In an emergency you may need to have electricity. How do you get it?
The easiest way is to pull a small 12v electric motor from a car, the windshield wiper motor for example or the heater blower motor. Get a piece of crap bicycle. Shove a hunk of wood under the center of the bike and tie down the front wheel so the rear wheel is suspended. Pull the tire off the rear wheel. Cut up the inner tube to create a belt going from the bicycle rear wheel to the shaft of the small 12v motor. Start peddling and you start generating electricity. Attach the motor leads to something you want to run, like a light bulb and you have electricity.
Not very usable, you will notice the light is not consistent. This is because we need a battery and a voltage regulator to smooth out the system.
As soon as you connect the motor to the battery it will try to start the motor spinning. This is where a voltage regulator comes in handy. Most cars have them, although many are inside of the alternator.
Most car alternators are too demanding to spin using the kind of set-up I describe above. The smaller the alternator the easier it is, think Dodge Neon or some other really small car. Even then the electrical systems are so overloaded that the alternator might be too large to spin with a bicycle.
Most chainsaws have enough horse power to spin a car alternator. Again, you need to rig some kind of support structure to hold everything together, but, it will work. The same is true of any gasoline operated yard tool. Just disassemble the yard tool and rig it to the alternator. As crazy as this sounds tough rubber hose and hose clamps can be used to direct connect the shaft of a small gasoline engine to an alternator. Don't expect it to last very long with high loads though.
If you try and convert a lawnmower you need to replace the blade with a flywheel of some kind. A large diameter pully will work.
Most alternators are 100 amp or less so the most horsepower you need for an alternator is 3.5hp. For a 35amp alternator (you may, MAY) find this in a compact car you need about 1.2hp.
You could make a windmill from a bicycle wheel by wrapping aluminum foil around the spokes to create vanes. This won't produce a lot, but, using a rear wheel with a sprocket and rigging a chain to a small electric motor you can use it to power a small 12v radio. If you run the inner-tube belt around the outside of the wheel and rig the motor on some support you can use a front wheel.
Again, without some kind of rectifier, voltage regulator, etc, the power will be sporadic.
You can use automotive regulators although most are pretty wasteful of electricity.
This sounds a lot like McGyver kind of stuff and it is, although usually McGyver was way to technical to make the information useful.
The problem in a disaster is typically a lack of information and technical resources. By having any technical knowledge, such as just about all electric motors can generate the same amount of voltage they run on if something spins the motor, is valuable.
Figuring out how to transmit power from something spinning to a motor can be difficult, but, almost anything can work as a power transmission (fan) belt, even string.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Fanaticism and Theocratic Monarchies
The United States lost the war to maintain it's democratic nationalism in November of 1979.
Religious and political fanatics cannot be stopped. Time after time this has been well established. The Afghan's kicked the British Empire out. The United States kicked the British Empire out. France kicked their monarchy out. The North Vietnamese kicked France out of Vietnam and then kicked the United States out of Vietnam. Iran kicked the United States out of Iran. Al Queda kicked the United States out of Somalia.
Soon Al Queda will kick the United States out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States political machine will spin it as a peaceful withdrawal after a winning military action. Those who study history know that winners don't leave. The United States didn't leave Texas or California after the Mexican War, Cuba or the Philippines after the Spanish American War, Japan or Germany after WW2.
Since then we have been kicked out of pretty much everywhere we have gone. Oh yeah, withdrawn after a successful military action. Just like the USSR in Afghanistan.
Wars are fought over control of resources. The political fanaticism of the revolutionaries in the United States, France, Vietnam and Iran drove their wealth oriented opponents from the nations where their opponents controlled the resources.
Nixon understood this and used a fanatical despot, Pinochet, to drive out a slightly less fanatical socialist, Allende, from power in Chile.
Nixon also made a political and business decision that the resources in Vietnam were not worth the expenditure of maintaining a war when there was so much internal opposition to the war.
The problem is that fanatics do not care what the cost is or how long it takes to gain control of the resources.
What resources? Resources are people, natural resources, industrial capacities, etc. Just about everything is a resource.
When the United States stopped defending it's political resources, the Iranian Embassy, it expressed a lack of fanaticism for it's own political system.
A political system is a resource. There are different kinds of political systems and the political system supported by the most fanatics always takes control.
Now that democracy has effectively been proved to have failed as a political system, much as it failed in Greece and Rome thousands of years ago it will be replaced with theocratic monarchies just as it was thousands of years ago.
This time the theocratic monarchies will be Islamic. Democracy will be ended just as it was in Greece and Rome. In the beginning by bureaucrats who corrupt the system and eventually it will be over thrown by religious or political fanatics and finally democracy will be replaced with theocratic monarchies. It is possible communist fanatics will take over, but, I doubt it.
One of the primary reasons many revolutions have been successful has been religious fanaticism. In the United States it was fanaticism for religious freedom. Typically the religious fanatics are more successful than political fanatics. Not always, but, usually.
30% of the United States is fanatical “Liberal Democrat” who typically advocate a non-violent “live and let live” policy.
30% of the United States is fanatical “Conservative Republican” who are typically willing to fight for and die over supporting for the “American Way”.
40% is “middle of the road” swaying in the breeze who want to live their lives simply and without conflict.
The fanatics in Islam have the fanatics in the US fighting amongst themselves.
The group advocating non-violent conflicts will probably win in the United States since the 40% just want to get along and live their lives. Eventually there will probably be a semi-rebellion which the “go-along, get-along” majority will win because they have more guns (in a Democracy the majority controls the military).
In order to make this happen the outsiders have to create situations of conflict, terrorist acts when things are going well. This creates huge internal conflicts.
When terrorist acts are no longer creating huge internal conflicts, when the fanatics who are willing to fight for the “American Way” have been beaten down by the majority of “go-along, get-along” the external fanatics will invade and destroy the United States and all of Western Democracy the same way it happened in Greece and Rome.
We can define our “way of life” and become fanatical about protecting it or we will end up being slaves in a theocratic monarchy.
Religious and political fanatics cannot be stopped. Time after time this has been well established. The Afghan's kicked the British Empire out. The United States kicked the British Empire out. France kicked their monarchy out. The North Vietnamese kicked France out of Vietnam and then kicked the United States out of Vietnam. Iran kicked the United States out of Iran. Al Queda kicked the United States out of Somalia.
Soon Al Queda will kick the United States out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States political machine will spin it as a peaceful withdrawal after a winning military action. Those who study history know that winners don't leave. The United States didn't leave Texas or California after the Mexican War, Cuba or the Philippines after the Spanish American War, Japan or Germany after WW2.
Since then we have been kicked out of pretty much everywhere we have gone. Oh yeah, withdrawn after a successful military action. Just like the USSR in Afghanistan.
Wars are fought over control of resources. The political fanaticism of the revolutionaries in the United States, France, Vietnam and Iran drove their wealth oriented opponents from the nations where their opponents controlled the resources.
Nixon understood this and used a fanatical despot, Pinochet, to drive out a slightly less fanatical socialist, Allende, from power in Chile.
Nixon also made a political and business decision that the resources in Vietnam were not worth the expenditure of maintaining a war when there was so much internal opposition to the war.
The problem is that fanatics do not care what the cost is or how long it takes to gain control of the resources.
What resources? Resources are people, natural resources, industrial capacities, etc. Just about everything is a resource.
When the United States stopped defending it's political resources, the Iranian Embassy, it expressed a lack of fanaticism for it's own political system.
A political system is a resource. There are different kinds of political systems and the political system supported by the most fanatics always takes control.
Now that democracy has effectively been proved to have failed as a political system, much as it failed in Greece and Rome thousands of years ago it will be replaced with theocratic monarchies just as it was thousands of years ago.
This time the theocratic monarchies will be Islamic. Democracy will be ended just as it was in Greece and Rome. In the beginning by bureaucrats who corrupt the system and eventually it will be over thrown by religious or political fanatics and finally democracy will be replaced with theocratic monarchies. It is possible communist fanatics will take over, but, I doubt it.
One of the primary reasons many revolutions have been successful has been religious fanaticism. In the United States it was fanaticism for religious freedom. Typically the religious fanatics are more successful than political fanatics. Not always, but, usually.
30% of the United States is fanatical “Liberal Democrat” who typically advocate a non-violent “live and let live” policy.
30% of the United States is fanatical “Conservative Republican” who are typically willing to fight for and die over supporting for the “American Way”.
40% is “middle of the road” swaying in the breeze who want to live their lives simply and without conflict.
The fanatics in Islam have the fanatics in the US fighting amongst themselves.
The group advocating non-violent conflicts will probably win in the United States since the 40% just want to get along and live their lives. Eventually there will probably be a semi-rebellion which the “go-along, get-along” majority will win because they have more guns (in a Democracy the majority controls the military).
In order to make this happen the outsiders have to create situations of conflict, terrorist acts when things are going well. This creates huge internal conflicts.
When terrorist acts are no longer creating huge internal conflicts, when the fanatics who are willing to fight for the “American Way” have been beaten down by the majority of “go-along, get-along” the external fanatics will invade and destroy the United States and all of Western Democracy the same way it happened in Greece and Rome.
We can define our “way of life” and become fanatical about protecting it or we will end up being slaves in a theocratic monarchy.
Monday, November 28, 2011
The most neglected issues in backpacking books
Pooping, eating and drinking, preferably not at the same time.
On my old website my most popular blogs were about Dan Brown's ridiculous books and taking a dump in the woods. I figured I would re-post this for posterity :-) Besides, it gives ignorant morons something to say, like "John knows a lot about poop". Non morons will say something like "John knows a lot about sanitation", but, we shouldn't critique those who critique us. I am not sure why, but, I am told we shouldn't.
So there you are in the wilderness and you need to take a dump. What do you do?
This is a really big deal. Dysentery has killed more people than bombs and an easy week long trip in a very public national park can turn into a death trip easily when back packers are not careful.
First you need to have several things handy. I carry two gallon sized freezer bags, one for the stuff I need to take a dump and one to put those things in after I take a dump.
I use standard zip-loc sandwich bags. I put a pair of nitrile gloves and two wet naps in each bag. I typically plan for 2 dumps a day and take a couple extra, just in case. I typically use pocket kleenex as toilet paper.
Let us get ready to evacuate our bowels.
Dump out the zip loc sandwich bag and leave it open with the rest of your stuff.
Put your nitrile or latex gloves on.
First pull a few pieces of paper out and dig a hole about 8 inches deep using a trowel.
Evacuate your bowels, careful not to dump on the back of your clothes or boots.
Carefully wipe yourself at least once, twice is better. Put the used TP into the zip-loc sandwich bag. Don't close it yet.
Use a wet nap on your butt. Do it, clean yourself carefully. The cleaner the better. Put the used wet nap in the zip-loc sandwich bag. Don't close it yet.
Fill in the hole.
You need to remove your gloves and put them in the zip-loc bag. Pulling off the first glove is easy, just make sure the glove turns inside out. Slip two fingers into the wrist of the second glove and peel it down so it also turns inside out. Put the gloves in the zip-loc sandwich bag.
Carefully push the air out of the zip-loc bag and seal it up. Put it inside the gallon bag for packing stuff out. Wash your hands with a second wet-nap. Wipe the trowel or shovel handle and put the used wet-nap in the gallon pac-out bag.
Roll up the zip-loc gallon bag, evacuate the air from the bag. Seal it. and put it in your pack.
Sometime during this process you may want to pull up your pants, however, that part is optional.
If you are carrying sanitizer now is the time to use it.
You may want to wash your hands and this is where water comes in. Don't waste water on hand washing.
I suggest carrying 2 gallons of water. I actually carry 2 64oz bottles, 2 liter and a half bottles and 1 22oz bottle so I don't carry 2 gallons, but, then I don't actually have to take my own advice.
Plan your trip to include one water source per day. Make sure you will have at least 2 gallons of water at each point.
I have a nylon water bag I use for showering and wash water. They don't sell what I have any more, it is a nylon bag with a replaceable bladder that I bought for $10 at Campmor. I really like it. I have a shower attachment with a tube on it.
If I hang the bag up high I can rig a gravity drip through my First Need water purifier. If I leave it in the sun the dark nylon warms the water for a luke-warm shower.
Getting water is a very specific process and most people do it wrong. 99% of the time doing it wrong won't kill you.
I put about an ounce of chlorine bleach in a bag of water and use my handy water bag as a sanitizer solution on my hands and cooking gear after I wash up. I also use it to sterilize my water filter before using my filter. It does not hurt to sterilize your water bottles either.
Do not put the end of your filter hose or pre-filter hose in a natural water source.
Fill up a collapsible nylon water bucket with water from a natural source. Wait about half an hour for stuff to settle. You can put some chlorine in the bucket to kill anything if you want. I typically do this.
Scoop out any floaties from the bucket. Filter the water from the bucket into your water bottles using whatever filter system you use.
When you finish filling your water bottles and drinking as much as you can add a little more chlorine and back flush your filter and pre-filter. Wash everything with the sanitizer solution. Dry your gear out (air dry is fine) and put it away.
Maybe you notice that I whine a lot about sanitation. I used to run a restaurant and I was a sanitarian licensed by the state of Illinois. The important part is killing germs. Sure, 99% of the time you will be okay if you are not as sanitation conscious as possible. That 1% of the time that it matters will be very, very important and proper sanitation will save your life or the life(lives) of your companion(s).
Whine about using chlorine in the back country. Sanitation is important. You can minimize sanitation, but, truthfully if you are worried about things like ammonia and chlorine in the back country you should lobby to eliminate wild life urination (this may make you a hero in some communities with many popular nightclubs).
My rule of thumb on food is figure out how many calories you eat during a normal day at home and then pack twice that many calories per day of back packing. This is very important. Take enough calories with you!
Most people seem to take about 1500 to 2000 calories a day when they back-pack. This can cause constipation and delirium depending on how hard the back packing is. Nice flat trails like South Manitou Island? Not an issue. Greenstone ridge on Isle Royal? Yeah buddy, pack some calories. Minong Ridge on Isle Royal? Take a bunch of calories. Add another full days calories for every thousand feet in elevation.
We really need some kind of portable caloric burning meter that measures things like blood oxygen and how much carbon dioxide we exhale. Until then we have to estimate.
Safe weight loss is burning about 1000 calories a day more than we take in. Trust me, back-packing can burn much more. The higher we increase that number the more stress on our system and the more likely we are to keel over a drop dead. Yep, dead. There are a bunch of reasons for this and I won't get into all of them. It has to do with blood chemistry, insulin and oxygen as well as other schtuff.
My first real back-pack trip I lost 30 pounds in 10 days. A pound is about 4000 calories. I lost 120,000 calories in 10 days. In other words I burned 12,000 more calories per day than I consumed. At the end of the trip I was delirious and there are probably doctors out there saying "damn lucky you're not dead". My feeling exactly.
Ignorance can kill us.
On my old website my most popular blogs were about Dan Brown's ridiculous books and taking a dump in the woods. I figured I would re-post this for posterity :-) Besides, it gives ignorant morons something to say, like "John knows a lot about poop". Non morons will say something like "John knows a lot about sanitation", but, we shouldn't critique those who critique us. I am not sure why, but, I am told we shouldn't.
So there you are in the wilderness and you need to take a dump. What do you do?
This is a really big deal. Dysentery has killed more people than bombs and an easy week long trip in a very public national park can turn into a death trip easily when back packers are not careful.
First you need to have several things handy. I carry two gallon sized freezer bags, one for the stuff I need to take a dump and one to put those things in after I take a dump.
I use standard zip-loc sandwich bags. I put a pair of nitrile gloves and two wet naps in each bag. I typically plan for 2 dumps a day and take a couple extra, just in case. I typically use pocket kleenex as toilet paper.
Let us get ready to evacuate our bowels.
Dump out the zip loc sandwich bag and leave it open with the rest of your stuff.
Put your nitrile or latex gloves on.
First pull a few pieces of paper out and dig a hole about 8 inches deep using a trowel.
Evacuate your bowels, careful not to dump on the back of your clothes or boots.
Carefully wipe yourself at least once, twice is better. Put the used TP into the zip-loc sandwich bag. Don't close it yet.
Use a wet nap on your butt. Do it, clean yourself carefully. The cleaner the better. Put the used wet nap in the zip-loc sandwich bag. Don't close it yet.
Fill in the hole.
You need to remove your gloves and put them in the zip-loc bag. Pulling off the first glove is easy, just make sure the glove turns inside out. Slip two fingers into the wrist of the second glove and peel it down so it also turns inside out. Put the gloves in the zip-loc sandwich bag.
Carefully push the air out of the zip-loc bag and seal it up. Put it inside the gallon bag for packing stuff out. Wash your hands with a second wet-nap. Wipe the trowel or shovel handle and put the used wet-nap in the gallon pac-out bag.
Roll up the zip-loc gallon bag, evacuate the air from the bag. Seal it. and put it in your pack.
Sometime during this process you may want to pull up your pants, however, that part is optional.
If you are carrying sanitizer now is the time to use it.
You may want to wash your hands and this is where water comes in. Don't waste water on hand washing.
I suggest carrying 2 gallons of water. I actually carry 2 64oz bottles, 2 liter and a half bottles and 1 22oz bottle so I don't carry 2 gallons, but, then I don't actually have to take my own advice.
Plan your trip to include one water source per day. Make sure you will have at least 2 gallons of water at each point.
I have a nylon water bag I use for showering and wash water. They don't sell what I have any more, it is a nylon bag with a replaceable bladder that I bought for $10 at Campmor. I really like it. I have a shower attachment with a tube on it.
If I hang the bag up high I can rig a gravity drip through my First Need water purifier. If I leave it in the sun the dark nylon warms the water for a luke-warm shower.
Getting water is a very specific process and most people do it wrong. 99% of the time doing it wrong won't kill you.
I put about an ounce of chlorine bleach in a bag of water and use my handy water bag as a sanitizer solution on my hands and cooking gear after I wash up. I also use it to sterilize my water filter before using my filter. It does not hurt to sterilize your water bottles either.
Do not put the end of your filter hose or pre-filter hose in a natural water source.
Fill up a collapsible nylon water bucket with water from a natural source. Wait about half an hour for stuff to settle. You can put some chlorine in the bucket to kill anything if you want. I typically do this.
Scoop out any floaties from the bucket. Filter the water from the bucket into your water bottles using whatever filter system you use.
When you finish filling your water bottles and drinking as much as you can add a little more chlorine and back flush your filter and pre-filter. Wash everything with the sanitizer solution. Dry your gear out (air dry is fine) and put it away.
Maybe you notice that I whine a lot about sanitation. I used to run a restaurant and I was a sanitarian licensed by the state of Illinois. The important part is killing germs. Sure, 99% of the time you will be okay if you are not as sanitation conscious as possible. That 1% of the time that it matters will be very, very important and proper sanitation will save your life or the life(lives) of your companion(s).
Whine about using chlorine in the back country. Sanitation is important. You can minimize sanitation, but, truthfully if you are worried about things like ammonia and chlorine in the back country you should lobby to eliminate wild life urination (this may make you a hero in some communities with many popular nightclubs).
My rule of thumb on food is figure out how many calories you eat during a normal day at home and then pack twice that many calories per day of back packing. This is very important. Take enough calories with you!
Most people seem to take about 1500 to 2000 calories a day when they back-pack. This can cause constipation and delirium depending on how hard the back packing is. Nice flat trails like South Manitou Island? Not an issue. Greenstone ridge on Isle Royal? Yeah buddy, pack some calories. Minong Ridge on Isle Royal? Take a bunch of calories. Add another full days calories for every thousand feet in elevation.
We really need some kind of portable caloric burning meter that measures things like blood oxygen and how much carbon dioxide we exhale. Until then we have to estimate.
Safe weight loss is burning about 1000 calories a day more than we take in. Trust me, back-packing can burn much more. The higher we increase that number the more stress on our system and the more likely we are to keel over a drop dead. Yep, dead. There are a bunch of reasons for this and I won't get into all of them. It has to do with blood chemistry, insulin and oxygen as well as other schtuff.
My first real back-pack trip I lost 30 pounds in 10 days. A pound is about 4000 calories. I lost 120,000 calories in 10 days. In other words I burned 12,000 more calories per day than I consumed. At the end of the trip I was delirious and there are probably doctors out there saying "damn lucky you're not dead". My feeling exactly.
Ignorance can kill us.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
God, Islam, Atheism and Christianity
There is nothing wrong with being a religious fanatic. There is a huge problem with forcing specific beliefs down someone else's throat.
I once had an argument in a Bible study class about Islam. One of the people in class claimed that all Muslims were going to hell. I said that was up to God. He said that because they rejected Jesus as the Son of God they could not possibly be saved. Again, I said God will decide, not me. He began becoming very angry and started practically screaming at me. I kept calm and said that if people follow the path given us by Christ they would reach heaven. He insisted that they had to accept Jesus.
Being educated on the FACT that the name “Jesus” is an Anglicization of the Iseous which is a translation of several different Hebrew names like Yeshua.
I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood. Some of the older people called me “Yonnie”, which is the way John is pronounced in Yiddish. Yiddish was not used by the Jewish people in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, but, it is an example of the way names change with languages and culture.
Don't get me started on “Jes-us”. People might argue that the word was used in biblical times and they would be totally full of crap.
Christ is about accepting the Truth of the One True God.
Then there is Islam with the “partnership” ideology. Allah is One.
Christians believe in the One True God and believe that God presents himself in different forms to people. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The Father being the form God takes as ruler. The Son is the form God takes to show humans that God understands being human. The Holy Spirit is the form God takes when God communicates directly with people.
Not everyone perceives things the same way and God presents himself in different ways to different people. Islam actually addresses this explaining that all other religions are corruptions in perception of the Truth of the One God, may his name be praised.
Claiming that God is all powerful and cannot take different forms to communicate with people while explaining that all other religions are issues with perception is a little illogical, but, okay.
The problem is when we attempt to claim the perceptions of another person are wrong.
No two people see things exactly the same way. This is a hugely notorious issue with the criminal justice system. Some people see things so differently that they are called “delusional”. Galileo for example was considered delusional because he disagreed with Aristotle's perception of the Universe.
Essentially Aristotle “won” the logical debate on how the Universe moved and the Earth stayed still. Aristotle had two very logical arguments for this. First, if the Earth rotated everyone would fly off. Second, if the Earth rotated you should be able to throw a rock up straight up in the sky and it would land away from the thrower. The distance from the thrower would depend on the rotational velocity and the amount of time the rock was in the sky.
The religious educational system of the renascence period basically told Galileo he was full of crap because he thought he knew better than Aristotle. How can you argue with such simple logic? Galileo and Copernicus had to be delusional. No question about it. The logic of Aristotle was correct!
These logical arguments are great examples of attempting to convert facts like we stay on the surface of the Earth into scientific laws like geocentric motion.
No one can arrive at a Fact through logical deduction. We create theories through logical deduction. Facts are repeatable observations. When we do THIS, THAT happens. We write down the steps, THIS, very exactly and then someone else repeats the experiment and the same thing happens, over and over.
Within a range.
So we end up quantifying the results of scientific experiments with things like “the results will range between X and Y” we quote things like standard deviation, mean, median and modality. The smaller the standard deviation the more accurate the results. If the mean, median and modality are all the “same” we know the distribution is normal, if they aren't there is a problem skewing the results.
Sounds like I am off topic? Nope. This is all about perception, the way we observe the things that happen.
When we insist that people must observe similar situations in exactly the same way.
In science we develop all kinds of instrumentation that will allow us to effectively quantify the results of experiments. We develop standards for qualifying the equipment. We develop methods of recording the the results.
We do all of this to minimize the variation in perception.
Still, variations in perception continue.
The wilder the observation the more variance in the perception of what happened which is why legal systems have so much difficulty in determining “truth”.
Anyone who truly commits themselves to a religion will have a religious revelation and since the variety of people is infinite the perceptions of the revelation are.
Eventually religious revelation will be quantified using brain scanning technologies. My guess is that atheists have a similar revelatory experience.
I am not sure we will ever be able to quantify God.
Which is what makes the arguments people who want to force their view of Atheism, Christianity or Islam so illogical.
In science we recognize that there are variations in perception and we work very hard on communications and the ability to minimize variations in perceptions.
There is another problem. Conflict is the basis of evolution.
The evolution of thought, the evolution of our bodies, the evolution of our culture.
We need fanatics to drive the conflict through which we evolve.
We also need fanatics and everyone else to be willing to allow us our own perceptions and choices without attempting to force their perceptions on us.
That means Dawson and Al Queda and Westboro have to quit ridiculing and killing people who disagree them.
We need a balance between conflict and force feeding. We can't have that until fanatics are willing to stop shoving their ideologies down the throats of everyone else.
I once had an argument in a Bible study class about Islam. One of the people in class claimed that all Muslims were going to hell. I said that was up to God. He said that because they rejected Jesus as the Son of God they could not possibly be saved. Again, I said God will decide, not me. He began becoming very angry and started practically screaming at me. I kept calm and said that if people follow the path given us by Christ they would reach heaven. He insisted that they had to accept Jesus.
Being educated on the FACT that the name “Jesus” is an Anglicization of the Iseous which is a translation of several different Hebrew names like Yeshua.
I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood. Some of the older people called me “Yonnie”, which is the way John is pronounced in Yiddish. Yiddish was not used by the Jewish people in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, but, it is an example of the way names change with languages and culture.
Don't get me started on “Jes-us”. People might argue that the word was used in biblical times and they would be totally full of crap.
Christ is about accepting the Truth of the One True God.
Then there is Islam with the “partnership” ideology. Allah is One.
Christians believe in the One True God and believe that God presents himself in different forms to people. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The Father being the form God takes as ruler. The Son is the form God takes to show humans that God understands being human. The Holy Spirit is the form God takes when God communicates directly with people.
Not everyone perceives things the same way and God presents himself in different ways to different people. Islam actually addresses this explaining that all other religions are corruptions in perception of the Truth of the One God, may his name be praised.
Claiming that God is all powerful and cannot take different forms to communicate with people while explaining that all other religions are issues with perception is a little illogical, but, okay.
The problem is when we attempt to claim the perceptions of another person are wrong.
No two people see things exactly the same way. This is a hugely notorious issue with the criminal justice system. Some people see things so differently that they are called “delusional”. Galileo for example was considered delusional because he disagreed with Aristotle's perception of the Universe.
Essentially Aristotle “won” the logical debate on how the Universe moved and the Earth stayed still. Aristotle had two very logical arguments for this. First, if the Earth rotated everyone would fly off. Second, if the Earth rotated you should be able to throw a rock up straight up in the sky and it would land away from the thrower. The distance from the thrower would depend on the rotational velocity and the amount of time the rock was in the sky.
The religious educational system of the renascence period basically told Galileo he was full of crap because he thought he knew better than Aristotle. How can you argue with such simple logic? Galileo and Copernicus had to be delusional. No question about it. The logic of Aristotle was correct!
These logical arguments are great examples of attempting to convert facts like we stay on the surface of the Earth into scientific laws like geocentric motion.
No one can arrive at a Fact through logical deduction. We create theories through logical deduction. Facts are repeatable observations. When we do THIS, THAT happens. We write down the steps, THIS, very exactly and then someone else repeats the experiment and the same thing happens, over and over.
Within a range.
So we end up quantifying the results of scientific experiments with things like “the results will range between X and Y” we quote things like standard deviation, mean, median and modality. The smaller the standard deviation the more accurate the results. If the mean, median and modality are all the “same” we know the distribution is normal, if they aren't there is a problem skewing the results.
Sounds like I am off topic? Nope. This is all about perception, the way we observe the things that happen.
When we insist that people must observe similar situations in exactly the same way.
In science we develop all kinds of instrumentation that will allow us to effectively quantify the results of experiments. We develop standards for qualifying the equipment. We develop methods of recording the the results.
We do all of this to minimize the variation in perception.
Still, variations in perception continue.
The wilder the observation the more variance in the perception of what happened which is why legal systems have so much difficulty in determining “truth”.
Anyone who truly commits themselves to a religion will have a religious revelation and since the variety of people is infinite the perceptions of the revelation are.
Eventually religious revelation will be quantified using brain scanning technologies. My guess is that atheists have a similar revelatory experience.
I am not sure we will ever be able to quantify God.
Which is what makes the arguments people who want to force their view of Atheism, Christianity or Islam so illogical.
In science we recognize that there are variations in perception and we work very hard on communications and the ability to minimize variations in perceptions.
There is another problem. Conflict is the basis of evolution.
The evolution of thought, the evolution of our bodies, the evolution of our culture.
We need fanatics to drive the conflict through which we evolve.
We also need fanatics and everyone else to be willing to allow us our own perceptions and choices without attempting to force their perceptions on us.
That means Dawson and Al Queda and Westboro have to quit ridiculing and killing people who disagree them.
We need a balance between conflict and force feeding. We can't have that until fanatics are willing to stop shoving their ideologies down the throats of everyone else.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Looking for schtuff to do, real business and "reality" TV
So here I am currently disabled sitting around twiddling my thumbs, watching too many movies and reading too many books.
Ever seen the reality TV shows "storage wars" or "auction hunters"? People go out and bid on storage units which have become delinquent. I understand that about 80% of these purchases are pretty much a bust. For some reason a lot of people store garbage. Literally garbage.
If you are going to buy storage units you need access to a commercial dumpster and a truck large enough to haul the garbage and a few nice things away.
So I went out to one of these storage auctions and purchased an 6x8 storage locker for $30.00.
If you do this, put some schtuff together in a shoulder bag or a plastic box to take with you.
2-6 locks depending on how many lockers you want to buy.
a couple of water bottles. (thirsty, dusty work)
a couple of protein bars. (You might want high carb energy bars)
work gloves.
Plastic bags. (I took both clear and black, maybe white bags too next time)
Dust masks. (they never use these on TV, but, these units are dusty)
Flashlight
extra-batteries
extra bulb.
A battery powered lantern can also be useful. I discovered some storage lockers do not have lights in them.
The floor of the locker I bought was filled with clothes and trash. There was a steel cabinet standing in one corner. Having purchased a few of these (steel cabinets, not storage lockers) over the years I knew I was looking at a very good quality steel cabinet. The bid went up to $30 and I won. Some of the people looked at me like I was crazy and I said "I bought a steel cabinet". Then the lights went on, most people had just seen the trash and not noticed the steel cabinet which retails these days around $400 and can typically be purchased used for around $50 to $100. People see what they want to see and I discovered really trashy units can be had for cheap. Just be sure there is something worth your bid in it :-)
Just a second, before anyone pats me on the back....
When I paid the $30 bucks plus the 13% commission Plus put a $25 cleaning deposit down on the unit I was down a little over $60 bucks. I got the cleaning deposit back when the unit was cleaned out.
The storage locker was filled with trash and it took 3 hours to clean, sort and bag everything. I took two different kinds of heavy duty trash bags, clear and black. Next time I will take white bags for stuff I want to keep. I put stuff I thought should be donated into clear bags. I put stuff to pitch into black bags. My pick-up is a ranger and it took 2 loads to remove the garbage to a friends dumpster. I wasn't allowed to use the dumpster at the storage unit. If I set a value on my time of $20 bucks an hour and charge $0.50 a mile for the truck, three trips total at 34 miles round trip I have already spent $205.00 dollars on my steel cabinet.
3 hours at the auction, $60.00
3 hours sorting, $60.00
102 miles, $51.00
storage unit, $33.90
Wait a second. There were some other things worth salvaging. There were a couple of pieces of cheap jewelery, a cheap (working) digital camera, a brand new quality sketch pad, an new nylon artists portfolio case, a nice Targus lap-top bag, an old Polaroid 104 instant camera (who knows), a vacuum cleaner, a 30 cup coffee maker, a couple of briefcases and a garment bag in good condition. There were also a few pieces of very nice clothing that I will probably either sell or give away.
All in all I think I broke even on the locker, spending about $204.90 total and getting about $150.00 bucks worth of stuff. Truthfully I could probably get more, BUT, it takes time to find the right buyers to maximize the profitability.
Suppose I spend 5 hours hunting down buys to get my profit up to $200.00, at $20 bucks an hour I just increased my costs another $100.00 so now I have spent another $100 just to lose and extra $50 bucks.
Okay, I am disabled and I am not making anything that five hours anyway and at least it gives me something to do.
Not exactly If I stress myself out doing too much I end up dead so trying to squeeze every last dollar out of a locker is really bad.
I am not going to try too hard to find buyers.
My actual pay per hour is gross - expenses / hours spent.
Lets call my gross $150 (it isn't yet and may not ever be). My actual expenses are about $84.90 so my hourly rate is estimated at $65/6, or about $11 bucks an hour (less because I have to bill more hours to this particular job getting rid of the schtuff).
In other words, if I go by the numbers they use on the stupid "reality TV I "made" $120.00 because I have $150 bucks worth of stuff. Getting closer to reality I actually "made" about $65, or maybe I will when I finish selling the schtuff.
In the end there will be all the expenses associated with finding buyers and arranging the sale so my total profit divided by my hours will mean I probably didn't make minimum wage.
I might end up renting a space at a flea market if I keep doing this. It will give me a place to sell schtuff. I need to see if my daughter is interested in helping, she could run the booth with me and we could split the gross. Maybe, maybe not. In the meantime I am keeping busy and putting reality into "reality TV".
Update: My wife confiscated a Ford Racing jacket i found in the unit. I gave the brand new sketch pad to a friend's daughter. I gave the artist's portfolio to my granddaughter's mother who is in architecture classes. Still no real profit.
Addendum:
Investment:
Mileage at $0.50 per mile: $51.00
Cost of storage locker: $33.90
Time:
12 hours
Sales of Goods:
Blue wool overcoat: $25.00
Polaroid 104 Camera: $5.00
Green wool overcoat: $20.00
5 pair of shoes: $61.00
Total: $111.00
Investment: $84.90
Profit: $26.00
Hourly Wage: $2.16
Give-a-ways of goods to Friends and Family:
Red Ford Racing jacket.
Portfolio case
Sketch pad
Vacuum Cleaner
Donation:
4 large plastic bags filled with clothes
Ever seen the reality TV shows "storage wars" or "auction hunters"? People go out and bid on storage units which have become delinquent. I understand that about 80% of these purchases are pretty much a bust. For some reason a lot of people store garbage. Literally garbage.
If you are going to buy storage units you need access to a commercial dumpster and a truck large enough to haul the garbage and a few nice things away.
So I went out to one of these storage auctions and purchased an 6x8 storage locker for $30.00.
If you do this, put some schtuff together in a shoulder bag or a plastic box to take with you.
2-6 locks depending on how many lockers you want to buy.
a couple of water bottles. (thirsty, dusty work)
a couple of protein bars. (You might want high carb energy bars)
work gloves.
Plastic bags. (I took both clear and black, maybe white bags too next time)
Dust masks. (they never use these on TV, but, these units are dusty)
Flashlight
extra-batteries
extra bulb.
A battery powered lantern can also be useful. I discovered some storage lockers do not have lights in them.
The floor of the locker I bought was filled with clothes and trash. There was a steel cabinet standing in one corner. Having purchased a few of these (steel cabinets, not storage lockers) over the years I knew I was looking at a very good quality steel cabinet. The bid went up to $30 and I won. Some of the people looked at me like I was crazy and I said "I bought a steel cabinet". Then the lights went on, most people had just seen the trash and not noticed the steel cabinet which retails these days around $400 and can typically be purchased used for around $50 to $100. People see what they want to see and I discovered really trashy units can be had for cheap. Just be sure there is something worth your bid in it :-)
Just a second, before anyone pats me on the back....
When I paid the $30 bucks plus the 13% commission Plus put a $25 cleaning deposit down on the unit I was down a little over $60 bucks. I got the cleaning deposit back when the unit was cleaned out.
The storage locker was filled with trash and it took 3 hours to clean, sort and bag everything. I took two different kinds of heavy duty trash bags, clear and black. Next time I will take white bags for stuff I want to keep. I put stuff I thought should be donated into clear bags. I put stuff to pitch into black bags. My pick-up is a ranger and it took 2 loads to remove the garbage to a friends dumpster. I wasn't allowed to use the dumpster at the storage unit. If I set a value on my time of $20 bucks an hour and charge $0.50 a mile for the truck, three trips total at 34 miles round trip I have already spent $205.00 dollars on my steel cabinet.
3 hours at the auction, $60.00
3 hours sorting, $60.00
102 miles, $51.00
storage unit, $33.90
Wait a second. There were some other things worth salvaging. There were a couple of pieces of cheap jewelery, a cheap (working) digital camera, a brand new quality sketch pad, an new nylon artists portfolio case, a nice Targus lap-top bag, an old Polaroid 104 instant camera (who knows), a vacuum cleaner, a 30 cup coffee maker, a couple of briefcases and a garment bag in good condition. There were also a few pieces of very nice clothing that I will probably either sell or give away.
All in all I think I broke even on the locker, spending about $204.90 total and getting about $150.00 bucks worth of stuff. Truthfully I could probably get more, BUT, it takes time to find the right buyers to maximize the profitability.
Suppose I spend 5 hours hunting down buys to get my profit up to $200.00, at $20 bucks an hour I just increased my costs another $100.00 so now I have spent another $100 just to lose and extra $50 bucks.
Okay, I am disabled and I am not making anything that five hours anyway and at least it gives me something to do.
Not exactly If I stress myself out doing too much I end up dead so trying to squeeze every last dollar out of a locker is really bad.
I am not going to try too hard to find buyers.
My actual pay per hour is gross - expenses / hours spent.
Lets call my gross $150 (it isn't yet and may not ever be). My actual expenses are about $84.90 so my hourly rate is estimated at $65/6, or about $11 bucks an hour (less because I have to bill more hours to this particular job getting rid of the schtuff).
In other words, if I go by the numbers they use on the stupid "reality TV I "made" $120.00 because I have $150 bucks worth of stuff. Getting closer to reality I actually "made" about $65, or maybe I will when I finish selling the schtuff.
In the end there will be all the expenses associated with finding buyers and arranging the sale so my total profit divided by my hours will mean I probably didn't make minimum wage.
I might end up renting a space at a flea market if I keep doing this. It will give me a place to sell schtuff. I need to see if my daughter is interested in helping, she could run the booth with me and we could split the gross. Maybe, maybe not. In the meantime I am keeping busy and putting reality into "reality TV".
Update: My wife confiscated a Ford Racing jacket i found in the unit. I gave the brand new sketch pad to a friend's daughter. I gave the artist's portfolio to my granddaughter's mother who is in architecture classes. Still no real profit.
Addendum:
Investment:
Mileage at $0.50 per mile: $51.00
Cost of storage locker: $33.90
Time:
12 hours
Sales of Goods:
Blue wool overcoat: $25.00
Polaroid 104 Camera: $5.00
Green wool overcoat: $20.00
5 pair of shoes: $61.00
Total: $111.00
Investment: $84.90
Profit: $26.00
Hourly Wage: $2.16
Give-a-ways of goods to Friends and Family:
Red Ford Racing jacket.
Portfolio case
Sketch pad
Vacuum Cleaner
Donation:
4 large plastic bags filled with clothes
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Northern Segregation and the rights of blacks
I hate movies like “The Great Debaters” and “The Help”.
There was no way in hell Harvard was going to let black people come and debate in the 1930's and it didn't happen. In reality the debate group won against a California University. In reality they probably would have beaten Harvard, but, blacks were not given that opportunity.
There was no way in hell that black maids in Mississippi were treated any where near as well as was depicted in the movie. No rich, white people living in a big mansion served their maid dinner in the dinning room even if the wife was white trash. No little girl grew up to help a bunch of black maids write out how they felt back in 1964. About the only true thing was the snotty white woman eating her maid's crap. I have no doubt that happened.
I thought the movie “The Color Purple” was probably a much more realistic depiction of life for blacks.
Movies like “The Great Debaters” or “The Help” give people the idea that even under terribly oppression conditions blacks were given incredible opportunities.
Get this straight. That does not happen. Does NOT happen.
I live in Detroit where public transportation SUCKS. There is no reasonable public transportation system integrating primarily black Detroit with the primarily white suburbs.
“It's not because they are black, it's because we don't want criminals coming out to the suburbs”. Yeah, there is a different way of saying the same thing, “Screw them all, let God sort them out”.
The Detroit People Mover is a monument to segregation and bigotry. The State of Michigan segregated Detroit destroying their industrial economy. Industry follows Urbanization. Basic Economics.
A lot of people blame Coleman Young for that because Coleman Young was a segregationist. Coleman Young tried to get industry into Detroit, Coleman Young tried to get mass transportation with the suburbs. Coleman Young may have wanted a segregated community BUT Coleman Young did not want a segregated economy.
There is a scene in “The Help” where a “white trash rich woman” forces her company on her maid. This kind of arrogance just pisses me off. Did that white woman even consider the fact that the maid didn't want to eat with her? Of course not. Why should some arrogant white person believe anything except that black people just “love” being around white people?
If you are white get this straight. The United States, the World, is not equal opportunity. I'm a high school dropout and I have had a great career working with organizations like NASA and National Laboratories. I have never once met a black person with a similar educational background that has had the same opportunities because it does not happen.
Blacks are segregated in the United States. They are segregated by racial quotas, by racially different standards and by “equal opportunity” laws. Blacks play the “racism” card because racism is rampant in the United States.
People whine a lot about how badly the south treated blacks. Look at the number of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the United States and see where they are. Are they in the North? Hell NO. Most of those colleges are in the South because the segregation laws actually gave blacks more legal rights in the south than they had in the north.
I said more, not the same legal rights as whites but at least the law recognized blacks.
In the north racial segregation was so firmly ingrained into the culture no laws were needed because they just killed blacks who got out of line.
Let me make that clear.
The north had fewer racially segregating laws because laws give people a legal recourse. Laws make the authorities and responsibilities clear. The north didn't want that because blacks might do something for themselves if the rules were clear. Keep the rules murky and lynch the trouble makers like Malcolm X's father.
No law works much better for bigots than giving people any legal rights at all.
There was no way in hell Harvard was going to let black people come and debate in the 1930's and it didn't happen. In reality the debate group won against a California University. In reality they probably would have beaten Harvard, but, blacks were not given that opportunity.
There was no way in hell that black maids in Mississippi were treated any where near as well as was depicted in the movie. No rich, white people living in a big mansion served their maid dinner in the dinning room even if the wife was white trash. No little girl grew up to help a bunch of black maids write out how they felt back in 1964. About the only true thing was the snotty white woman eating her maid's crap. I have no doubt that happened.
I thought the movie “The Color Purple” was probably a much more realistic depiction of life for blacks.
Movies like “The Great Debaters” or “The Help” give people the idea that even under terribly oppression conditions blacks were given incredible opportunities.
Get this straight. That does not happen. Does NOT happen.
I live in Detroit where public transportation SUCKS. There is no reasonable public transportation system integrating primarily black Detroit with the primarily white suburbs.
“It's not because they are black, it's because we don't want criminals coming out to the suburbs”. Yeah, there is a different way of saying the same thing, “Screw them all, let God sort them out”.
The Detroit People Mover is a monument to segregation and bigotry. The State of Michigan segregated Detroit destroying their industrial economy. Industry follows Urbanization. Basic Economics.
A lot of people blame Coleman Young for that because Coleman Young was a segregationist. Coleman Young tried to get industry into Detroit, Coleman Young tried to get mass transportation with the suburbs. Coleman Young may have wanted a segregated community BUT Coleman Young did not want a segregated economy.
There is a scene in “The Help” where a “white trash rich woman” forces her company on her maid. This kind of arrogance just pisses me off. Did that white woman even consider the fact that the maid didn't want to eat with her? Of course not. Why should some arrogant white person believe anything except that black people just “love” being around white people?
If you are white get this straight. The United States, the World, is not equal opportunity. I'm a high school dropout and I have had a great career working with organizations like NASA and National Laboratories. I have never once met a black person with a similar educational background that has had the same opportunities because it does not happen.
Blacks are segregated in the United States. They are segregated by racial quotas, by racially different standards and by “equal opportunity” laws. Blacks play the “racism” card because racism is rampant in the United States.
People whine a lot about how badly the south treated blacks. Look at the number of Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the United States and see where they are. Are they in the North? Hell NO. Most of those colleges are in the South because the segregation laws actually gave blacks more legal rights in the south than they had in the north.
I said more, not the same legal rights as whites but at least the law recognized blacks.
In the north racial segregation was so firmly ingrained into the culture no laws were needed because they just killed blacks who got out of line.
Let me make that clear.
The north had fewer racially segregating laws because laws give people a legal recourse. Laws make the authorities and responsibilities clear. The north didn't want that because blacks might do something for themselves if the rules were clear. Keep the rules murky and lynch the trouble makers like Malcolm X's father.
No law works much better for bigots than giving people any legal rights at all.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Debates, truth and stupidity
Debates do not reveal facts or “truth”. Debates are won based on subjective analysis by the viewers. Typically viewers who do not have pre-conceived ideas will determine the winner based on charisma or on specific responses they find “interesting”. Debates are usually a waste of time except when I am trying to determine which person's ideas I like better.
Judgments between people. We can't make judgments of fact. We can't even argue fact, we can only argue opinion. "The boy ran fast" is an opinion. "The boy ran 100 meters in 6 seconds" is a fact.
Recently the Gaines center at the University of Kentucky presented a talk by a theologian and an atheist.
The theologian focused his talk on the idea that all scientific research should be conducted with a mind open enough to consider the traditional viewpoint of Christianity and Jesus. Not in my opinion and I will explain that later. Whatever.
The atheist was an idiot. A moronic idiot that had me laughing my butt off.
The atheist started his talk explaining that he was going to be “pugnacious” in his response. His response began focusing on the comments of the theologian. In fact he insists that he is going to rebut comments by the theologian. Lame, very lame. Instead of arguing for his belief he argues against the beliefs of an individual. Then he goes on give statistics on atheists in science. These are not arguments for atheism, they are ad hominid arguments. In other words “Everything he said is bullshit” and “these people believe the way I do so you should believe the way I do if you are smart”.
Lame.
The reality is that both science and religion seek to answer similar questions in different ways.
There are two factual arguments that the atheist makes, one is that if you close your mind by refusing to abide in a pointless universe you are not a scientist. The second is that science is based on repeatable empirical observations by people that are substantiated through observations by other scientists regardless of their beliefs.
The atheist however does not stay in the realm of “fact” and instead continually references “truth”. What is “truth”. Things get murky when we talk about “truth”. Truth is a legal or philosophical term and it is actual subjectively determined. “Truth” is not a scientific term. The words “Theory” and “Fact” are scientific terms.
Get this straight, if a person uses the word "truth" they are not speaking in objective, factual terms or scientific terms. "Truth" is not science. "Truth" is for philosophers and theologians.
"Truth" is for lawyers who rely on a witness swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me whatever. Who cares if fifteen people all observed a situation, all have totally different stories and all tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". Truth is the subjective analysis by a judge and jury of those very different accounts.
From a scientific viewpoint a person cannot take a position on a theory when undertaking an experiment. The atheist explains this in talking about “fooling yourself”. This was a hilarious bit of hypocrisy.
There is repeatable experiment that will prove to the observer that the divine does exist. The subjective and personal nature of revelation causes many scientists to discount the evidence of revelation. Personal revelation is statistical evidence of the divine even when it cannot yet be effectively communicated in a standardized method and does not prove the specific details of any religion. Duh.
Here is the really big arrogance attached to the atheists argument and it applies to any argument which attempts prove a negative.
We don't know everything.
We cannot prove a negative without making subjective “reasonable” assumptions. In other words we cannot prove a negative without exiting the objective and embracing a subjective, “reasonable” viewpoint. Darwin's "reasonable" and racist viewpoint about savages for example.
Science utilizes subjective reason and logic to prioritize experimentation. Science uses logic and reason to support theory. Science does not use logic or reason to identify facts. This is a huge issue and a lot of people who are not objective end up making terrible subjective decisions which result in huge mistakes and a waste of money.
You do not need logic to support a fact. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. No logic. No reason. Fact. "The boy ran fast" What is "fast"? That statement may be "true", but, it ain't no fact.
Okay, so we ignore the statistical evidence of religious revelation, miracle cures, etc. This exits the realm of science which demands that we not fool ourselves by ignoring the obvious, BUT, let's just pretend that we can subjectively ignore data we cannot explain and remain scientists. Can we now prove the non-existence of God by ridiculing the ideas of religion? No. Ridicule is not evidence of fact. Ridicule may be subjectively identified as "reason" or "logic", it is not fact.
Evolution of mankind has not been proved, it remains a theory. Even proved evolution would only prove that some religious viewpoints were incorrect. Absolute proof of evolution would not prove the non-existence of the divine.
How can we prove the evolution of mankind? We really can't. Scientific proof is in observation so until we develop a method of observation of the past we cannot prove the evolution of mankind. Even then the evolution of mankind is theorized to have taken millions of years and it would be a little difficult to observe, even using a “fast forward”. The best we can do is controlled genetic experiments which support the theory of evolution.
So the only thing I have proved is that the atheist is not an objective “scientist”, he is a subjective “non-scientist” or no more a scientist than a theologian is.
People are going to be subjective and we actually have to be in science. Suppose I am researching the metallic bonds between different metals. The direct sharing of electrons between copper and aluminum for example. I have to make subjective decisions to determine where the best area to apply the resources I have available is. Subjective analysis.
Suppose I use my religion to determine that metal bonds because God wants it to. There is no need for me to research the subject at all.
I am curious and objective though and I have researched the issue. That means I don't believe in God?
Lame.
The video I watched finishes with a question about Darwin's racism. The atheist tells us that Darwin's racist “truth” was typical of his time and position.
Lame. I guess "truth" changes over time and I would be correct.
Some guy goes to prison based on the "truth" and ten years later the "truth" sets them free.
Science is about being curious and objective.
Sure, I can use statistical analysis of the existence of religious revelation to prove the existence of the divine in general.
I cannot use personal religious revelation to prove any details of religion until we develop a method of communicating these experiences accurately. That is no joke, eventually we will use Brain Computer Interfaces and Magnetic Resonance Imagery to record enough religious revelations and hallucinations that we will be able to document them.
When that happens some moron may yell, “look, we can't find a difference yet and we know everything so there must not be one, revelation and hallucination are the same”. The same scientific objectivity holds, we don't know yet.
In other words proving that an apple and an orange are both fruit does not mean they are not different. Until we can prove an observable difference we can (and probably should) take a subjective position that they are not different AND objectively refuse to state that they are the same.
Saying “We can't find a difference” is not the same as saying “these items are identical”. Before microscopy and ultra-accurate measurements I am sure many things were considered to be identical even though they were not. In fact they were not identical. We now know that no two things are exactly identical so we define the variation using statistical analysis. “This DNA is from the same person within a million to one probability”.
Eventually we will discover the variations between "religious visions" and "hallucinations". Eventually we can develop a form of communication that reduces the probability of mis-communication based on subjective understanding of language. "Political correctness".
I can use experimentation to prove or disprove the specific details of scientific theory. That is real objective science and it does not conflict with my religious views or any subjective "truth".
Judgments between people. We can't make judgments of fact. We can't even argue fact, we can only argue opinion. "The boy ran fast" is an opinion. "The boy ran 100 meters in 6 seconds" is a fact.
Recently the Gaines center at the University of Kentucky presented a talk by a theologian and an atheist.
The theologian focused his talk on the idea that all scientific research should be conducted with a mind open enough to consider the traditional viewpoint of Christianity and Jesus. Not in my opinion and I will explain that later. Whatever.
The atheist was an idiot. A moronic idiot that had me laughing my butt off.
The atheist started his talk explaining that he was going to be “pugnacious” in his response. His response began focusing on the comments of the theologian. In fact he insists that he is going to rebut comments by the theologian. Lame, very lame. Instead of arguing for his belief he argues against the beliefs of an individual. Then he goes on give statistics on atheists in science. These are not arguments for atheism, they are ad hominid arguments. In other words “Everything he said is bullshit” and “these people believe the way I do so you should believe the way I do if you are smart”.
Lame.
The reality is that both science and religion seek to answer similar questions in different ways.
There are two factual arguments that the atheist makes, one is that if you close your mind by refusing to abide in a pointless universe you are not a scientist. The second is that science is based on repeatable empirical observations by people that are substantiated through observations by other scientists regardless of their beliefs.
The atheist however does not stay in the realm of “fact” and instead continually references “truth”. What is “truth”. Things get murky when we talk about “truth”. Truth is a legal or philosophical term and it is actual subjectively determined. “Truth” is not a scientific term. The words “Theory” and “Fact” are scientific terms.
Get this straight, if a person uses the word "truth" they are not speaking in objective, factual terms or scientific terms. "Truth" is not science. "Truth" is for philosophers and theologians.
"Truth" is for lawyers who rely on a witness swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me whatever. Who cares if fifteen people all observed a situation, all have totally different stories and all tell the "whole truth and nothing but the truth". Truth is the subjective analysis by a judge and jury of those very different accounts.
From a scientific viewpoint a person cannot take a position on a theory when undertaking an experiment. The atheist explains this in talking about “fooling yourself”. This was a hilarious bit of hypocrisy.
There is repeatable experiment that will prove to the observer that the divine does exist. The subjective and personal nature of revelation causes many scientists to discount the evidence of revelation. Personal revelation is statistical evidence of the divine even when it cannot yet be effectively communicated in a standardized method and does not prove the specific details of any religion. Duh.
Here is the really big arrogance attached to the atheists argument and it applies to any argument which attempts prove a negative.
We don't know everything.
We cannot prove a negative without making subjective “reasonable” assumptions. In other words we cannot prove a negative without exiting the objective and embracing a subjective, “reasonable” viewpoint. Darwin's "reasonable" and racist viewpoint about savages for example.
Science utilizes subjective reason and logic to prioritize experimentation. Science uses logic and reason to support theory. Science does not use logic or reason to identify facts. This is a huge issue and a lot of people who are not objective end up making terrible subjective decisions which result in huge mistakes and a waste of money.
You do not need logic to support a fact. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. No logic. No reason. Fact. "The boy ran fast" What is "fast"? That statement may be "true", but, it ain't no fact.
Okay, so we ignore the statistical evidence of religious revelation, miracle cures, etc. This exits the realm of science which demands that we not fool ourselves by ignoring the obvious, BUT, let's just pretend that we can subjectively ignore data we cannot explain and remain scientists. Can we now prove the non-existence of God by ridiculing the ideas of religion? No. Ridicule is not evidence of fact. Ridicule may be subjectively identified as "reason" or "logic", it is not fact.
Evolution of mankind has not been proved, it remains a theory. Even proved evolution would only prove that some religious viewpoints were incorrect. Absolute proof of evolution would not prove the non-existence of the divine.
How can we prove the evolution of mankind? We really can't. Scientific proof is in observation so until we develop a method of observation of the past we cannot prove the evolution of mankind. Even then the evolution of mankind is theorized to have taken millions of years and it would be a little difficult to observe, even using a “fast forward”. The best we can do is controlled genetic experiments which support the theory of evolution.
So the only thing I have proved is that the atheist is not an objective “scientist”, he is a subjective “non-scientist” or no more a scientist than a theologian is.
People are going to be subjective and we actually have to be in science. Suppose I am researching the metallic bonds between different metals. The direct sharing of electrons between copper and aluminum for example. I have to make subjective decisions to determine where the best area to apply the resources I have available is. Subjective analysis.
Suppose I use my religion to determine that metal bonds because God wants it to. There is no need for me to research the subject at all.
I am curious and objective though and I have researched the issue. That means I don't believe in God?
Lame.
The video I watched finishes with a question about Darwin's racism. The atheist tells us that Darwin's racist “truth” was typical of his time and position.
Lame. I guess "truth" changes over time and I would be correct.
Some guy goes to prison based on the "truth" and ten years later the "truth" sets them free.
Science is about being curious and objective.
Sure, I can use statistical analysis of the existence of religious revelation to prove the existence of the divine in general.
I cannot use personal religious revelation to prove any details of religion until we develop a method of communicating these experiences accurately. That is no joke, eventually we will use Brain Computer Interfaces and Magnetic Resonance Imagery to record enough religious revelations and hallucinations that we will be able to document them.
When that happens some moron may yell, “look, we can't find a difference yet and we know everything so there must not be one, revelation and hallucination are the same”. The same scientific objectivity holds, we don't know yet.
In other words proving that an apple and an orange are both fruit does not mean they are not different. Until we can prove an observable difference we can (and probably should) take a subjective position that they are not different AND objectively refuse to state that they are the same.
Saying “We can't find a difference” is not the same as saying “these items are identical”. Before microscopy and ultra-accurate measurements I am sure many things were considered to be identical even though they were not. In fact they were not identical. We now know that no two things are exactly identical so we define the variation using statistical analysis. “This DNA is from the same person within a million to one probability”.
Eventually we will discover the variations between "religious visions" and "hallucinations". Eventually we can develop a form of communication that reduces the probability of mis-communication based on subjective understanding of language. "Political correctness".
I can use experimentation to prove or disprove the specific details of scientific theory. That is real objective science and it does not conflict with my religious views or any subjective "truth".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
