Wednesday, March 2, 2005

School flaws and my problems with them.
I thought about doing this for awhile. Going through school I've noticed a few... shall I say... problems with the system. Some of them sheer educational flaws, others flaws of morality. I'll write them up here.

Old habits die hard.

I was always annoyed that Greek Mythology was taught in schools in modern day. The only reason why it is taught is that when the Rennosance came around, people decided to revive the traditions of the Romans and Greeks for education. This included what they decided to teach. So as a requirement, Greek Mythology was made something people were forced to learn. 500+ years later, we haven't changed it.

Though you can take seperate classes on it today, you are required to know Greek Mythology to pass atleast one semester of English in High School. It is squeezed in with literatures such as The Illiad. Now, if we were just dabbeling in it to understand where the auther was coming from, I would be fine with that. But on the semster exam I had some trouble when I had to reconcile 12+ gods from memory and write down their purposes, names, relationships with eachother. Trouble that I thought was very unecissary. There is only 2 applications for which Greek mythology would ever be useful. That is if you are a historrian of that era, or if you are a researcher of religions in the past. Of course, I'm an engineer major, so that knowledge is something to be purged from my memory with no regrets.

You will believe this, or fail!
Which brings me to my second problem with public schools. That is that they are made to teach children ranging from first grade to well into college evolutionism. The NEA argued and won that evolution will be taught as fact in school, theisms will only be taught as fiction, if at all, and to discourage any questioning of evolutionism.

This instruction as to what they should believe starts as early as 1st grade. Since school is mandatory, the government is quite literally forcing children to become evolutionists! All because the NEA won't accept that evolutionism is a self-admitted pseudoscience. To become a geneticist, my sister is forced to take a class on evolution, and evolution is forced down in more sciences than there should be.

Similar to the Big Bang theory and a few accounts of those describing research of other "origin of the universe" theories, when you go along with what you get forced down your throat all through school, you'll do just fine. However, the second you do otherwise, doors and options close completelly.


Then we move on to literature and english classes. Something that annoyed me is that my entire state has a set system of which books you are to read going through school, regardless that they classify school disctricts as counties. Go to other states, and similar if not the same books are read. The same books with the same morals and the same ideas with the same situations presented to the people.

Almost as if our youth is cultivated to have certain morals and philosophies, and those who don't agree with them (ME) will find themselves at the ridicule end of even the instructors when you read an article and have the complete oppositve view of it as the one you are supposed to have.

Mechanical responses instead of understanding

Another flaw with the education system that I read about in an article is what I call the "Machine syndrom". The ideal enviroment for a class that the teacher and schools enforce is an enviroment where students are to sit up strait, do their homework, turn everything in on time, write neatly, be quiet in class, not throw things or misbehaive, memorize vocabulary, take naps at naptime (I believe some schools still do this), write research papers in proper format, walk in lines, keep clean, and attend regularly. Those who do not are punished and discriminated against.

Unforntunately none of these outlined requirements has anything that distinguishes them from orders given to a computer.

When asked questions about the outside world, reasons as to why they say certain things, or stuff they don't know about, they reply with amazing ingorance, a "because I was told so" response, and an "I don't know" for those questions respectfully.

It ends up that the students who are most active, speak out in class, and often mis-behave are the most briliant ones there, even if they don't pass, their I.Q. is a step above those who are revered as good students because they can follow directions. Unfortunately the enviroment enforces discrimination against those who do not go along with the machine.

I didn't get a class that didn't follow this pattern until I was in high school. Most students find that class to be miserable. I enjoy it quite a bit.

Social activities and Instructor behaviors

I guess one of the reasons why I am who I am is because there wasn't a year in school that I wasn't constantly picked on or bullied by at least more than one person until, well, this year. Yes, even the instructors have been a pain.

This will be the first social interaction that I'm gonna address. Every single instance, I had a blind eye turned to my problem. Teachers, Councilers, School Staff, friends, parents even. I was givin the same utter crap that they would say about bulllies (I could probably write a complete other article about this, but I'll keep it short), only to find that each one was false from personal experience. The inconsideration that the staff at the schools that I attend is so saddening it is rediculous. This also ties to the understanding problem.

Most children don't understand that machine-fed concept of right and wrong. I once mentioned (not here) about how if a todler gets caught stealing money from their parents, after he is punished, he learns to be more careful next time.

They don't learn not to do it. They learn not to get caught, or not to do it when a superior is around. And that sticks with a good some of children for years. Usually until their 30s or somewhere around there.

Children are taught to be social, to have friends, stick together, and most importantly, that not wanting friends or interactions is not right. This causes the social skeletons and insipid concerns of the social life of the teenager that is inspired more by possesions and status and purpose. A form if discrimination that isn't as obvious as the color of one's skin.

Well, I've hit a writers block. I'll sleep on it, and try to remember the other things I came up with.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Sunday, February 13, 2005

Does time remain at a constant flow?
I've been meaning to write about this for awhile. This has probably happened to a lot of you.

I was going through school one tuesday, first class, and it seemed like it took forever. Second and third and fourth clases also seemed like they took forever. I ask my fellow students "Man, is it just me or did that class take forever!". Each one agrees with me. At lunch I am talking with my usual "I sit next to you" guys, and they think that the lunch period is strangly long. My next two classes take forever, then I finally get home.

I get home, and the first words out of my mouth were "Man, It's been a long day." Immediatly, my sister says that she has had a long day to. Shortly after, my mother agrees. I call up my friend and start talking to him, and he says he's had a long day. As soon as my father gets home, he says he had a long day.

We all did completey different things, and yet we've all had "long days". Yes, I do know there are coincidences, but this happens WAY too many times to be a coincidence (no you may not bicker about my spelling).

Something I've learned is that nearly a very large amount of measurements have a basis in rate, that is they are devided by time. Scientist claim that time remains at a constant, without seeing the flaw of their judgement.

If time were to change, that would mean the very rate at which EVERYTHING took place would occur at the same points relative to eachother, meaning that any sort of manipiulation in time is undetectable by any device made out of matter.

Also studies have concluded that velocities and large bodies of matter disrupt the fime flow into a curvature state, causing there to be lapses as time differenciates between the two, ultimately forming the twins paradox.

Twins paradox: If one twin is on a ship heading away from the other who is on earth at the speed of light, which one would time seem slowed down to? The answer is both. The twin on the ship will see everything take place slower, and the twin on the Earth will see the ship and everything on it move slower in a direct relationship.

The problem is that though by personal accounts they both would say that one twin was up on the ship for the same time, the time would've flown differently for the two twins, and thus the twin traveling at the speed of light will be younger than the one on Earth.

Though in both's perspectives the same amount of time would've passed. Now you know why it's a paradox.

Stationary inertia using exact location is fictional. Unless you are at the center of the universe (another "theory of time's velocity" thing), you are moving. If the Earth in the Galaxy were to slow down or speed up or come within a certain distance of another as to cause a mix in the time distortion that each galaxies mass would create (Albert Einsteins theory of gravity), then time would indeed fluctuate

But would we detect it minutely or something? I have no idea. I mean, with so many strange things occuring forming one paradox after another, you might aswell place bets on the point in time in which the fabric of the universe expands to the point of collapse (physicists have determined that an outward force pushing the mesh of the universe is strangly increasing and that there would indeed be a point in time which the wall of the universe collapses and everything will either flatten out and crunch into a singularity or cease to exist altogether).

Comments (0) | Permalink

Tuesday, February 8, 2005

Antisociality (not a word), and running out of topics.
I just couldn't decide on something entertaining to write today. I thought about breaking down the basis for many commonly judged irrational thoughts, but it would most likely have gone off like a projectionist rant, and I don't like to read those. I thought about counter-debating many of the Neo-Paganism beliefs, but the very large sum of denominations makes getting accurate information on them a near impossibility. Plus it would drive people away from my site. So I went around to other peoples sites to go and say stuff, and I decided to write a topic on something I noticed.

I see guestbooks that are pages long, and friend lists that go screen to screen. Then I look at my stuff, and notice a very small amount of things (though my site is still early in it's developement), along with the fact that I sparsely every sign guestbooks to the websites that I go to.

Good ole question: Why? Why is it that I have only one guy in my friends list, though others have many more? Why do I not want to take the time to sign guestbooks, but feel all the need to put in my 2¢ into the blog dispenser?

Though people who know me say I'm very sociable, whenever someone who I don't know talks to me, the first thought that comes to mind is "Oh great! WTF do you want?!". I just don't like to meet new people. I guess that's why I preform so well online, since I'm not really "meeting" anyone.

I also find catering to the desires of all the people I know to be a chore unless it benefits me aswell (even though I'll still do it). Call me selfish, but it's what I think. Wish I could change it though.

So I doubt that my site is going to get many people in the "friends" list.

Also, if anyone has any question they would like to ask me to make an article on, go ahead and put it into the comments section.
Comments (1) | Permalink

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Behind the eyes: a childs philosophy.
I call this "a child's philosophy" because I held this idea/belief ever since I was 6 years old. Still stands strong today. Scary how a six-year old can puzzel physicians. "The mind of a child is truly a wonderful thing" Yoda from Star Wars. Though it has grown quite a bit since I grew up.

On my past article of perception and reality, you know that I don't really have much faith in the belief that the sentiate being that occupies the elements that make up my physical form are actually the me in the psychological sense. It just seems illogical that something so rediculessly complex as a single human psyche can be contained in a few pounds of carbon that isn't even really connected to itself. Yes, I am implying the existance of a soul.

I first started the base for this philosophy that I have yet to explain when I was really little. I had never really paid any attention to the perspective that I had to view society. First-person only existed in videogames until I started to recollect my dreams.

An oddity indeed is that a very large sum of my dreams takes place in third person, as if I were perceiving myself in my dream from an outside source, yet able to control all of my actions as if they were in first person.

As a child, I reallly couldn't accept this and move on. I wondered why it was in some dreams I was seeing things through my eyes, but in others it was in third-person. I began to think of stuff like "am my another persons dream through their view?". It was then I acknowledged that other people see the world in first-person through their own perspective, and not from mine in a third-person view.

Add on about a year of television and being somewhat dis-respected by my two older siblings, and with a few fits of depression I began to wonder a very critical question to this idea of mine: "Why me?". I wondered what other people thought when they would do stuff, what they were seeing.

I also wondered why I was stuck in this body right now, and not another one. Before I grew into the faith I currently have today, this brought on the idea of re-incarnation as another being. I thought that this body I was in, when I would die, would go into another body and continue from there without any memory of previous times. But I have long since abandoned that belief.

As time grew on, I incorperated time into my wonders. All I could ever remember as a small child is that life for me suddenly started at the age of about 4. It seemed like I had just woken up one day to be me. I would hear about John in the Bible, the slaves of ancient egypt, and the early comedians of the 1950s.

This only increased my wondering from "why me?" To "Why me, and why now?". I never really understood why I am not in the perspective of an egyption slave, of a tribal Indian, of Albert Einstein, or from the younger brother of a friend of mine in kindergarten. I had to be concious and existing att THIS time, in THIS person, with THESE physical limitations, and no real excuse as to why other than "it just happened that way".

I also soon wondered about the conciousness of other people around me. If they were really thinking, or if they were just existing and I was seeing them through my eyes. "I think, therefore I am".

I soon accepted the complexities of other people and realized that most of them atleast are sentiate beings.

I still today wonder exactly why I am this physical description in this family at this location at this point in time, and not something else. I also wondered exactly who was that "something else". I mean, they were a person, so there had to have been something seeing the world through their eyes at that time, right? I don't feel like a human. I feel like I am sitting in a vessel involuntarily. I can feel these limitations that I wish to surpass.

If there IS an explanation for why I am who I am, anyway. Could die in three seconds and find out it "just happened".

If you've ever been on "substances" and/or really tired and have ever looked at your hand and examined it as if it wasn't a part of you, then you probably know perfectly well how I feel about my entire body.



Plus also I am trying to figure out how to get that {bgproperties=fixed} tag onto the site so my background doesn't scroll and wonder around when you look through my stuff.

Comments (0) | Permalink

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Acknowledgement: Something not everyone does.
Something really funny that happens everyone once in a while. Most of the time it ends with the person repeating themselves over and over ingorning what I said or them becoming very quiet.

As you know, I am partially a racists (I tend to have multiple genres for each race), and hold many contradicting beliefs to your standard "utopian".

When I say "utopian" I am talking about people who share a rather naieve view on how to fix society. Those are those people who suffer from extreme heinsight biased in situations, can hold an irrational emotional attachment to one thing, while completely dis-regarding another that is related to it. The most common dogma that these people have is "you should accept everyone for who they are and not press your beliefs on them".

Then we go on to acknowledgement. Many people have two worlds with them: what they say, and what they actually do.

Personally, I can confirm that a very large amount of racists have no idea that they are one. Most of them hold the utopian view about races. This was me before I was able to acknowledge my actions.

What is funny is that people have a very bad habit of argueing the "you should accept everyone for who they are and not press your beliefs on them" on me.

Why is it funny? Because they aren't accepting who I am, nor the beliefs that I have. Normally that wouldn't be a problem, but the thing is that it is completely hypocritical with what they are argueing me to do.

And oh MAN do a lot of people do this. And when I point it out, the two outcomes of I listed first occurs.

The people who do this are blatent examples of the inability to acknowledge their actions. A part of Fahrenheight 451 (I can't spell) in the beginning when the girl asks Montag if he is happy, the first thing he does is say yes, like a machine response. Not much later in the book, he acknowledges that he in fact isn't happy.

I wish I still had my sister's book on psychology with me, because otherwise I would look up why we do that. But until then, I end this shorter than usual post.

Comments (2) | Permalink

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Aetheism: A faith or falacy.
I got bored in school today and decided to look around at the many sides of religious debates and opinions. Something that I've heard said to me many times and has annoyed me in it's lack of certain sense. In order to counter-debate the thought that Aetheism is a faith, most of this self-proclaimed group say that Aetheism isn't a faith. They state that they "don't believe there is a God", and that since it is a lack of a beleif, it isn't a belief, and it can't be a faith.

I did some research on definitions and applicability to the world around us, and found something very interesting: If aethiesm is truly what they say it is, then it cannot exist!

First and foremost, the definitions. All of which I got from www.dictionary.com, which also sites it's own sources. I'm bolding the main definitions I'm using.


a·the·ism    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (th-zm)
n.

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

2. Godlessness; immorality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless  : a-, without; see a-1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Indo-European Roots.]
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


ag·nos·tic    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (g-nstk)
n.

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a-1 + Gnostic.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ag·nosti·cal·ly adv.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


1 entry found for antitheist.

antitheist

\An`ti*the"ist\, n. A disbeliever in the existence of God.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

entries found for disbelief.
dis·be·lief    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (dsb-lf)
n.

Refusal or reluctance to believe.
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

disbelief

n 1: doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection] 2: a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]


faith    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Idiom:
in faith

Indeed; truly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fids. See bheidh- in Indo-European Roots.]
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Notice how Aethiesm has a definition that is a statement against the existance of a deity, and no others do.

O.K. First and foremost, people define Aethiesm as a "lack of a belief", and it is denoted that since it is the lack of a belief and not an actual beleif, that it is faith. As from the definitions of applicable to the statement, what they are defining Aetheism as isn't even Aetheism. In actually, it is agnosticism (don't know what to call it, really), which defines itself as "skeptical but not aetheistic". This means that there IS a difference between the two. Aetheism's definition is implied, while Agnostic is solid in it's definition.

Antitheism is strictly the dis-belief in the existance of a higher deity. As by definition, it is the refusal or reluctance to believe. Reluctance is defined as unwilling, which is also the refusal or objection to do something (check definitions if you want to). So technically, Antitheism is the refusal to believe in a god/rejecting the belief of a god, which is stated by the word dis-belief. It isn't the lack of a belief, it is the opposite of a belief, such as one can say "there is a god" and "there is no god". Aetheism is defined as "disbelief or denial", and denile is either another refusal, or contradiction (opposing statements), and contradiction leads to a faithful belief. If you were to reject or refuse the belief, you would believe that it isn't true (Yes or no answer), since a dis-belief isn't a lack of a belief, it is the opposite of a belief for something, and it is thus a beleif against something, and thus if you say you have a dis-belief in a god, you are concluding that there isn't a god. And this belief would be faith-based. So you are both Aetheist and Antitheist if you say you have a dis-beleif or denile in a god.

But what is there to contradict the definition as a beleif there isn't a god? There isn't any, really. Aetheism is the cheif word used to describe this. It can be associated with Antitheism (which is almost the same thing), but not Agnostics, which is the lack of a beleif. Either way, it's a faith.


Then we reach applicability in society. This is where it becomes obvious that "aetheist" can really only be applied to a person who has a beleif that there isn't a god. If a person is truly neutral on the matter, they are Agnostic. Dis-belief is a belief against and is thus Antitheism (though what a person thinks, they don't think of matters such as a "lack of belief"). So, only one definition can apply in society. Otherwise, the word is sparsely in existance at all.

Comments (1) | Permalink

Wednesday, January 5, 2005

   "It's been scientifically proven".
This entry is inspired by a conversation that I had with a rather unusual non-denominational neo-pagan. He used this phrase atleast 3 times when he was telling me his justifications for his religion which he has stated that is different for each person and that there is a severe lack of historical evidence of it's past.

I'm pretty sure that if you have ever seen a debate, people like to throw this phrase around a lot. Almost as if it is a give-away tag for people to put onto the beginnings and ends of their sentences to remove all sorts of debate on their statements, and protray it as fact. But does it hold ground/actually mean it? When it does, people actually ignore it, which is very annoying since that is comprobable to ignoring blaten truth.

As for the whole story, this person had previously stated that people can have omnipotent control over their own bodies to the point of eternal life. He was talking about Energy Halos, Auras, and energy communication through the body. He tagged the phrase "scientifically proven" to these, as many people do.

First thing I did was I remember a debate I had a long time ago on the otakuboards over psychic powers and paranomral occurences. A debate that wasn't of that much diffiuclty for me. I also remember that everything this particular person had mentioned had been DIS-proven a multitude of times, and also remembered the very flawed logic that many of the people who were debating against me had.

Second thing I thought of was all of the physics knoweldge that I sought out just for fun when I had to do a report on a controversal issue. And all of the physics that I have been taught, and sought out, also concluded him false.

But that finishing line of "Scientifically Proven" made everyone around me give a sheep-like response of believing it, though I could remember specific incidents and experoments that had concluded him false.

I pity thouse who live with that falsehood who just tag that line onto the end of their sentences just to remove debate. I have concluded through memory and common-sense psycology backed by incidence that when people say "scientifically proven", they mean it.

Because on this 25,000 mile circumference sphere of rock that we live on, billions of people are living, and have lived throughout documented history. And out of these billions of people (a number of a magnitude that many people cannot properly comprehend, such as the value of a "dollar"), there has to have been some person with a degree in some sort of science who did a legitament experament and got that conclusion from his data!

The fast-pacing world has caused many people to dis-credit scientific discovers more than 10 years old with the sole factor of age taken into account. True, the amount of time it takes for one scientist to prove another in history wrong as shrunk to a dramatically short amount of time, but theories such as macro-evolution which are far more than 100 years old still hold on today. I could write a whole other article on that, but I'll leave it be for now.

But it is wrong though? People seem to forget that Newtons laws of motion are centuries old, and that they are still correct today.

But if there are two very well documented experoments that contradict eachothers results, which should you go with? Most people would say the most recent one. But as we have seen, the "most recent one" isn't always correct.

That brings up the question as to what to give credit to in the art of science. Many people have their own little philosophies as what to respect. Some say don't believe it because it came from an Aethiest. Some say that the results were rigged. Some say it wasn't well-documented. I like to guage it on a few things:

Net Evidence. (A phrase I derived from net-force a few seconds ago). This is a comparison of the evidence both for and against a scientific conclusion by using experoments and articles. Many things, such as intent, location, equipment used, actual experaments, solid recorded data, and the dozen or so other specs of the experoment have to be taken into account. If 20 scientific articles use intangible metaphors based on an only partially-related experoment, and only 2 have well documented, non-bias, well set up and executed results with the best technology, accuracy, and pratical & scientific relationships between conclusions from other experoments (such as co-inciding with the laws of physics for one), then those 2 experoments mean much more than the 20 that aren't. This is very easily summed up in one word: Solid.

Explanation of Error: Whenever I give another student an answer to a question, I always make sure he knows why it was that, and why he got it wrong. If you give a result that contradicts another, you must scientifically search out why it was wrong. Even if the Circle Peg fits in the square hole, you have to demonstrate why it shouldn't go there. If you can't, it's almost like making a simple statement. If that's all you do, it's like you are holding a grudge against the conclusion. Without both, neither would work.

This is another annoying thing for me. Whenever I address someone about the severe lack of transitional species on the theory of evolution, they usuallly say "So? Doesn't mean that they aren't there", which is usually responded by "Doesn't mean they are", and usually ends in vain because the majority of the time the other person fails to realize that it more strongly and obviously implies it's non-existance.

So be careful when you say "It's been scientifically proven".
Comments (0) | Permalink