved. The
strongest caveman today still grabs the largest share of the meat and
denies others their share. Dress them as priests, imams, bankers or
generals. The same always holds true. They don't have to behave like
this, of course. But they always do since power always corrupts.

One only has to look around the cesspit of most democracies to see how
those with power behave. A railway guard on the turnstiles is no less
immune than a prime minister's spin doctor. All abuse their power
according to their personal leverage. No more and no less. Religion
and communism are as corrupt as fascist dictatorship. The rules are
always the same. Where advantage can be gained over another then it
will be taken. No mercy. No sympathy. No compassion. Dehumanising the
victim is as common to the school bully as it is to the union rep, as
it is to the street cop, the shopkeeper, the car salesman, the sweat-
shop boss, the drug dealer and the pimp.

Power always corrupts. The badge assumed is immaterial. My dislike of
the religious is not the sickening smugness of certainty but the
corrupt control they always seek over others. Whether it is the leader
of a small sect or the last pope himself. The assumption of power is
inevitably bound to corruption of thought, action and deed. Even if it
flies under the death sentence of "the greater good."

I believe in basic respect for others, nature and the environment
where it is due. "Do unto others as you would have done to yourself"
is the only commandment necessary for human existence. The rest are a
flowery nonsense which clouds the real issues at stake. This one
commandment covers every human action and everybody's rights. But more
importantly their shared responsibilities towards each other.
Religion, the armed forces, the police and all other artificial
hierarchies foisted on mankind by force, or force of will, shouldn't
even exist under this commandment. Nobody can kill, steal, preach-at
or bully if one respects others. War is impossible. As is mass
production without true respect for each other in a cooperative
venture. Wealth, factory farming, the spraying of poisons, pollution
and the trading of weapons are all impossible by default. One may not
place others in danger so a mass of abuses of other's rights simply
come to an end. Including driving badly in gas guzzlers. ;-)

A forlorn and utterly pointless hope of course. Because all those with
their little bits of power are not about to give up their petty
leverage over others. The human race is committed to self destruction
in the name of greed. With no end in sight but the total depletion of
natural resources. Or even the destruction of the planet as we know
it. By dehumanising literally everybody else on the planet, except
yourself, you willingly participate in the conclusion of a failed
experiment for testing the limiting conditions for human survival in
large numbers. Just as your president's think tanks and advisers now
predict. Religions are now simply the rollers under our carcases as we
slide ever more swiftly towards the global anarchy of 2030 and
beyond. :-)

On Apr 13, 3:24*pm, oriel36 wrote:

Genuine astronomers and Christians would find it impossible to
consider an alternative means to resolve retrogrades yet people *today
can via Newton distortion of it thereby setting the stage for science
vs religion or some other variation on the theme.

Your statement that Newton resolved retrogrades in a manner different
from the way that Copernicus resolved retrogrades is, I am afraid,
simply incomprehensible. Both Newton and Copernicus stated that other
planets, like Mars or Jupiter, have a movement around the Sun that is
always in one direction, but the motion they have in our skies
includes retrogrades because of the fact that the Earth also moves in
an orbit around the Sun.

There might be differences in how Newton and Copernicus expressed this
truth, but those are not noticeable from the modern viewpoint.

John Savard

"Chris.Bee" wrote:

It is fascinating to hear such dispassionate, intelligent and
articulate discussion of religion.

I will allow religion had real purpose in the distant past in
civilising some extremely barbaric tribes and bringing unity to some
warring nations. The problem was the total corruption of those who
assumed this new power over the people. One which completely bypassed
mere muscle and inherited wealth. It seems that nothing can separate
power from corruption in mere mortals. Religion is just a flag of
convenience for the corrupt. History recalls how few have been able to
resist this temptation into immediate corruption. The same is as true
today as it was millennia ago. We simply have not evolved. The
strongest caveman today still grabs the largest share of the meat and
denies others their share. Dress them as priests, imams, bankers or
generals. The same always holds true. They don't have to behave like
this, of course. But they always do since power always corrupts.

We're only 400 generations or so removed from the post-glaciation
developers of agriculture. Worse, all the competitive advantages have
since then gone to cave-man behaviors--until very recently when the
industrial revolution started changing that. We're a mere six
generations removed from the initiation of powered technology and
three generations removed from effective medicine. It's hardly any
wonder we haven't evolved much.

I suspect we'll change quite a bit in the next thousand years,
however. Either that or we'll split into two or more subspecies.
Probably both. The changes in the offing are the biggest humanity has
ever faced unto a redefinition of what it means to be human. I hope
we have learned well from the mistakes of the past because humanity
will need all the skill it can bring to bear to conquer the future
that lies before it.

One only has to look around the cesspit of most democracies to see how
those with power behave. A railway guard on the turnstiles is no less
immune than a prime minister's spin doctor. All abuse their power
according to their personal leverage. No more and no less. Religion
and communism are as corrupt as fascist dictatorship. The rules are
always the same. Where advantage can be gained over another then it
will be taken. No mercy. No sympathy. No compassion. Dehumanising the
victim is as common to the school bully as it is to the union rep, as
it is to the street cop, the shopkeeper, the car salesman, the sweat-
shop boss, the drug dealer and the pimp.

Power always corrupts. ... The human race is committed to self destruction
in the name of greed.

On the other hand, greed coupled with enlightened self interest seems
to have done pretty well for us. The jury's still out on the
inevitable immolation of the species. If homo sapiens is replaced by
something even better, designed this time by our own hand instead of
cosmic rays, so much the better.

We're hard by a technological and biological singularity. One has but
three choices: lead, follow, or become irrelevant.
--
Dave

On Apr 14, 4:54 am, Dave Typinski wrote:

On the other hand, greed coupled with enlightened self interest seems
to have done pretty well for us. The jury's still out on the
inevitable immolation of the species. If homo sapiens is replaced by
something even better, designed this time by our own hand instead of
cosmic rays, so much the better.

We're hard by a technological and biological singularity. One has but
three choices: lead, follow, or become irrelevant.
--
Dave

I wish I shared your optimism for our future. I fear our entire
world's organisational systems are locked into a situation where
nothing can change from below. There is little sign of a desire to
change anything from above. It's business as usual. It may be that
Obama can achieve a temporary change in our global perception that all
politicians are short term, self seeking, corrupt hypocrites riding
the gravy train for all its worth. But he does not rule alone and the
corruption of national government is never far away to apply the drag
brakes of self interest. I fear Obama has not enough time before the
dirty tricksters and/or a bullet return us to "normality."

We are still moving ever further from the supposed content of this
board and I am as guilty of this as any other. I have some long-
overdue items to complete a telescope waiting for me at the Post
Office. It is time to get back to some practical astronomy after a
very long and very grey winter of inactivity. Thanks to all for their
tolerance of my off-topic ramblings. May your RA worms never
rust. :-)

"Chris.Bee" wrote:

On Apr 14, 4:54 am, Dave Typinski wrote:

On the other hand, greed coupled with enlightened self interest seems
to have done pretty well for us. The jury's still out on the
inevitable immolation of the species. If homo sapiens is replaced by
something even better, designed this time by our own hand instead of
cosmic rays, so much the better.

We're hard by a technological and biological singularity. One has but
three choices: lead, follow, or become irrelevant.
--
Dave

I wish I shared your optimism for our future. I fear our entire
world's organisational systems are locked into a situation where
nothing can change from below. There is little sign of a desire to
change anything from above.

That's the cool thing about technological change: it doesn't happen
from above or below, but from outside the space occupied by all
current possibilities--kind of like a tesseract poking a corner into
our three dimensional flatland.

The other cool thing about technological change is that it can,
sometimes, make the more sinister aspects of human nature less
relevant. For example: God may have made all men, but Sam Colt made
'em equal. Another example: China is desperately trying to control
its people through censorship of the information the masses
receive--but the advent of the internet had made that task
increasingly difficult to the good fortune of the Chinese people.

Thanks to all for their
tolerance of my off-topic ramblings. May your RA worms never
rust. :-)

Same here on both counts.
--
Dave

In sci.astro.amateur message 6a31bcc0-9f9b-411a-9a6d-90360eb0e383@x1g20
00prh.googlegroups.com, Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:35:44, Quadibloc
posted:

The people who have said you are a "bot", because you can't add 2 + 2
to make 4, are now refuted.

You _can_ divide 360 by 84 and get 4 as the answer... with, of course,
16 remainder.

Well, perhaps he can; and perhaps you can. But I can only do it with a
remainder of 24.

It's well known that 360 divided by 90 is exactly 4 (and that by 72 is
5); so dividing by 6 fewer than 90 should leave four six-sized bits to
make the remainder.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Never argue with an idiot; it only encourages him to do the same.

On Apr 14, 5:35*pm, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:
In sci.astro.amateur message 6a31bcc0-9f9b-411a-9a6d-90360eb0e383@x1g20
00prh.googlegroups.com, Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:35:44, Quadibloc
posted:



The people who have said you are a "bot", because you can't add 2 + 2
to make 4, are now refuted.

You _can_ divide 360 by 84 and get 4 as the answer... with, of course,
16 remainder.

Well, perhaps he can; and perhaps you can. *But I can only do it with a
remainder of 24.

It's well known that 360 divided by 90 is exactly 4 (and that by 72 is
5); so dividing by 6 fewer than 90 should leave four six-sized bits to
make the remainder.

--
*(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. * Turnpike v6.05 * MIME.
*Web *URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
*Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
* * * Never argue with an idiot; it only encourages him to do the same.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~imke/Infr..._2001_2005.jpg

Aside from daily rotation,Uranus will orbitally turn its orientation
to the central Sun by a little over 4 degrees on average insofar as
that turning arises from an orbital dynamic and will be uneven due to
the orbital geometry and motion of the Earth but will turn through 360
degrees over 84 years nevertheless.

Here is a major modification to the explanation for the seasons
insofar as the Earth orbitally turns with respect to the central Sun
in a specific way and quite apart from the point of daily rotation and
this is how it is treated.How,for goodness sake,are people expected to
appreciate astronomy when something like this comes along as it
treated as if it were nothing !.

On 14 Apr, 19:14, oriel36 wrote:

After a (very) brief respite Kelleher starts posting the same material
he has been posting for years.

No chance of course that he will answer any questions asked of him or
even that he will explain exactly how his theory differs from main-
stream thought!

The widely expressed concerns about his mental health seem justified.