Saturday, 5 May 2012
When does the journey end?
In short, it doesn't. It really depends from what perspective we're speaking through though. One's journey could be characterised as starting when born and ending when dead. But, what happens after death? We know life itself was here long before we were even born into it. So, I think it's safe to say that it's hard to give a start or end to the journey of life. However there is a pattern, everything seems to start and end except where it ends is a new start. Nothing dies, it just transforms into something new. Life isn't really a thing that can be defined with a beginning or end, for it's really only as long as a moment, it simply continues and lives on in transformation.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Einstein, His Professor & God?
This story as been circulating around Facebook, again (it's happened before - but I didn't do 'this' about it), and I've been arguing with a few people on the legitimacy of whether the conversation even happened and even concerning the topic they were supposedly talking about. You may start with reading the story below, and then I'll rant on about why it doesn't prove anything.
There is a lot more to the story than what is above, actually it's been slowly changed around like the game some of us may have played as children and know as 'broken telephone.' Actually, not just changed around, but there are many variations to this story. I'm going to start with the point that this isn't even Albert Einstein. If it were, we would have sources left and right to verify such a story seeing as how well known he is. However, there are no sources, the only information I can find are websites telling me that this story is listed no where in any biography that has anything about the man (or the child-er-teenager, since if this was him, he was younger at the time). Not to forget that Mr. Einstein isn't even religious and doesn't believe in having a personal god.
What they were correct to say was that cold is not the opposite to heat, as hot would be the word to use. Heat is something, cold is the (not so enjoyable) sensation we refer to when there is less heat than preferred. We actually don't know what absolute zero is, and so to say that hitting 458 degrees below 0 is the lowest we can go is just for the purpose of making people think that he actually has a point. Absolute zero is a scientific theory, which means it's not certain, but this is what we have right now, the actual number is -459.67°F (or −273.15°C since I'm up here in Canada). However, we have never actually been able to mimic or see absolute zero for ourselves. Another point that this student has made that is also correct is that darkness is not necessarily a thing within itself, it's the absence of light. This is basically the same as the cold and heat comparison, darkness being a sensation we perceive through experiencing less light. However, how does this show that there is a God and that Science is wrong? Even though we understand the difference between how we perceive light and dark through Science. This is an argument made to answer the long struggled-with question of, "how can a good God exist with so much evil in the world?" The answer of free-will, etc, are also a result of this. What the supposed Mr. Einstein was saying is that good is God and that evil is the absence of good.
Science doesn't actually limit us to five senses, actually - well, our own bodies don't limit us to just having five senses. The credit for the traditional five sense model has been given to Aristotle. Although this really has nothing to do with the conversation (other than that it's another false claim) so we won't further discuss this topic here, actually I'll just send those interested to another article I found breaking down more of our senses, here (link).
The student goes onto explain his perspective of how Science can't explain a thought and that it uses electricity and magnetism, etc. Just because one option isn't fully there yet, doesn't mean the other popular option has to be correct. Science may not be able to explain consciousness (thoughts), but Spirituality is certainly on it's way, and it has nothing to do with a God or religion. With the way this student is talking is actually basic tricks used when trying to win an argument, by using bigger terms and bringing up things that people may not fully understand, you now have the upper hand because everyone either thinks that you're simply smarter than them or they've missed something big earlier on. He is right in that we cannot measure God due to that it has no limits or bounds, for there is no exact description to what God is, one can only assume due to the extensive personification of God as a "he" in the bible or other religious books.
What is death? The student say's that death is the absence of life, some articles I've read have debated saying that it can't be for then it would work the same the other way around. I don't agree with this, I'm not even sure myself what happens after death. I think that our energy will become one with the rest of life itself, but in what sense? Obviously our body matter will merge with the Earth wherever it dies (unless you're an astronaut), but what about our consciousness? These are fun questions to ask but let's get back on track. If death is the absence of life, how would this person be able to believe a religious view which includes an afterlife as the main feature to it? That's the irony of this situation, this non-existent student has now caught up with his own foolish words. The end result of this paragraph is that death is the end of life as we know it.
What is evolution? Being a member of Science, evolution is very simply the process of change over time. If you do not believe in this, than what you're saying is that the second to come is absolutely no different than the second that just passed. They must be the exact same for they have not changed, right? So, to say that we cannot prove that evolution has occurred and that it is ongoing is absolutely insane. It isn't a belief or an opinion, it is a fact the same way we understand gravity to be a fact. The scale at which the process of evolution is looked upon can be widened in time to look at where humans may have evolved from. We've observed physical objects such as ancient writings in detail to bones and fossil records. How scientists understand this is like a puzzle with only so many missing pieces, but we have enough to fill in the blanks. I'm going to end this point with this, we didn't evolve from a "monkey," we simply share the same ancestry. The Science behind it is that at the time this monkey-like creature began to stand up right, is about the same time in Africa when the forests were slowly fading to a lesser amount due to climate change and varying other happenings. Strangely enough is the fact that the reason why they began to stand up right apparently has much more to do with mating. Let's face it, humans love sex!
This story is insulting to humanity, the students can see that the professor has a brain, however you can find out with very few household tools if you'd like. We have technology that can scan the brain, we understand that we have one through comparing our actions to those who we know to have a brain. Moving on, what exactly are the "established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol?" I have never heard of any such thing, and some simple research leads me to believe that I shouldn't have done any to begin with. The professor now smiles as he seems to be unsure whether he actually has a brain, so he seems to also decide to believe it by faith, and so the rest of the students seem to draw a similar line of thought. The best part is that the point of this conversation was to show that life is between the dualism of God and evil, as if they are opposites. To be able to believe this you have to believe in God, and that isn't proven anywhere, nor can it be. I have to say though, it makes a good point for someone who's already religious.
If God commanded people to make the Bible, but we only know about this God through the Bible, then how do we know that it's genuine? The short answer is that we don't, the long answer is - well, it's even shorter, there is no long answer. God is a thing of religious stories, we have nothing to trace this thing to before these stories except what's said in the stories. For example, how do we know that God commanded these humans to create the Bible? I'm just supposed to act on faith, right? What about Horus? The Jesus 3000 years before Jesus, or the virgin Isis before the virgin Mary? There are many beings who supposedly followed the exact same story line as those in the Bible. Where religion goes wrong with Science is that Science is built on being able to change and adapt, religion is a bunch of stubborn stories leading to a bunch of ignorant people. I generally don't have a problem with people who are religious, what I have a problem with is when these people claim to be correct but when challenged become angry and say that I'm evil - no one's said that to me yet but they're thinking it (lol). Other than that, I think the goal should be to understand your belief before you act upon it. A belief is really another word for a stubborn thought, without room for change you cannot grow. Faith is necessary, but not in the stubborn sense. Nothing is absolute, forever at least, and therefore removing any room for change is like signing the tombstone ahead of time for the death of consciousness.
If anyone is interested in understanding existence, you may look up the study of consciousness; the view of spirituality. For, where Science ends, Spirituality picks up. Spirituality is at the heart of every religion, consciousness is what God truly is. God is an exaggerated, personified thing that belongs to a series of stories for the purpose of explaining how these ancient people's perceived their own consciousness.
Professor: You are a Christian, aren’t you, son?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in God?
Student: Absolutely, sir.
Professor: Is God good?
Student: Sure.
Professor: Is God all powerful?
Student: Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn’t. How is this God good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Is satan good?
Student: No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student: From… God…
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student: Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And God did make everything. Correct?
Student: Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student: Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen God?
Student: No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?
Student: No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?
Student: No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student: Yes.
Professor: According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student: And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student: No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theatre became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student: You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man?
Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed? Can you explain how?
Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter.)
Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir… Exactly! The link between man & God is Faith. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.
There is a lot more to the story than what is above, actually it's been slowly changed around like the game some of us may have played as children and know as 'broken telephone.' Actually, not just changed around, but there are many variations to this story. I'm going to start with the point that this isn't even Albert Einstein. If it were, we would have sources left and right to verify such a story seeing as how well known he is. However, there are no sources, the only information I can find are websites telling me that this story is listed no where in any biography that has anything about the man (or the child-er-teenager, since if this was him, he was younger at the time). Not to forget that Mr. Einstein isn't even religious and doesn't believe in having a personal god.
What they were correct to say was that cold is not the opposite to heat, as hot would be the word to use. Heat is something, cold is the (not so enjoyable) sensation we refer to when there is less heat than preferred. We actually don't know what absolute zero is, and so to say that hitting 458 degrees below 0 is the lowest we can go is just for the purpose of making people think that he actually has a point. Absolute zero is a scientific theory, which means it's not certain, but this is what we have right now, the actual number is -459.67°F (or −273.15°C since I'm up here in Canada). However, we have never actually been able to mimic or see absolute zero for ourselves. Another point that this student has made that is also correct is that darkness is not necessarily a thing within itself, it's the absence of light. This is basically the same as the cold and heat comparison, darkness being a sensation we perceive through experiencing less light. However, how does this show that there is a God and that Science is wrong? Even though we understand the difference between how we perceive light and dark through Science. This is an argument made to answer the long struggled-with question of, "how can a good God exist with so much evil in the world?" The answer of free-will, etc, are also a result of this. What the supposed Mr. Einstein was saying is that good is God and that evil is the absence of good.
Science doesn't actually limit us to five senses, actually - well, our own bodies don't limit us to just having five senses. The credit for the traditional five sense model has been given to Aristotle. Although this really has nothing to do with the conversation (other than that it's another false claim) so we won't further discuss this topic here, actually I'll just send those interested to another article I found breaking down more of our senses, here (link).
The student goes onto explain his perspective of how Science can't explain a thought and that it uses electricity and magnetism, etc. Just because one option isn't fully there yet, doesn't mean the other popular option has to be correct. Science may not be able to explain consciousness (thoughts), but Spirituality is certainly on it's way, and it has nothing to do with a God or religion. With the way this student is talking is actually basic tricks used when trying to win an argument, by using bigger terms and bringing up things that people may not fully understand, you now have the upper hand because everyone either thinks that you're simply smarter than them or they've missed something big earlier on. He is right in that we cannot measure God due to that it has no limits or bounds, for there is no exact description to what God is, one can only assume due to the extensive personification of God as a "he" in the bible or other religious books.
What is death? The student say's that death is the absence of life, some articles I've read have debated saying that it can't be for then it would work the same the other way around. I don't agree with this, I'm not even sure myself what happens after death. I think that our energy will become one with the rest of life itself, but in what sense? Obviously our body matter will merge with the Earth wherever it dies (unless you're an astronaut), but what about our consciousness? These are fun questions to ask but let's get back on track. If death is the absence of life, how would this person be able to believe a religious view which includes an afterlife as the main feature to it? That's the irony of this situation, this non-existent student has now caught up with his own foolish words. The end result of this paragraph is that death is the end of life as we know it.
What is evolution? Being a member of Science, evolution is very simply the process of change over time. If you do not believe in this, than what you're saying is that the second to come is absolutely no different than the second that just passed. They must be the exact same for they have not changed, right? So, to say that we cannot prove that evolution has occurred and that it is ongoing is absolutely insane. It isn't a belief or an opinion, it is a fact the same way we understand gravity to be a fact. The scale at which the process of evolution is looked upon can be widened in time to look at where humans may have evolved from. We've observed physical objects such as ancient writings in detail to bones and fossil records. How scientists understand this is like a puzzle with only so many missing pieces, but we have enough to fill in the blanks. I'm going to end this point with this, we didn't evolve from a "monkey," we simply share the same ancestry. The Science behind it is that at the time this monkey-like creature began to stand up right, is about the same time in Africa when the forests were slowly fading to a lesser amount due to climate change and varying other happenings. Strangely enough is the fact that the reason why they began to stand up right apparently has much more to do with mating. Let's face it, humans love sex!
This story is insulting to humanity, the students can see that the professor has a brain, however you can find out with very few household tools if you'd like. We have technology that can scan the brain, we understand that we have one through comparing our actions to those who we know to have a brain. Moving on, what exactly are the "established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol?" I have never heard of any such thing, and some simple research leads me to believe that I shouldn't have done any to begin with. The professor now smiles as he seems to be unsure whether he actually has a brain, so he seems to also decide to believe it by faith, and so the rest of the students seem to draw a similar line of thought. The best part is that the point of this conversation was to show that life is between the dualism of God and evil, as if they are opposites. To be able to believe this you have to believe in God, and that isn't proven anywhere, nor can it be. I have to say though, it makes a good point for someone who's already religious.
If God commanded people to make the Bible, but we only know about this God through the Bible, then how do we know that it's genuine? The short answer is that we don't, the long answer is - well, it's even shorter, there is no long answer. God is a thing of religious stories, we have nothing to trace this thing to before these stories except what's said in the stories. For example, how do we know that God commanded these humans to create the Bible? I'm just supposed to act on faith, right? What about Horus? The Jesus 3000 years before Jesus, or the virgin Isis before the virgin Mary? There are many beings who supposedly followed the exact same story line as those in the Bible. Where religion goes wrong with Science is that Science is built on being able to change and adapt, religion is a bunch of stubborn stories leading to a bunch of ignorant people. I generally don't have a problem with people who are religious, what I have a problem with is when these people claim to be correct but when challenged become angry and say that I'm evil - no one's said that to me yet but they're thinking it (lol). Other than that, I think the goal should be to understand your belief before you act upon it. A belief is really another word for a stubborn thought, without room for change you cannot grow. Faith is necessary, but not in the stubborn sense. Nothing is absolute, forever at least, and therefore removing any room for change is like signing the tombstone ahead of time for the death of consciousness.
If anyone is interested in understanding existence, you may look up the study of consciousness; the view of spirituality. For, where Science ends, Spirituality picks up. Spirituality is at the heart of every religion, consciousness is what God truly is. God is an exaggerated, personified thing that belongs to a series of stories for the purpose of explaining how these ancient people's perceived their own consciousness.
Monday, 9 April 2012
CISPA?
Before I start with this I think it's important to understand the very recent history of these bills and laws or whatever you want to call them, seeing as CISPA is only the most recent (one up until this post.)
What these three bills have in common, are the infringements on our right and freedoms as human beings. After 9/11 (which I most definitely believe has a little more to it than what the Government left it at) the right and freedoms began to slowly fade away and didn't seem do seem as strong as before. Apparently, the internet is next. I don't know about you, but I hate that feeling that you get when someone is watching over your shoulder... Now, I'd like to point out that the reasons for which these bills were being imposed aren't that bad, but the solutions aren't in our favour. Before we continue on to what exactly this post is about, I'd like to leave it at this. Google, Mozilla, Wikimedia Foundation, Reddit, and in total around 115,000 websites protested against SOPA/PIPA and or ACTA by either closing their websites completely, partly, or by displaying information about why exactly you shouldn't support these bills as well as encouraging those reading to do more research for themselves. People such as Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, as well as a letter written to congress by many of the inventors of the internet - and by many, I think it was something like 81? Any ways, you get the point. SOPA and PIPA were eventually shelved... Moving on!
These bills are an attack on the internet, how do you feel about every little thing you do being monitored on the internet? For the record, Canada (which is where I live - so I'll mention this) did have a part of bill C-10 (Safe Streets and Communities Act) which specifically had to do with monitoring the internet, but was taken out due to protest before the bill was passed on March 12th (a month ago).
- SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) October 26, 2011
This was a bill imposed by the United States by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX). It's goal was focussed more towards online piracy, as stated in the name of the bill. It was supposed to put more restrictions on online copyrighted material. - PIPA (PROTECT IP Act, or Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act)
May 12, 2011
Also imposed within the United States, the bill was introduced on May 12, 2011, by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It's purpose was to give copyright holders access to more tools to assist them in keeping their materials (and who can access them) within their control. It ended up being passed but was actually put on hold by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR). - ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) November 15, 2010
This is a multinational treaty for the purpose of establishing international standards for intellectual property rights enforcement. The agreement aims to establish an international legal framework for targeting counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet. In October of 2011, the agreement was signed by by Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and of course, the United States. In January 2012, the European Union (including 22 countries of which are apart of the EU) also signed, therefore bringing the number of signatories up to 31. Only 6 of the signatories need to agree on, or I guess "ratify," the agreement in order for it to come into effect, but I believe none of them have done anything yet. As far as I know, it's just sitting still. I put this one as the last because it was actually the last to be brought to my attention.
What these three bills have in common, are the infringements on our right and freedoms as human beings. After 9/11 (which I most definitely believe has a little more to it than what the Government left it at) the right and freedoms began to slowly fade away and didn't seem do seem as strong as before. Apparently, the internet is next. I don't know about you, but I hate that feeling that you get when someone is watching over your shoulder... Now, I'd like to point out that the reasons for which these bills were being imposed aren't that bad, but the solutions aren't in our favour. Before we continue on to what exactly this post is about, I'd like to leave it at this. Google, Mozilla, Wikimedia Foundation, Reddit, and in total around 115,000 websites protested against SOPA/PIPA and or ACTA by either closing their websites completely, partly, or by displaying information about why exactly you shouldn't support these bills as well as encouraging those reading to do more research for themselves. People such as Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, as well as a letter written to congress by many of the inventors of the internet - and by many, I think it was something like 81? Any ways, you get the point. SOPA and PIPA were eventually shelved... Moving on!
- CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) November 30, 2011
The most recent bill is apparently just the SOPA, but renamed, well - and completely re-done. This is what I've heard and read by some news source which currently escape my mind. I don't know about the literal accuracy of that but, at the very least, what I can tell you with certainty is that this bill is the SOPA's big brother and that it was brought to attention to the House on November 30, 2011 by U.S. Representative Michael Rogers (R-MI). It's actually an amendment to the National Security Act of 1947, which does not currently contain provisions pertaining to cybercrime. The bottom line about this bill is that it contains very few limits as to how the government can monitor private information.
These bills are an attack on the internet, how do you feel about every little thing you do being monitored on the internet? For the record, Canada (which is where I live - so I'll mention this) did have a part of bill C-10 (Safe Streets and Communities Act) which specifically had to do with monitoring the internet, but was taken out due to protest before the bill was passed on March 12th (a month ago).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)