Did Men Really Walk On The Moon?

[Lost4words]

Well like i have said before i am looking forward to the return of Jesus The Messiah. Because the lies of this age will be cast out and i am 100% confident in the description's God has given of His creation in The Bible. That they will be found to be an accurate literal account. That the sun, moon and stars have been place in the dome separating waters from waters. To give light to the earth, that God did not create planets and forgot or failed to mention their creation in The Bible. That the earth has been set on foundations and can not move.

Like i have said before my friend, your belief is based on 'your' interpretation of said scripture. I dont see it like that.

Plus, we also have a MASSIVE amount of scientific proofs that the earth is a globe....all given to man by God. God has given man the ability to have knowledge and understanding.

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course some- many if not most- are into self deception.
There are psychological reasons, and it's super easy.
Often, no effort at all is needed.

What does take an effort is learning to practice
some self control, self discipline.

Self deception is bad practice.

I was taught very early that self indulgence-
letting feelings run my life, not thought.
Self deception is one of many sunsets of indulgence.


If you and your pals actually choose something,
any old thing, and fool yourself into believing it,
so much the worse for you, so much less credible
are any "truths" that you choose, and believe with
no analysis, believe regardless of any proof that
it's false.

Worse, it's a Virtue! Faith, no matter what.


If this is how you wish to live, go for it.
The effects won't reach the shores of Singapore.


You can even think that everyone is similarly
benighted and go about picking out things
to believe. It's not true, but you can trick yourself into
believing it.

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity the kind of self-deception you talk about is called prelest, a Church Slavonic word which means “spiritual delusion.” Where it becomes particularly dangerous is when people become convinced they are a prophet with various supernatural abilities chosen by God for some sort of mission, and reinforce this delusion with various cognitive biases, and it becomes more dangerous still when other people buy into their delusion, for that is how cults such as Mormonism and Scientology come into existence.

 

[prodromos]

We have discussed this before no need to do it again. It may have actually been on this thread.

If you can point me to where this was discussed, I would appreciate it.

 

[d taylor]

If you can point me to where this was discussed, I would appreciate it.

-​

Well that is a tall request for my slow dsl computer as i do not live my life on a computer. If i come across it i will mark it but i have had too many post on flat earth and moon threads. To just come across the post without a quite involved search.

 

[Astrid]

Estrid, good morning! I think it's morning where you are.

I plan to write more soon, but I just wanted to say good morning

Tomorrow morning even.. it's always already to
tomorrow in S'pore.

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity the kind of self-deception you talk about is called prelest, a Church Slavonic word which means “spiritual delusion.” Where it becomes particularly dangerous is when people become convinced they are a prophet with various supernatural abilities chosen by God for some sort of mission, and reinforce this delusion with various cognitive biases, and it becomes more dangerous still when other people buy into their delusion, for that is how cults such as Mormonism and Scientology come into existence.

A majority of Christians I've pressed
for info on just how it is they ha e the one
True reading, will say the Holy Spirit guides them.

Though they shy away when I inquire further
with the observation that such help makes them
infallible.

Still, it's but a series of baby steps from
belief in such personal Guidance to going
full blown false Prophet.

Another scary sort quoted some of the savage anti atheist bible lines and told me he'd have me
hanging from a lamp post soon as he got Word it's time to start killing all the
athiests.

 

[ozso]

-​

A person does not choose their beliefs. Beliefs come about by examining the evidence presented by a person, an origination, group, etc... so after examining the evidence, if they are persuaded by the evidence to be true. then they will believe if they are not persuaded by the evidence then they will not believe.

A person can not believe something is true and then choose not to believe it. They may after some time be persuaded by other point of views. That the evidence is not true and stop believing in what they once believed in.

To me that's the process involved in choosing what to believe or disbelieve. In politics, one examines what both sides say and have to offer. What what each side is for and against. And though that process, one decides to either be a Republican or a Democrat. There are other political parties of course like Independent and Libertarian etc. But most people choose either D or R.

 

[ozso]

Of course some- many if not most- are into self deception.
There are psychological reasons, and it's super easy.
Often, no effort at all is needed.
What does take an effort is learning to practice
some self control, self discipline.
Self deception is bad practice.
I was taught very early that self indulgence-
letting feelings run my life, not thought.
Self deception is one of many sunsets of indulgence.
If you and your pals actually choose something,
any old thing, and fool yourself into believing it,
so much the worse for you, so much less credible
are any "truths" that you choose, and believe with
no analysis, believe regardless of any proof that
it's false.
Worse, it's a Virtue! Faith, no matter what.
If this is how you wish to live, go for it.
The effects won't reach the shores of Singapore.
You can even think that everyone is similarly
benighted and go about picking out things
to believe. It's not true, but you can trick yourself into
believing it.

So far I haven't seen you present an objective argument. You seem to only critique the speaker and post philosophy.

 

[ozso]

Tomorrow morning even.. it's always already to
tomorrow in S'pore.

A majority of Christians I've pressed
for info on just how it is they ha e the one
True reading, will say the Holy Spirit guides them.

Though they shy away when I inquire further
with the observation that such help makes them
infallible.

Still, it's but a series of baby steps from
belief in such personal Guidance to going
full blown false Prophet.

Another scary sort quoted some of the savage anti atheist bible lines and told me he'd have me
hanging from a lamp post soon as he got Word it's time to start killing all the
athiests.

So you've come to a subjective conclusion based on anecdotal experiences, instead of objectively examining Christianity as a whole. You've gone to random people to get perspective, rather than to accredited Christian apologists.

 

[The Liturgist]

Tomorrow morning even.. it's always already to
tomorrow in S'pore.

A majority of Christians I've pressed
for info on just how it is they ha e the one
True reading, will say the Holy Spirit guides them.

Though they shy away when I inquire further
with the observation that such help makes them
infallible.

Still, it's but a series of baby steps from
belief in such personal Guidance to going
full blown false Prophet.

Another scary sort quoted some of the savage anti atheist bible lines and told me he'd have me
hanging from a lamp post soon as he got Word it's time to start killing all the
athiests.

I am sorry you have had those experiences. The majority of Christians I know are not like that, but then again I mostly know Christians who are members of the traditional liturgical churches. These include, but are not limited to, tne Oriental Orthodox, which includes the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic and Indian Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, which includes the Orthodox Church in America, Albanian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Polish Orthodox, etc, and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, and various Anglican churches (Church of England, the Anglican Churches of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Episcopal Church USA, Continuing Anglican churches in the US, and the traditional liturgical Lutheran churches like the LCMS and LCC, which are also known as Evangelical Catholic churches, certain other liturgical Protestants such as Methodists, Moravians and so on, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

I would also note that the traditional liturgical churches still account for a majority of Christians, and while some of them, notably the mainline Protestant churches, are losing members, largely to megachurches which are variously non-denominational, Evangelical, Reformed or Pentecostal, those churches which are Pentecostal or contain Charismatic aspects in their worship being most likely to believe the spirit is guiding their reading of Scripture, other traditional liturgical churches including all of the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and most of the Eastern Orthodox, and many of the traditionalist Anglican and Lutheran churches, are growing.

 

[ozso]

I am sorry you have had those experiences. The majority of Christians I know are not like that, but then again I mostly know Christians who are members of the traditional liturgical churches. These include, but are not limited to, tne Oriental Orthodox, which includes the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic and Indian Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, which includes the Orthodox Church in America, Albanian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Polish Orthodox, etc, and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, and various Anglican churches (Church of England, the Anglican Churches of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Episcopal Church USA, Continuing Anglican churches in the US, and the traditional liturgical Lutheran churches like the LCMS and LCC, which are also known as Evangelical Catholic churches, certain other liturgical Protestants such as Methodists, Moravians and so on, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

I would also note that the traditional liturgical churches still account for a majority of Christians, and while some of them, notably the mainline Protestant churches, are losing members, largely to megachurches which are variously non-denominational, Evangelical, Reformed or Pentecostal, those churches which are Pentecostal or contain Charismatic aspects in their worship being most likely to believe the spirit is guiding their reading of Scripture, other traditional liturgical churches including all of the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and most of the Eastern Orthodox, and many of the traditionalist Anglican and Lutheran churches, are growing.

I think a lot of times when one doesn't want to believe in something they go for confirmation bias. Meaning they'll cherry pick the worst examples and worst representatives, to confirm that their bias against a particular belief is justified. Also people will only seek out those who debunk a particular belief, as evidence that it's wrong, rather than weighing out what both the debunkers and the proponents have to say. And of course vice versa regarding that as well. Many choose confirmation bias over actually trying to sort out all of the available information to arrive at the truth.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think a lot of times when one doesn't want to believe in something they go for confirmation bias. Meaning they'll cherry pick the worst examples and worst representatives, to confirm that their bias against a particular belief is justified. Also people will only seek out those who debunk a particular belief, as evidence that it's wrong, rather than weighing out what both the debunkers and the proponents have to say. And of course vice versa regarding that as well. Many choose confirmation bias over actually trying to sort out all of the available information to arrive at the truth.

Indeed, as I myself mentioned earlier. I think confirmation bias is particularly prevalent among those who deny the Lunar landing or manned space flight or adhere to the Flat Earth theory.

The excellent 1970s film Capricorn One goes into the technical details as to just how hard it would be for NASA to fake a manned mission, in the case presented in the story, due to a defective life support system for a Mars mission, amid concerns that their budget is about to be slashed.

 

[ozso]

Indeed, as I myself mentioned earlier. I think confirmation bias is particularly prevalent among those who deny the Lunar landing or manned space flight or adhere to the Flat Earth theory.

The excellent 1970s film Capricorn One goes into the technical details as to just how hard it would be for NASA to fake a manned mission, in the case presented in the story, due to a defective life support system for a Mars mission, amid concerns that their budget is about to be slashed.

I'm not sure I ever saw Capricorn One. If I did, it was around the time it came out. But I have watched documentaries about how the moonlandings were staged. And going into it with a lot of accumulated knowledge. Things you touched on such as the Apollo 1 CM fire is stuff I learned about when I was 6 years old from my space enthusiast older brother. So I was able to apply informed objectivity to weigh out their evidence. When it comes to such things, I'm willing to give it a maybe... however unlikely.

Many seem to see it as vital and essential that everyone MUST believe in the Moon landings. Personally I don't see it being particularly vital or necessary.

 

[prodromos]

-​

Well that is a tall request for my slow dsl computer as i do not live my life on a computer. If i come across it i will mark it but i have had too many post on flat earth and moon threads. To just come across the post without a quite involved search.

Never mind. I found a couple of threads where you make the same claims but all you did was plot on a map where you claim the ISS was visible to your location. The plot was entirely subjective, no triangulation involved. You assume it is low altitude without any kind of measurement made. You also make, again, the entirely subjective claim that the ISS has its own bright lights that it turns on and off, when in fact it becomes visible when sunlight is reflecting off it at an acute angle, and then goes dark when it moves into the earth's shadow. Alternatively, depending on whether it is visible just before dawn or just after dusk, it can appear suddenly as it moves out of the earth's shadow, then get dimmer as the angle at which sunlight is reflecting becomes more obtuse.

 

[ozso]

I think also when it comes to whether or not there were moon landings, most people don't really care either way.

 

[Lost4words]

Conspiracy theorists will always gather together great amounts of non scientific data to argue their case. They put together videos etc of pure fantasy. Trying to look like they have true scientific data when in fact its just made up info etc etc...

 

[ozso]

Conspiracy theorists will always gather together great amounts of non scientific data to argue their case. They put together videos etc of pure fantasy. Trying to look like they have true scientific data when in fact its just made up info etc etc...

There is one crucial element that is the only proof needed. All those supposed trips to the moon, and they didn't bring back a single piece of cheese.

 

[Lost4words]

There is one crucial element that is the only proof needed. All those supposed trips to the moon, and they didn't bring back a single piece of cheese.

Thats because it melted on re entry!

 

[Astrid]

So you've come to a subjective conclusion based on anecdotal experiences, instead of objectively examining Christianity as a whole. You've gone to random people to get perspective, rather than to accredited Christian apologists.

It's you coming to a phony conclusion, one based
on nothing but how you choose to perceive.

Try reading what i actually wrote instead of going after
my integrity.

 

[Astrid]

So far I haven't seen you present an objective argument. You seem to only critique the speaker and post philosophy.

Maybe you didn't notice I was not talking to you,
but was agreeing to and enlarging on what the Liturgist
said.

That's twice in a row you've made personally disparaging remarks about me, based off nothing but what you make up.adherents.

ETA. Three times. Or is it four.

 

[Astrid]

I am sorry you have had those experiences. The majority of Christians I know are not like that, but then again I mostly know Christians who are members of the traditional liturgical churches. These include, but are not limited to, tne Oriental Orthodox, which includes the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic and Indian Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, which includes the Orthodox Church in America, Albanian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Polish Orthodox, etc, and the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic churches in communion with Rome, and various Anglican churches (Church of England, the Anglican Churches of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Episcopal Church USA, Continuing Anglican churches in the US, and the traditional liturgical Lutheran churches like the LCMS and LCC, which are also known as Evangelical Catholic churches, certain other liturgical Protestants such as Methodists, Moravians and so on, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

I would also note that the traditional liturgical churches still account for a majority of Christians, and while some of them, notably the mainline Protestant churches, are losing members, largely to megachurches which are variously non-denominational, Evangelical, Reformed or Pentecostal, those churches which are Pentecostal or contain Charismatic aspects in their worship being most likely to believe the spirit is guiding their reading of Scripture, other traditional liturgical churches including all of the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and most of the Eastern Orthodox, and many of the traditionalist Anglican and Lutheran churches, are growing.

Of course most are not like that.

Just the ones who pretend God guides them, so their
reading has to be the right one.

I find Christianity to be a noble faith and criticize nothing in it but some of its nominal adherants.