text:
The Ultimate Cart-Before-the-Horse (Why Atheism is Illogical).
"There is a wide measure of agreement which, on the physical side of science approaches almost unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter. We are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail mind as the creator and governor of the realm of matter." (italics added)
–The knighted mathematician, physicist and astronomer Sir James Jeans, as quoted in his book The Mysterious Universe.
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
–Nobel Prize winning physicist Max Planck, who founded quantum theory, and who is therefore one of the most important physicists of all time.
Atheism relies on logic and science, and accepts nothing on faith. Belief in God is a primitive superstition that can only be adopted by weak minded people who ignore cold, hard logic in favor of logically unsupported, faith-based beliefs. Adopting atheism entails turning away from faith in favor of logic and reason….
…or so goes the atheist credo. And this self-flattering atheist narrative has become so prevalent in the media and popular culture that, sadly, many people have begun to believe it largely as a result of hearing it repeated so often. But the atheist credo suffers from one fatal flaw: It is completely backwards. Atheism relies much more on faith than does theism, and it is atheism that is utterly illogical.
To show where I am going with this, it is appropriate to start with a little review. As I described in my essay titled God Is Real…Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism, atheists and theists tend to agree that there is an ultimate reality, or a "something-that-has-always-existed." Physicist George Stanciu and philosopher Robert Augros, in their book The New Story of Science (as I cite in that essay), put it succinctly: "…something must have always existed; for if ever absolutely nothing existed, then nothing would exist now, since nothing comes from nothing." Somewhat reworded, Stanciu's and Aurgros' point could be stated as follows: "There must be an ultimate reality (or a "something-that-has-always-existed") of some sort, because, if at any point there was nothing, there would still be nothing because nothingness can't cause anything to exist or to happen." Atheists and theists just differ on what this ultimate reality is.
In the above mentioned essay, I describe how atheism is rooted in the naturalist (or materialist) view which says that the physical universe or nature is the ultimate reality and that mind or consciousness eventually emerges (in human brains) from mindless matter as a result of natural processes. Theism, conversely, holds that a pre-existing mind (God) is the ultimate reality and that matter (as well as everything else, including human minds) are the product of this pre-existent mind. So, perhaps it could be said that the theism/atheism debate can be distilled to the question of, "Did mind (or 'consciousness') come from matter, or did matter come from mind?"
Because of the undercurrent of deeply entrenched materialist assumptions that prevail in modern secular culture, the idea of a pre-existent mind without a body may seem foreign, even alien, to many people initially. And to atheists, the idea is downright superstitious and naively make-believe. But common sense impressions cannot be relied upon because they are formed, in part, by one's cultural environment and psychological makeup. Therefore, it is a failure of logic to not expose one's common sense impressions to the same level of scrutiny as anything else.
To determine if consciousness came first, or if it emerged from mindless matter, it is first necessary to do a little homework on consciousness. Jeffrey M. Schwartz is a Professor of Research Psychiatry at UCLA. He comments on the difficulty of explaining how the brain can produce consciousness in his book The Mind and the Brain:
"How does a mental reality, a world of consciousness, intentionality and other mental phenomena, fit into a world consisting entirely of physical particles in fields of force? If the answer is that it doesn't—that mental phenomena are different in kind from the material world of particles—then what we have here is an explanatory gap, a term first used in this context by the philosopher Joseph Levine in his 1983 paper Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap. And so, although correlating physical brain activity with mental events is an unquestionable scientific triumph, it has left many students of the brain unsatisfied. For neither neuroscientist nor philosopher has adequately explained how the behavior of neurons can give rise to subjectively felt mental states."
"…It seems ridiculous even to consider why a handful of wires and transistors fails to generate subjective perceptions, then ask the same question about neurons outside the brain. Why is it that no neurons other than those in a brain are capable of giving the owner of that brain a qualitative, subjective sensation—an inner awareness? The activity of neurons in our fingertips that distinguish hot from cold, for example, is not associated in and of itself with conscious perception. But the activity of neurons in the brain, upstream of the fingertips' sensory neurons, is. If the connection linking the fingers to the brain through the spinal cord is severed, all sensation in those fingers is lost. What is it about the brain that has granted to its own neurons the almost magical power to create a felt, subjective experience from bursts of electrochemical activity little different from that transpiring downstream, back in the fingertips? This represents one of the central mysteries of how matter (meat?) generates mind."
"…As the evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin puts it, 'One restricts one's questions to the domain where materialism is unchallenged.'"
Consciousness cannot be simply the result of meat (the brain) because consciousness is a property entirely separate from matter. Consciousness has an irreducible existence. Regardless of how complex a material thing such as a brain gets through evolution, it remains just that…a highly complex material thing, and not a conscious or personal thing.
Moreover, the inescapable problem with materialistic explanations for consciousness is that they ignore the need for a subject in subjective experiences, or in other words, the need for an experiencer of experiences.
Moreover, the inescapable problem with materialistic explanations for consciousness is that they ignore the need for a subject in subjective experiences, or in other words, the need for an experiencer of experiences. A person is a subject that can experience subjective experiences. Brain chemicals and electrical signals in the brain cannot be subjects. Just think about it…the last time that you were enjoying a piece of music, was it the chemicals and electricity in your brain enjoying the music, or was it you enjoying the music?
Keith Ward is a retired Professor of Philosophy from Kings College (in London) and a member of the Royal Institute of Philosophy. He writes in his book Doubting Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly is a God:
"…It is only fair to point out that there are things he [the atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins] systematically neglects to mention, but that a great many philosophers, both dead and alive, accept. Two big ones are: the irreducible existence of consciousness, and the irreducible nature of personal explanation."
"It is very unsatisfactory to have two different sorts of explanation, with no obvious way of connecting them in one coherent scheme of thought. The materialist hypothesis tries to connect them either by reducing the personal to the physical (reductive materialism), or by supposing that the personal just emerges out of the physical for no particular reason (emergent or non-reductive materialism). The former theory conflicts with our everyday experience of conscious life. The latter gives up on explanation."
Simply put, the materialist/naturalist (matter comes first) view struggles mightily to explain such things as the existence of consciousness and personhood because consciousness and personhood are entirely different phenomena than matter. Because consciousness and personhood are not just highly complicated matter, the increasing complexity of material things through evolution cannot be cited as the cause of conscious, personal beings such as ourselves.
Materialists/naturalists try to get around this problem by using some highly contorted mental gymnastics. As Ward notes, the two main methods for getting around this problem that materialism/naturalism utilizes are reductive materialism and emergent or non-reductive materialism.
Reductive materialism tries to reduce the personal (as well as consciousness) to the material. So, put another way, reductive materialism says, "There really is no personal, just the material." In effect, you as a person don't really exist. I hate to be the one to deliver the bad news, but your existence as a person is really nothing but an illusion produced by a complex arrangement of matter. What you refer to as "me" is really nothing but "a survival machine….a robot vehicle blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes," to quote the atheist biologist Richard Dawkins from The Selfish Gene. If learning that you are a mindless robot instead of a person has ruined your day, I ask that you please forgive me. (And please forgive the preceding brief interlude into sarcasm, but I am intending to show, as Ward points out, that this explanation "conflicts with our everyday experience of conscious life.")
Emergent or non-reductive materialism attempts to get around the problem by basically "giving up on explanation," as Ward puts it. No offense to Ward, but I think a better explanation of the problem with emergent or non-reductive materialism is that it confuses an observation of the emergence of such properties as consciousness, intelligence, and personhood with an explanation for the emergence of such properties. As an example, to the question of how consciousness emerges from non-conscious matter, emergent or non-reductive materialism basically answers that once the complexity level of the brain evolves to a certain level, PRESTO, you have consciousness. Consciousness "emerges" once the complexity level of the human brain reaches a certain degree. The "emergence" of consciousness in complex brains is an observation that materialists/naturalists confuse with an explanation for the phenomenon of consciousness. Yes, consciousness "emerges" in highly complex brains…good job. Now please explain why this is so. Emergent or non-reductive materialism provides no such explanation, but rather, "gives up on explanation," because to observe something is not equivalent to explaining it.
And, as an example of the "irreducible nature of personal explanation," consider a work of art such as a painting. Since materialism declares that there is no reality other than the material, the painting, according to materialism, is really nothing but a complex collection of paint molecules arranged in a particular way. The painting IS the paint and the canvas…nothing else. Materialism leaves no room whatsoever for the personal expression the artist intended to convey.
But everyday experience declares that this is absurd. What the artist intended to convey is personal, not material. The paint and canvas are just tools to express the personal.
Some atheists may at this point be objecting, "You are using God-of-the-gaps reasoning. Just because science doesn't yet know how brains can produce consciousness and the personal, doesn't mean that it never will. We can't just give up and say, 'God did it.'" But this is circular reasoning because if consciousness (God's mind) is the ultimate reality, then THERE ARE NO GAPS TO BRIDGE. God's mind as the ultimate reality would be a case of "the God of the whole show," not a case of God filling in explanatory gaps. It is only if matter is the ultimate reality that there are explanatory gaps to bridge. So an atheist making the accusation that "God of the gaps" reasoning is being committed is starting with the assumption that matter is the ultimate reality as a means of reasoning back to the pre-determined conclusion that matter is the ultimate reality.
And a philosophical system that insists that matter is the ultimate reality (materialism/naturalism) can only continue running into a brick wall when it comes to explaining the existence of properties that are clearly not material…properties such as consciousness and personhood. Watching materialists/naturalists try to explain consciousness and personhood reminds one of watching someone feverishly trying to hammer square pegs into round holes…it just doesn't fit. As the philosopher John Locke, who was one of the most important Enlightenment thinkers, put it:
"It is as impossible to conceive that ever pure incogitative matter should produce a thinking intelligent being, as that nothing should of itself produce matter."
Believing atheism requires an enormous amount of faith that material explanations can account for the existence of consciousness and personhood (or intelligence, or life, for that matter). The assumption that science will eventually provide satisfactory material explanations for everything was mockingly referred to as "promissory materialism" by the eminent philosopher of science Karl Popper. Is it not ironic that the atheist credo (stated at the beginning of this essay) declares that atheism does not rely on faith, and yet, atheism places faith in the notion that science can provide material explanations for properties which are clearly not material?
Keith Ward continues with regards to the difficulty of citing a mindless cause for mind, and an impersonal cause for the personal, etc.:
"…there is force in the classical philosophical axiom that, for a truly explanatory cause to be intelligible, it must contain its effects potentially in itself. As the classical philosophers put it, the cause must contain more reality than its effects."
When Ward cites the axiom that a cause "must contain its effects potentially in itself," he is simply stating (in philosophical language) that the cause of conscious, personal, intelligent beings must itself be conscious, intelligent, and personal. Mindless matter cannot eventually cause conscious, personal, intelligent beings because it does not contain the potential to do so. In order to have the potential to do so, mindless matter must have some sort of mechanism to bring about this gradual evolution. What is this mechanism? Was it the laws of physics? Ok, fine. Why is it that matter so consistently follows such laws? What causes it to do so? The theistic explanation for why matter follows physical laws (such as the laws of physics, thermodynamics, etc.) is simple…the same mind that creates matter also directs it. As Robert Boyle, the founder of modern chemistry, put it: "The nature of this or that body is but the law of God prescribed to it [and] to speak properly, a law [is] but a notional rule of acting according to the declared will of a superior." [italics added]
When atheism is asked the question of how it is that matter can be compelled to follow such physical laws, it is stuck with an it just does answer. But "it just does" is not an answer. Rather, it is an avoidance of a question that atheism cannot answer. Atheism is a faith constructed of it just does and just so assumptions. Norman Geisler coins the term "just-so storytelling" in his book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. I highly recommend it.
I conclude by calling attention to the principle known as Ockham's Razor, which states that, other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one. In order to do away with a number of facts which are inconvenient to the atheist ideology, atheism must resort to a large amount of elaborate explaining away. This makes atheism much less simple than theism. Below I cite several examples of this elaborate (and often ridiculous) explaining away.
1) In Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God, I describe how prominent atheist biologists have resorted to citing intervention from space aliens (as well as a couple of other real humdinger explanations) to explain the origin of life.
2) In God Is Real…Why Modern Physics Has Discredited Atheism, I describe how modern physics strongly supports the mind-as-ultimate-reality model, which contradicts atheistic materialism/naturalism. Does this mean that all physicists believe in God? Of course not. But what it does mean is that physicists who cling tenaciously to atheism must make absolutely embarrassing philosophical errors in doing so, as describe in Who Is Playing Make-Believe? (Atheists or Theists). In this essay, I also describe how atheist physicists must resort to extremely elaborate explanations for the origin of the universe (such as the existence of 10 to the 500th power universes) in order to do away with God.
3) I detail how many thousands of people have claimed to have met God in what is known as a Near-Death Experience, in Has Anyone Met God and Returned to Tell About It? The NDE phenomenon has become so convincing and so difficult to ignore that atheists have had to resort to explaining the phenomenon away as a result of hallucination…even though this explanation clearly does not fit since hallucinations are too unique to the individual to share such consistent similarity.
4) Doesn't Evolution Prove the Biblical Account of Creation to Be False? illustrates how remarkably similar the biblical and scientific accounts of creation are. The essay includes a video featuring the MIT physicist and biblical scholar Gerald Schroeder (which is very highly recommended). As far as I can tell, the only atheist replies to Schroeder's arguments are that the similarities are a coincidence.
An article that may shed further light on the matter/mind issue is William A. Dembski's "Explaining Specified Complexity" http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html
I recommend a YT video I posted on "The SOUL as the origin and Essence of human Identity." A review of the mind /body /soul problem. I assess the evidence from evolutionary, biochemical & philosopical viewpoints, asking "are we as sentient beings, just an unlikely cosmic accident, the product of blind forces, ancient chemicals & mindless processes?" Are all our human endeavours reducible to no more than firing neurons & evolving biochemical pathways? I review current scientific evidence for a mind molecule as well as controversial studies of cloning, brain-conjoined twins, "afterdeath" experiences and psychic phenomena.
Hi, just a few comments from an atheist :)
Atheism relies much more on faith than does theism, and it is atheism that is utterly illogical.
You seem to be saying here that faith is a bad thing, and that it is illogical. Is that a correct interpretation?
As I described in my essay titled "What It All Boils Down To", atheists and theists tend to agree that there is an ultimate reality, or a "something-that-has-always-existed."
I don't think this is true. Physicist Laurence Krauss, for example, has written a best-selling book that explains how something comes from nothing.
So, perhaps it could be said that the theism/atheism debate can be distilled to the question of, "Did mind (or 'consciousness') come from matter, or did matter come from mind?"
Well, it seems energy is the properly basic substance, not matter.
In any case, your formulation of the question is a bit odd since you say that human minds are the product of a pre-existing mind. So, your question is better expressed as "Did mind (or 'consciousness') come from matter, or did mind come mind?"
Formulated this way, a difficulty becomes clear. If a mind comes from a mind, where did the God-mind come from?
Because of the undercurrent of deeply entrenched materialist assumptions that prevail in modern secular culture, the idea of a preexistent mind without a body may seem foreign, even alien, to many people initially. And to atheists, the idea is downright superstitious and naively make-believe. But common sense impressions cannot be relied upon because they are formed, in part, by one's cultural environment and psychological makeup.
Huh? The idea of a pre-existing mind has been the reigning paradigm for millenia.
Consciousness cannot be simply the result of meat (the brain) because, no matter how complex of a meat one has, consciousness is a property entirely separate from matter.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Certainly not from the quote of Professor Schwartz you cited, who said how matter generates mind is a mystery. In fact, according to the Nour Foundation's Human Conciousness Project, "Today, most scientists have adopted a traditionally monist view of the mind-brain problem, arguing that the human mind, consciousness, and self are no more than by-products of electrochemical activity within the brain, notwithstanding the lack of any scientific evidence or even a plausible biological explanation as to how the brain would lead to the development of mind and consciousness."
Simply put, the materialist/naturalist (matter comes first) view struggles mightily to explain such things as the existence of consciousness and personhood because consciousness and personhood are entirely different phenomena than matter.
The "struggles mightily" part is correct, but the claim that "consciousness and personhood are entirely different phenomena than matter" is hasty at best, unfounded at worst. In any case, you're tredding into "god of the gaps" territory.
To this objection, you state,
But this reasoning is a classic example of what philosophers call a "category mistake" because questions regarding the relationship between such phenomena as matter, consciousness, and the personal are not scientific questions.
Because you say so? A whole host of scientists would appear to disagree. Why are they not scientific questions? And why did you quote at length from a scientist in the first place if these matters (no pun intended) are not within the domain of science?
But how much faith does it require to believe that conscious, personal, intelligent beings such as ourselves (as well as the material world) exist because our source is conscious, personal, and intelligent? Much, much less.
It used to be claimed that the complexity and diversity of life required an ultimate creator, but we now know that a natural process called evolution can produce such complexity and diversity. So it takes really no faith at all to believe consciousness developed from energy and matter in a similar way too. What takes faith is to believe in a being concocted from various schools of philosophy, whose arguments have varioiusly been proven false by science.
Scott, you wrote:
No, I am saying that atheism requires much more blind faith than does theism. And faith should not be blind, rather it should be scrutinized like everything else, and the atheist faith does not withstand scrutiny.
Ok, blind faith is the real trouble. This prompts two questions: 1) What is the difference between faith and "blind" faith? 2) How much blind faith comprises your theism?
Also, it's fair to note that depending on your notion of a god or gods, blind faith could very well be a supreme virtue; your theism doesn't speak for all theism.
For example, in this essay, I ask the question of how it can be that matter so consistently follows physical laws (such as the laws of physics). Theism answers that matter follows such laws because the same mind that creates matter also directs it. What answer does atheism provide? Matter follows physical laws because "it just does."
Theism doesn't "answer"; theism asserts. Atheism, on the other hand, is not in the business of making assertions or providing answers. That's the job of other endeavors, like science.
That said, "the laws of physics" are a bit of a misnomer. As physicist Victor Stenger notes, "[They are not] rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations. Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists."
Finally, the theist's assertion for why this "mind" exists at all? "It just does". How does a non-material "mind" create energy and matter at all? "It just does". Pot, meet kettle. :)
I really like this article from the New York Times about Lawrence Krauss.
Regardless of what the philosopher-reviewer thought about Krauss's hypothesis, the point was to show, contra your claim, that not everyone believes "something has always existed". As for his alleged "egregious philosophical errors", these frankly are of little concern. Philosophy is not some unified body of thought or standard to which other human endeavors must conform. In a conflict between the two, I'll err on the side of science, which has a far better track record of discovering what's true about our existence than philosophy. Both aren't perfect, but philosophy is far less so than science.
Consciousness (God's mind) is the ultimate reality.
Yes, that's the assertion. But if mind only comes from mind, then the assertion collapses upon itself.
What you're doing is begging the question; you're holding as true ("God's mind is the ultimate reality") that which is just an assertion.
Please elaborate on where you are going with this. It is not clear.
Sorry for the confusion. You wrote that "the idea of a preexistent mind without a body may seem foreign, even alien, to many people initially". I don't see how such an idea is "foreign" at all. As I said, this idea has been the dominant paradigm for much of history. It's the reverse idea – there is no preexistent mind without a body – that in fact may seem foreign, even alien, to many people initially.
Yes, Richard, most scientists do adopt this view.
Steve, it's Robert, if you recall. ;)
But citing scientific consensus by itself is a clear-cut case of the logical fallacy of "argument from authority." The reasoning behind the scientific consensus must be subjected to scrutiny because scientific consensus has been shown to provide inadequate explanatons innumerable times before".
You've misunderstood the fallacy. "Appeal to authority" is a fallacy when the individual(s) making the claim is not a legitimate authority. It's legitimate and reasonable to appeal to expert consensus.
I explain the philosophical flaws in the "reductive materialism" view.
What makes philosophers, or, more accurately, a few philosophers, experts on neuroscience? Ironically, you're the one here making fallacious appeals to authority.
Oh, OK. Then you think that consciousness and personhood are the same as matter? Do I have that right? Is matter conscious? Is the chair that I am sitting in conscious?
No, I don't believe that. But I do believe that inanimate carbon rod is conscious!
When you refer to "God of the gaps," you are going right back to the assumption that matter is the "ultimate reality" and that therefore, there is a gap that can be bridged between matter and mind.
As opposed to the "fact" that God-mind is the ultimate reality? Again, you're begging the question.
Theists make a claim about the existence of god(s). In attempting to substantiate that claim, they appeal to gaps in our understanding, such as how consciousness develops. They don't see how (or refuse to see how) unguided natural processes acting on natural substances produce certain outcomes. Ergo, Jesus, or Allah, or Zeus, or Yahweh, or Mazda, or… Sorry, such reasoning has been continuously obliterated; the gaps narrow and close, but theists just keep moving god into the ones that remain.
If something is currently unexplainable, the reasonable response is "We don't know how, but let's try to find out", NOT "Goddidit".
Can you locate some consciousness under a microscope? Matter can be spotted under a microscope but consciousness cannot. Can you isolate some consciousness in a test tube?
These are childish objections that evince a poor understanding of science. Can gravity be spotted under a microscope? Can you isolate some gravity in a test tube?
In my essay titled "Why Life Could Not Have Emerged Without God", I detail how miserably atheists have done at explaining the origin of life from lifeless matter.
The example of evolution was to show that, what was once considered an impossibility without a god, i.e., diversity and complexity of life, is actually possible. Now that evolution is a settled matter, theists now claim that other phenomena – abiogenesis, consciousness – are impossible without a god. They can't explain how, you say, it must be god! Such reasoning has always failed miserably in the past. It takes no faith at all to think that science will eventually solve those mysteries too.
"Theism doesn't 'answer'; theism asserts. Atheism, on the other hand, is not in the business of making assertions or providing answers."
Atheism is the guise of naturalists and materialists. If one claims only to lack a belief in God, then they probably think that they don't have to be accountable for their beliefs. But atheists do because they hold positive beliefs as well, which usually falls under naturalism or materialism. Naturalism or materialism has not answered these questions.
"I'll err on the side of science, which has a far better track record of discovering what's true about our existence than philosophy."
Regarding Lawrence Krauss explaining how something coming can from nothing, there is no "science of nothingness", so science can't answer why there is something rather than nothing. Actually, science can't answer alot of questions such as ones regarding ontology. Why? Because no one was there. You would have to build a time machine and go back and observe the events _if_ you hold empirical evidence as the standard. Looks like you will have to go with philosophy.
"Both aren't perfect, but philosophy is far less so than science." Science is more perfect than philosophy? How do you know that? Sounds like a bare assertion to me. Is this assertion because you think that scientific theories change less than philosophical arguments? Both may change when there are new discoveries, and new discoveries are continually being made, invalidating old scientific theories and even philosophical arguments. For example, here are three scenerios of a universe without a beginning -Eternal inflation, Cyclic evolution, and Static seed. They all seemed to be very promising. Years later in January 2012, Alexander Vilenkin studied the theories as he and others reworked them, and his conclusion is that all the evidence points to the universe as having a beginning (from http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/stephen70/. Under heading "Programme" there is a PDF link to Alexander Vilenkin's presentation). In paleontology, paleoanthropologists keep reclassifying and reclassifying certain hominid fossils due to new discoveries; at first they imagined a line where the first cell transformed into a frog, then into an ape, and then into a human. We no longer see that illustration probably because there isn't evidence to support it; so they went with a tree. A tree was also used to depict how humans came from apes, but with the discovery of more hominid fossils, this fossil record is now depicted as a bush. Science has been wrong in the past, so you are correct when you say it isn't perfect.
No, macro evolution isn't a settled matter. The constant reclassification of fossils and the limited data make it impossible to settle the matter. Right now there are 4 contenders for the closest common ancestor to man (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/hominids/2012/01/meet-the-contenders-for-earliest-modern-human/). I guess you can connect the dots although paleoanthropologists have not, but that would be based on blind faith. The Cambrian explosion poses a difficulty for macro evolution because it does not show the gradual emergence needed for creatures to evolve into other creatures. Neither is there ANY evidence for abiogenesis as the cause of life on earth, and here is the biggest contradiction:
"It takes no faith at all to think that science will eventually solve those mysteries too."
Now THAT is a statement of faith. Not only a statement of faith, but it's a self-refuting statement.
Grace, you write,
Atheism is the guise of naturalists and materialists.
All atheists are naturalists and materialists? I want to be clear that's what you're contending because there are many obvious counter-cases.
Actually, science can't answer alot of questions such as ones regarding ontology. Why? Because no one was there. You would have to build a time machine and go back and observe the events _if_ you hold empirical evidence as the standard. Looks like you will have to go with philosophy.
Huh? What does not being there have to do with ontology?
Is this assertion because you think that scientific theories change less than philosophical arguments?
No, my claim primarily rests on the fact that there is far more unanimity in science than philosophy. The unanimity exists because science has a proven method for weeding out false hypotheses and ideas, whereas philosophy doesn't. This is not to say science doesn't rely on philosophy in some manner, just that philosophy seems to live within the realm of possibility, whereas science seems to live within the realm of reality.
No, macro evolution isn't a settled matter. The constant reclassification of fossils and the limited data make it impossible to settle the matter.
Reclassification of fossils doesn't imperil the theory of evolution. Besides, fossils aren't the only evidence that prove evolution; descent with modification is written in DNA. Just ask Christian theist Francis Collins.
The Cambrian explosion poses a difficulty for macro evolution because it does not show the gradual emergence needed for creatures to evolve into other creatures.
Well, not according to even many Christian theists.
Now THAT is a statement of faith. Not only a statement of faith, but it's a self-refuting statement.
Please explain. If method X has repeatedly shown itself to produce positive or truthful outcomes, how is it self-refuting or a statement of faith to believe that it will continue to do so?
I am sure that there are counter-cases? But what would this demonstrate? Please present the alternative to theism that non-materialist atheists present? I am curious.
Perhaps the best example of non-materialist atheism is animism. Animism, which is a very old proto-religion, sees everything has having a non-material soul, but does not hold a belief in a supreme deity or deities.
Robert, there you go again. You have just constructed another PHILOSOPHICAL argument for why science is superior to philosophy.
Sorry, your logic eludes me. Are you denying there is more unanimity in science than in philosophy? Are you denying that science possesses a method for weeding out false hypotheses and ideas, in contrast to philosophy?
Further, atheism is a PHILOSOPHICAL view. Atheism cannot be a scientific view because the methods of science cannot demonstrate that there is no God because science studies the physical and natural world and God is alleged to exist outside of the physical and natural world.
It's news to me that atheism is a PHILOSOPHICAL view. Is a-unicornism a PHILOSOPHICAL view? Is non-stamp collecting a hobby too?
I never claimed that atheism is a scientific view. Rather, it's a view resulting from the failure to substantiate the theistic hypothesis. Sure, science is a major contributor in this failure, which probably explains why the vast majority of scientists are atheists, but there other reasons as well, some of which are philosophical.
Yes, one conception of "god" has him/her/it living outside the physical and natural world, while others have god as synonomous with it. However, many religions, like Christianity, assert that "god" frequently interacts with the physical and natural world (e.g., "faith healing"), and as such, is amenable to scientific inquiry. Unfortunately, scientists have failed to substantiate such assertions, and believe me, they've tried.
But what scientific axioms from the time of the ancient Greeks are still referenced by modern scientists? The classical scientific view that the world is constructed of the four primary elements of earth, air, fire, and water?
The classical scientific view? Did you even read your own source?
"Many philosophies and worldviews have a set of classical elements believed to reflect the simplest essential parts and principles of which anything consists or upon which the constitution and fundamental powers of anything are based."
"The concept of the five elements formed a basis of analysis in both Hinduism and Buddhism."
"The concept of the five classical elements in the Western tradition originates from Babylonian mythology."
"Plato characterizes the elements as being pre-Socratic in origin from a list created by the Sicilian philosopher Empedocles (ca. 450 BC)." (emphasis mine)
Science has a proven method for weeding out false hypotheses and ideas, whereas philosophy doesn't?!?! Then why were scientists not able to weed out the scientific view that bloodletting (which says that blood and other bodily fluid are "humors" that must be balanced to maintain health) is a good medical practice?
Good question! Fortunately, theistic philosophers (and not scientists) demonstrated it's actually harmful.
So I suppose it's true, philosophy, and especially theology, has a proven method for weeding out error, which is why there is only one religion and everyone worships the exact same god as you do. Could you just do me the favor and remind me of its method again?
I don't feel any need to discuss the theory of evolution with you because the theory of evolution is utterly irrelevant with regards to the question of God's existence.
As I noted already, the theory of evolution makes your uber-mind look like a bungling tinkerer, so it's little wonder why you wish to ignore it. Nonetheless, depending on what "god" you're talking about, it's clear evolution IS relevant – at least to some theists.
Scott wrote,
You use quantity of argument as a tactic to disguise the lack of quality of your argument. Why is is necessary for you to write such a HUGE comment? If your logical arguments are so persuasive, why can't you summarize them in a few nutshell paragraphs?
From this point forward, I am limiting your replies to 50 lines per day. I have had to do this once in the past with another atheist who tried to spam me out and consume all of my time by writing huge, rambling replies instead of concise, point-by-point logical arguments.
This is rich! Who's trying to "spam" the other out with huge, rambling replies? Let's count the words! (Numbers doen't include quotes taken from replies):
My reply of March 23: 400 words
Your reply of March 23: 1,400 words
My reply of March 26: 700 words
Your reply of March 27: 2,800 words
My reply of April 2: 1,350 words
Your reply of April 4: 4,000 words
My reply of April 16th: 3,650 words
Your reply of April 18th: 6,600 words
In every single case, I actually use fewer words to reply to you, and in every single case you come back with even more!
And if that wasn't enough, you replied for other participants when they didn't reply to me.
Yes, indeed: "You use quantity of argument as a tactic to disguise the lack of quality of your argument. Why is is necessary for you to write such a HUGE comment? If your logical arguments are so persuasive, why can't you summarize them in a few nutshell paragraphs?"
Little wonder you wish to cease the conversation. Not only are you forced to retreat from your own arguments, but it takes you even more and more words to defend what arguments you have left.
But perhaps the most amazing thing of all, in all those words not a single shred of evidence for a god is actually ever provided.
Scott wrote,
The tactic that I see you using here is that you are trying to lay down huge quantity of argument in hopes that I will not respond to some of it.
As I demonstrated above, it is you who is laying down the huge quantities of argument. My replies have been shorter than which they replied to. Your sustained practice is to respond with even more volume. I won't pretend to know your motivations, though I've noticed that theists often accuse atheists of what they themselves are guilty.
So here is what we will do: Go ahead and present what you consider to be your toughest and strongest argument, that you think I will have the hardest time responding to. Just keep it to about 50 lines. When we have beaten that horse to death, we will go on to what you think is your next strongest argument.
Because it is clearly you who has the problem with limiting quantity, not me, by your own standard it is you who should limit their posts to no more than 50 lines.
If that's not your desire, then what I will do is respond to you from my own blog, where there are no silly policies – ad hoc or otherwise – restricting what anyone may say. What you will do in turn is entirely up to you.
Please specify which arguments that I "am forced to retreat from." I know that you really want to create this illusion. But if I am doing so, then please specify exactly which arguments that I have retreated from. Have I retreated from my argument against the aliens-brought-life-to-earth-in-their-spaceship hypothesis presented by various atheist biologists? Have I been forced to accept, by weight of argument, that this is in fact how life originated on earth? Or was it the life-came-to-earth-from-space-without-aliens argument that you seem to lean towards?
I certainly will be pointing those out, though I recognize that fool-proof evidence against your arguments won't sometimes make you admit it, if the above example is any indication. It boggles that you're still bringing this up. Are you purposely ignoring what I wrote?
"Well, no. Dawkins and others are intrigued by panspermia because there is more and more evidence that life could have originated off earth."
"I know Crick and Orgel proposed something like this, known as "directed panspermia". But I can't find where Dawkins endorses the view. You reference his interview with Ben Stein, but it's obvious Dawkins wasn't endorsing directed panspermia, as he was forced to remind everyone later."
You're dredging up something two deceased scientists suggested forty years ago, and then later backed away from. Then you falsely charge Dawkins with promoting the idea. You also falsely stated I "lean towards" non-directed panspermia.
What gives, Scott? Does the god you follow reward its followers for lying on its behalf or something?
I am proposing that you present your first argument against the existence of God in about 50 lines. If you really do need to go over, I understand…just make sure that, in going over, you do so with substantive argument rather than rhetoric and excess verbiage.
When the rhetoric and excess verbiage is clearly coming from you, I see no need to agree to arbitrary limits within how many lines I may present my arguments. If yours are so compelling, then you should have no problem confining yourself to the limits you seek to impose on others. As I indicated previously, I shall proceed on my own blog from now on. How you respond is entirely up to you, but I'm guessing it won't be confined to 50 lines.
Regarding Richard Dawkins endorsement of directed panspermia. Here is a transcript of what he said in the Ben Stein interview.
Why do you continue to ignore the link to Dawkins response to this? Is it beyond your abilities to conduct a search within your browser? Laziness or ignorance is a poor excuse for retaining a refuted belief. It seems I need to post the response in full (and thereby exceed my 50 line limit):
"Another example. Toward the end of his interview with me, Stein asked whether I could think of any circumstances whatsoever under which intelligent design might have occurred. It's the kind of challenge I relish, and I set myself the task of imagining the most plausible scenario I could. I wanted to give ID its best shot, however poor that best shot might be. I must have been feeling magnanimous that day, because I was aware that the leading advocates of Intelligent Design are very fond of protesting that they are not talking about God as the designer, but about some unnamed and unspecified intelligence, which might even be an alien from another planet. Indeed, this is the only way they differentiate themselves from fundamentalist creationists, and they do it only when they need to, in order to weasel their way around church/state separation laws. So, bending over backwards to accommodate the IDiots ("oh NOOOOO, of course we aren't talking about God, this is SCIENCE") and bending over backwards to make the best case I could for intelligent design, I constructed a science fiction scenario. Like Michael Ruse (as I surmise) I still hadn't rumbled Stein, and I was charitable enough to think he was an honestly stupid man, sincerely seeking enlightenment from a scientist. I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar — semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved, if not by Darwinian selection, by some equivalent 'crane' (to quote Dan Dennett). My point here was that design can never be an ULTIMATE explanation for organized complexity. Even if life on Earth was seeded by intelligent designers on another planet, and even if the alien life form was itself seeded four billion years earlier, the regress must ultimately be terminated (and we have only some 13 billion years to play with because of the finite age of the universe). Organized complexity cannot just spontaneously happen. That, for goodness sake, is the creationists' whole point, when they bang on about eyes and bacterial flagella! Evolution by natural selection is the only known process whereby organized complexity can ultimately come into being. Organized complexity — and that includes everything capable of designing anything intelligently — comes LATE into the universe. It cannot exist at the beginning, as I have explained again and again in my writings."
Ultimately, you are going to have to answer the question of what the source of the "high degree of ordering of the objective world" (that Einstein marveled at) is. If it is unintelligent mechanisms, you are still left with the question of where these mechanisms came from.
I "need" to answer it? No, I don't, but I'll continue to provide what current scientific thinking is on the subject.
Insofar as you've proposed the Goddidit hypothesis as an answer, we eagerly await evidence. So far, your "evidence" consists entirely of arguments from ignorance. This may satisfy committed theists, but given the repeated failure of such arguments (not to mention the hypothesis itself), you'll excuse me if they remain less than convincing.
I falsely suggest that you lean towards non-directed panspermia? Then what are you referring to when you say, "There is more and more evidence that life could have originated off earth," in your most recent comment? Is the idea that life originated in space not what "panspermia" refers to?
It's considered polite etiquette to accurately quote. Here's what I actually wrote (again):
"Well, no. Dawkins and others are intrigued by panspermia because there is more and more evidence that life could have originated off earth."
As anyone can see, I believe Dawkins and others are interested in panspermia because there is evidence it's possible.
Did I state I found the evidence convincing, or even a likely explanation for the origin of life on earth? No. To me, there's insufficient data to lean one way or another. It's possible that panspermia seeds life on planets, but that Earth's life was entirely homegrown.
"…consciousness is a property entirely separate from matter. Consciousness has an irreducible existence." I've never thought of it this way. You're totally right. Consciousness is irreducibly extant (I was going to say "complex", but I'm not sure that would be appropriate here).
I am going to tweet this.
For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, I have a website where I discuss similar matters: http://dontforgettothink.blogspot.com
Keep up the great work, Scott.
By the time I finished this article I probably lost at least 20 iq points because the idiocy just radiated off onto me. Atheism does not rely on faith, Atheism is the absence of faith. Theism, which relies on blindly believing something without any sort of evidence is illogical.
[…] Image from God Evidence […]
[…] If the Evidence for God is So Strong, Why Are So Many Smart People Unconvinced?. Please also read The Ultimate Cart-Before-the-Horse (Why Atheism is Illogical, which is closely related to this […]
NEUROLOGY you fucktard! You know less about Neurology than I picked up from Robocop.
And don't ask stupid questions with obvious scientific answers and act like it's a huge mystery no one knows.
"No one knows what's on the other side of the Universe, therefore that's where heaven is" is God of the Gaps. "No one knows how the little people in the TV got in there, therefore God did it" is just stupid.
One more thing; name dropping is pointless if no one knows who they are, or if you're quoting a philosopher talking about Science. I'm not even kidding when I say I have more respect for "this guy I know who owns a ping pong table" over a philosopher when it comes to physics.


text:
I noticed yesterday(4/23/19) that my DVR went from 77% full to 25% full. I lost 30 to 40 recordings. The lost recordings were not the oldest ones or the newest ones but somewhere in between. I have already done the restart and system refresh procedures without success. Any other suggestions?
Solved! Go to Solution.
dhall6491, welcome to the forums.
This is a very odd issue, and I'd be happy to help. I get how important it is to make sure your recordings are available. To take a look at this further, can you please send over a PM with your first and last name?
To send me a Private Message, please click my name "ComcastAlly" and click "send a message."
I have also had this problem, same time frame, not missing all, but quite a few movies.
The missing recordings can be restored. They will tell you they can't do it but they can - as I have had it done but it took posting to the FCC's complain site.
Good luck
Actually not all the recordings were missing. I lost about half of them. Not the oldest or the newest but somewhere in between.
Happened to me too. Claim they can do nothing & some of those programs saved were live & one ofs that were being kept permanently. Then when I called the customer "service" agents were so HORRIBLE, I just wrote a 3 page letter letting them know this customer of a couple decades will likely be heading elsewhere due to the entire incident. Start to finish, the worst treatment I've ever dealt with as a customer.
If anyone knows the actual mailing address for complaints, I'd really appreciate it as I can't seem to track it down. Thanks. Sorry y'all are dealing with this too. We pay way too much a month for such rude, unprofessional treatment.
Hello, all!
Thank you for reaching out here. At this time, this is a known issue. We are working hard to get this resolved since we know a lot of customers are missing their recordings. We do not currently have a work-around. I will update this thread when I have an update!
Any update on a fix for this issue?
My DVR went from 40% to 5% and I am missing many recordings. Please help!
shmiller1, I apologize for the inconvenience. This is currently a known issue. Our advanced repair team is working hard to make sure a resolution is found as fast as possible!
We have lost ALL are recordings!
Can not even set to record anything, option is gone.
I'm in Fort Myers, FL anyone else in the area having trouble?
Sure isn't what I'm paying big dollars for.
Hello, all, thank you so much for your patience while we worked on this. The issues with the missing recordings have now been resolved and your recordings should be available again. If you cannot find the recordings on your physical box, please try viewing them from the Cloud on the Stream app or website.
I see no change in my DVR recordings, so they are still missing. Apparently I have no access to the Cloud DVR.
garryreeves, please feel free to send me a PM with your first and last name to review this further together! I would be happy to review this further with you and find a resolution.
dhall6491, I'm so sorry to hear that! Let's troubleshoot this via the account. Please send me a PM with your first and last name to take a look.
To send me a Private Message, please click my name "ComcastAlly" and click "Send a message."

subset: commoncrawl


text:
"Self-harm, hostility, violence, mania, aggression, homicidal thinking, suicidal thinking, and suicide completion are not side-effects of antidepressants, they are effects of antidepressants.
The above are not quaint sides to be served alongside your main meal."
~ Bob Fiddaman, Author, Blogger, Researcher
"Self-harm, hostility, violence, mania, aggression, homicidal thinking, suicidal thinking, and suicide completion are not side-effects of antidepressants, they are effects of antidepressants. The above are not quaint sides to be served alongside your main meal."
~ Bob Fiddaman, Author, Blogger, Researcher
Citizens Commission on Human Rights Award Recipient (Twice)
Humanist, humorist
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Image: Sara Carlin
For all of the Sara Carlin inquest articles in chronological order - Download PDF HERE
Sara Carlin was killed by an electrical cord she wrapped around her neck with her own hands.
That's how the beautiful 18-year-old Oakville teen died May 6, 2007.
But that sad day was only the beginning of a two-year quest by her family to find out if Paxil, the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant she was prescribed, helped open an otherwise closed door to suicide.
On day one of the inquest, Coroner's Counsel, Michael Blain, went in front of TV camera's during a short recess in the proceedings. The Courts, he said, acknowledge that this medication can increase thoughts of suicide in particular patients but 'they' don't think that the medication played a role in Sara Carlin's death."
Why would the courts think that before they even had a chance to see all the evidence?
Furthermore, why would the Coroners Counsel appear in front of TV camera's to make this claim?
Footage from CHCH TV, Hamilton, Ontario
On the final day of the Sara Carlin 'Death by Paxil' inquest, Oakville MP, Terence Young testified that patients must be educated about the dangerous side effects of drugs and the possibility of using alternate non-drug treatments.
Lawyer Teresa Walsh, representing Paxil's makers, GlaxoSmithKline, queried Young on Sara Carlin's alcohol consumption two years before taking Paxil.
Young balked at the questions, refusing to answer them and noting by Grade 10 alcohol use is widespread.
"It's irrelevant. You're planting the earworm (idea) that it's the alcohol, everything but the Paxil," replied Young.
You will note from this footage, the complete look of anguish and despair on the faces of Sara's parents, Neil and Rhonda Carlin.
No parent should lose a child to prescription drugs. Furthermore, no parent should have to endure an inquest where lawyers representing the makers of that prescription drug, GlaxoSmithKline, doctors lawyers and even Coroner's Counsel blame the child rather than the medication.
Footage from CHCH TV, Hamilton, Ontario
Back stories:
Sara Carlin Inquest – Latest
Sara Carlin Inquest – Failure of Oakville Medical Profession
Sara Carlin – 'Death by Paxil' Inquest – The 'Expert'
Sara Carlin Inquest – Coroner's Witness In U-Turn… And That Man Shaffer!
SARA CARLIN Ontario, Canada
Coroner's Inquest – Glaxo & Friends Vs The Carlin Family
Sara Carlin Inquest – Local MP Slams GlaxoSmithKline
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.


text:
SACRAMENTO – Senator Mike Morrell (R-Rancho Cucamonga) today issued the following statement in response to Governor Jerry Brown's draft state budget proposal for 2017-18:
"While the state has seen record budgets in recent years, unfortunately, the same cannot be said for working Californians. Their hard-earned money does not go as far as it should and with legislative Democrats proposing higher taxes to pay for more bureaucracy, it will mean even less that families can invest in their futures. Given these budget trends, the governor should hold the line on any tax or fee increases.
"With the threat of another recession always looming around the corner, the focus needs to remain on growing our economy while continuing to pay down the hundreds of billions of dollars the state already owes in public pensions and other obligations. It is wrong to leave future generations saddled with ever mounting debt."


text:
A collection of houses and interiors that we have seen over the course of this first week of house hunting:
Types of houses:
Maisons de maître ("master's houses") – not actually for sale but I thought that they were just so beautiful. O's dream is to live in such a house, but most of them are out of our price range (or in a terrible state!)…
House probably built in the 1920's or 30's… Sold by owner but we haven't visited it yet
Various interiors:
Maison de maître staircase
Wooden ceiling in maison de maître
Glass ceiling in staircase in maison de maître
Old-style heating in a 1920's free-standing house**… This kind of heating is actually still in use in many houses / apartments in Brussels (and sometimes the only heating system!)
Same building as the photo above, another floor which was completely covered in mold!!
Same building, retro wallpaper
Cool retro kitchen cupboard
Old bathroom, the warm water gas boiler in the bathroom is a scary feature we don't like!
This is such a Brussels' solution – putting the bathroom at the top of the staircase!! Oh yes, even the toilet is behind the divider!! 😕 Other creative solutions that I have seen in the past (and lived in myself): having to pass the bathroom to reach the bedroom, bathtub / shower in the kitchen… (the shower in the kitchen was actually in my flat in Geneva)
Old sink
Garden shed – you can see that the land behind the shed belongs to the neighbouring house which has a much bigger garden… This property is still considered to have a big garden of almost 70 m2.
Some more house viewings tomorrow and Saturday but we are probably far from making a decision. We viewed a house in our old street (!!) today, it was very big but also in need of a lot of work in order to be brought to a liveable standard…
*) The garbage you see outside the house on the photo is normal – twice a week the garbage trucks pass and you put the garbage bags straight out on the pavement. The white bags are for normal garbage, yellow for paper and blue for recycling (plastic, carton, metal). The streets look extremely messy on garbage-days but that's the Brussels' system… And be aware, do not put out the garbage too early (or too late), there are garbage spies also in Belgium (like in Sweden!) and I know a few people who have been fined!
**) In house ads the number of sides (façade) of the building is always mentioned. Most houses are attached, and free-standing buildings are rare.


text:
The campus-wide commencement ceremony will take place in Folsom Field regardless of weather. The department recognition ceremonies page will be updated regularly with the most up-to-date information regarding these recognition ceremonies. Please check it regulary for any updates to outdoor ceremonies specifically.
Colorado weather in May can be unpredictable. We therefore encourage guests to watch the weather forecast so that they may plan and dress accordingly. In the event of rain or snow, the ceremony will be held in abbreviated form.
The university commencement ceremony is the campuswide ceremony in which students from all colleges are invited to participate. The chancellor of the Boulder campus officially confers degrees upon graduating students at this ceremony.
Department recognition ceremonies are celebrations of individual student achievement. Each ceremony is different in form and structure. Please contact the individual department for more information. See Department Recognition Ceremonies for schedules.
Doctoral students can pick up their diploma from the Graduate School following the university commencement ceremony. Diplomas for all other graduates will be mailed eight weeks after graduation. Check the Graduation & Diploma Calendar for the semester-specific date.
The ceremonies last approximately one and one-half hours.
Contact your academic advisor if your plans for graduation change.
Your name will be printed in the program if you graduated in the fall or submitted a spring or summer graduation application by the April 1 deadline. See the "Program" section of the Office of the Registrar Graduation & Commencement page for more details.
Undergraduate students can purchase their caps and gowns anytime in advance at the CU Book Store. Master's, law, and doctoral students are required to rent regalia. See Spring Cap & Gown Info for detailed information.
Undergraduate students can purchase their caps and gowns anytime in advance at the CU Book Store. Master's, law, and doctoral students are required to rent regalia. See Winter Cap & Gown Info for detailed information.
No tickets are required for the ceremony. Early arrival guarantees the best seating.
The spring ceremony is held in Folsom Stadium at 8:30 a.m. Early arrival guarantees the best choice of seating. Plan plenty of time to find parking and to get seated. See Spring Ceremony for more information regarding seating, disability services, and parking.
Close-in parking and drop off is available for those who have difficulty walking at both the winter and spring ceremony locations. ADA placards are not required to access close-in parking or drop-off location. Specific seating areas are already reserved for those with wheelchairs, the elderly, and guests with physical disabilities. (Reservations for these areas are not required.) See Accessibility or Spring Parking for more information.
No. Parking the day of commencement is free on campus, including meters. See Spring Ceremony Parking for more information.
Companion seating is available, but as space is limited during commencement, we ask that only two guests accompany you in this area. Ushers will be happy to show you to seating as close as possible to your friends and family these seating areas.
Please contact the ADA Compliance office at (303) 492-9725 or firstname.lastname@example.com at least two weeks in advance of the event so that the appropriate arrangements can be made. You may also wish to contact the department directly regarding specific parking and other concerns such as nearby accessible restrooms and elevator use.
For hotel accommodations please contact the Boulder Marriott at 1-888-238-2178 or www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/denbo-boulder-marriott. Additional information about Marriott accommodations can be found at www.marriott.com.
The Boulder Convention and Visitors Bureau can provide information about local accommodations at http://bouldercoloradousa.com or 303-442-2911.
Folsom Field comply with all TSA and Homeland Security prohibited items lists. The only bags allowed are bags that are clear plastic, vinyl or PVC and do not exceed 12" x 6" x 12" or one-gallon (or smaller) clear plastic Ziploc/freezer bag. No other bags are permitted at all; includes backpacks, diaper bags and other similar bags. More details are available on our Folsom Field Information page.


text:
Tori's Blog
Twins and TripletsSunday, April 26th, 2015
What an incredibly wonderful day I had today. This morning I had the pleasure of being a participant in the vaginal birth of breech twin girls. This is not at all common and needs to happen in the hands of a skilled provider and an excellent support team. The birth was lovely and everything went very smoothly. Later in the day, I shared in another wonderful birth of triplets.
The babies were spontaneous triplets which means that they were not conceived with the help of fertility treatments. They were born by cesarean section and each baby weighed four and one-half to five and one-have pounds. I so love my job.


text:
Gillian came to Royal Holloway in April 2012 as Professor of Organization Studies). Previously she has held lecturing and research positions at Birkbeck, University of London, the University of Cardiff and the University of Sheffield. She has research interests in identity at work, work-life boundaries, volunteers and voluntary work, rhetoric and rhetorical analysis, technological development and change in organizations, the technological mediation of work, sociomateriality, and the implications of smartphones and social media for working practices and organizational processes. In the recent past she has investigated the implications of smartphone use for identity, communication and information sharing (with Dr Katrina Pritchard, Birkbeck, and supported by British Academy grant SG-54143).
Currently she is involved as co-investigator on a multi-institution EPSRC-funded project examining the relationship between work-life balance, use of digital technologies and identity (see the project website http://www.digitalbrainswitch.org.uk.). She also has a research interest in the working practices of academics, particularly qualitative research methods and on-line qualitative research.
She has edited several qualitative research method compendia (with Prof Catherine Cassell, Leeds University Business School), the latest of which Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges was published by Sage in April 2012 (http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235422?siteId=sage-us&prodTypes=any&q=symon+and+cassell&fs=1 ). Catherine and Gillian are founding editors of the journal Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/qrom.htm). Gillian is also an Associate Editor for the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology and on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Organizational Behavior.


text:
Sidewalk Inspection and Violations
New York City law requires property owners to, at their own cost, install, construct, reconstruct, repave and repair the sidewalk adjacent to their properties, including the intersection quadrant and pedestrian ramps for corner properties, in accordance with DOT specifications. Section 7-210 of the New York City Administrative Code makes property owners potentially liable for personal injuries caused by their failure to maintain reasonably safe sidewalks. Property owners must keep their sidewalks clean and are also responsible for snow removal.
DOT inspects sidewalks throughout the city to ensure that they are safe. DOT inspectors are sent to properties based on specific criteria, including blocks where injuries were reported to the City or where complaints were filed. DOT also takes into account the last time the area was surveyed for sidewalk defects. Violations are issued in every neighborhood in the city.
Sidewalk Violations
A sidewalk violation is an official notice issued by DOT stating that your sidewalk is defective. There is no fine associated with a violation. A copy of the notice is filed with the County Clerk and remains on file until the Clerk receives official notification from the City that satisfactory repairs have been made. A violation can complicate selling or refinancing your property.
The City issues sidewalk violations in order to encourage property owners to repair their sidewalks to enhance public safety. Property owners are encouraged to perform repairs to their sidewalks before a condition becomes a defect which would give rise to a violation. Upon failure of a property owner to remedy the sidewalk defect cited in a violation issued by DOT after an inspection, DOT may perform the work or hire a contractor to perform the work and the Department of Finance will bill the property owner pursuant to Section 19-152 of the New York Administrative Code.
If you do not perform repairs within 75 days, DOT may perform the work or hire a contractor to perform the work and the Department of Finance will bill the property owner. Learn about repairing your sidewalk
If you received multiple notices of violation, the newest one supersedes all previous notices.
Sidewalk Defects
Sidewalk defects that can be cited with violations are listed in section 19-152 of the New York City Administrative Code. Some of the common defects that could result in a violation:
Problems Caused by Tree Roots
If your sidewalk problems are caused by tree roots, your property may be eligible for repair by the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) under their Tree and Sidewalks program.
DPR also offers free consultations for property owners doing work around tree roots. Note that cutting or shaving the roots of City-owned trees is strictly prohibited
DOT does not charge property owners for repairs to tree-damaged sections of sidewalk.
Missing or Defective Curbs
Property owners are encouraged to repair or replace missing or defective curbs. DOT may repair or replace missing and defective curb at no cost to you.
Problems Caused by Others
If your sidewalk was damaged by a utility company or other contractor, document the damage and try to get the company who did the damage to fix it. If you don't know who did the damage, you can search the permits DOT issued in your area. Claims against utility companies (ConEdison, KeySpan, etc.) should be filed with their respective claims departments. Search DOT street works permits
Contesting a Violation
Incorrect Owner
Violations may occasionally be issued to an incorrect property. Match the preliminary inspection report with your property. Check the width and other dimensions of the property. Check the locations trees, signs, utility caps, cellar doors or other features. If it still appears that it is not your property, visit 311 Online and request a Sidewalk Violation Search.
Requesting a Re-Inspection
If you look at your property and don't find the marked defects, you may request a re-inspection within 45 days of receiving your Notice of Violation. For a re-inspection, visit 311 Online and request a Sidewalk Violation Re-inspection.
A re-inspection is a second inspection of the sidewalk by a different inspector who does not have access to the report made by the first inspector. You will be notified by mail at least five days before the re-inspection date. Inspectors will not come to your door as they are prohibited from seeking out property owners when conducting re-inspections. This is your final inspection. The results of the re-inspection will be mailed to you.


text:
Holiday Shipping Deadlines: USA Standard (Dec 7) // USA Express (Dec 12) // Int'l (Dec 2)
Your cart is currently empty.
© 2019 Alum and Ink
Sign up for our mailing list to receive new product alerts, special offers, and coupon codes.
Tiny Domino Damsel Fish Enamel Pin
Sign up for the Alum + Ink mailing list for some sneak peeks and shop news.
© 2019 Alum and Ink
| Powered by Shopify


text:
First off, I love performing, I really do. I don't care if it's in my underwear or in a chicken suit or both at the same time, I love being on stage and entertaining. You get the point.
Yesterday I finished a term paper and I don't yet have a topic for my last paper so I thought I'd just do some reading on Friday night, maybe hit the gym. In the afternoon I got a call to do a show. Not just a bachelorette party but a show at a club to promote their upcoming ladies night. It paid absolute crap, $70.00, but it was cake: I just had to get myself there, do my 5 minute show, then I could go. Sure, why not? I thought. It'll break the monotony of eat, study, gym, study, study, class, eat, sleep, study, study, procrastinate, procrastinate, gym, eat, study...anyway, you get the idea.
It was at a Mexican night club (more on that later) so the show wasn't until 1am. In order to get there 15min early I left at 12. When Im half way there my contact calls me and tells me it's been postponed until 1:30am. No big deal. I could use some down time and I'm a night owl so it's not that late for me. I'm in the change room with the other guy who's dancing at the event. We're waiting and waiting and waiting. Finally, at 1:50 I said to the organizer, either you put us on next song or I'm leaving. I'm pretty easy going but we were now 50 min behind schedule for a show that essentially pays nothing and I'm cooped up in a little change room.
The club was full on traditional Mexican with a Mexican polka band blaring their oompapa music. No big deal. I was kind of expecting more of a Mexican-American type club with reggaeton but this was a more traditional club. The part that felt strange was that this was not a ladies' night. This was just a regular Friday night polka-fest; guys and all. I don't think I've ever done a show in front of guys. Well, actually I'm pretty sure of that. Not that I have a problem with guys. Some of my best friends are guys. And some of them are Mexican guys. And some of them are gay Mexican guys. I just prefer not to strip for them. Anyway, as with most traditional cultures, the guys tend to be pretty homophobic, so I thought it was odd that they all watched the show. Maybe I'm just. that. good. Or maybe they wanted to steal my moves! Oh no! Well, the more likely answer is that they probably wanted to keep an eye on their women.
I brought my cowboy act because I thought it would go over well. The act requires a girl from the audience. I brought a girl up on the stage and sat her in the chair. There's one part of the act were I take her hand and run them down my rector abdominalis (I love that word). In this part my shirt is off but I have yet to tear away the pants. Immediately after I turn around, straddle her legs and slowly take my belt off. The whole time she's trying to tear my pants off...
Let me stop for a moment and tell all of you who have never done any type of performance a thing or two about entertainer pet peeves. Near the top of the list is audience participants that fuck with your show! Everything is carefully timed, be it a magic or dance or comedy. Also, it my show, not yours! If you want a show, put the time in, and spend years getting to the point were people will actually pay to see you. Moving on....
There's a musical cue I'm waiting for and if you mess shit up I'm gonna be pissed! Of course most people by 2am in a bar are drunk and probably won't know and don't care, but to the entertainer, we care! The only way to be a good entertainer is if you care. You can't be good if you don't care. It's simple! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Anyway, I'm trying to nicely hint to her to stop it by firmly but gently taking her hands off my buttons and placing them on my hips but she won't stop. This is not the first time this has happened an usually this subtle hint is sufficient. Let me stop (again) to explain something. I had come to the club in a good mood. To me I wasn't doing it so much for the money but as a break from studying and do something fun that I'd also get paid for (but not sooooooo fun that I'd do it for free). But after the 50min wait I was a bit irritated. And I felt a little awkward with all the guys in there staring me down. This chick was going to push me over the edge. So, I grabbed her wrists really hard and placed them very firmly on my hips. Remember, the whole time everyone in the club is watching so I'm smiling my face off like everything's just dandy.
Finally, the music, my choreography and the plot-line of my schtick (by schtick I mean act) cumulate into a glorious festival of flying pants to reveal my "sacred" American flag booty shorts. In the final part of the act I kind of side straddle the girl in the chair (hard to describe), put the cowboy hat on her and spin her around in the chair. So I'm trying to get into position but she keeps pushing me off her. WTF? A second ago you wouldn't stop tearing at my pants, and now you won't let me side straddle you? (does that sound weird?) Every time I approach her she pushes herself away in the chair. I'm literally chasing her around the stage. At this point I should have given up, walked away and improvised something. But no. Sometimes you're locked on autopilot. Or maybe it was cuz she had pissed me off earlier. I don't know. Anyway, I grabbed her, forced her in the chair, lay down with all my weight across her lap sideways and spun her around in the chair....the way the show is supposed to go! Don't mess with my show, bitch!
I have no idea if anyone noticed but after that, when I went to collect tips from tables I wasn't very jovial (I've been performing so long that I smile automatically when I'm on stage whether I want to or not--muscle memory). Also, while I was collecting tips of course one of the guys had to take his shirt of and flex for me. The guy needed to lay off the burritos, I'm not sure what he was trying to prove except that he needs to go to the gym. Wow! I'm bitter! usually stuff like that makes me laugh. Also I noticed with that crowd, which is true of most crowds, that there is an inverse relation between how much they tip and how much they grab at you. A note to women who plan on going to a ladies night. Yanking on a guys underwear is not sensual, or on anything else for that matter. Maybe your boyfriend is different but as far as I know, most guys had enough wedgies back in high school.
Ok, I'm gonna stop now. I feel a bit better. This has been therapeutic for me. I hope it was at least mildly entertaining for you. As a final note, 95% of the time audiences are respectful and I am treated well. I guess no matter what your job, there will be the occasional crappy day. Thanks for reading! G'night...


text:
I Can't Help It, I Like This One
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Book Review: The Mystery of the Missing Millionaire by Kathryn Kenny (Trixie Belden #34)
I Can't Help It, I Like This One
8 comments:
- AnonymousMarch 14, 2016 at 4:05 AM
Sounds like a good mystery! Thanks!ReplyDelete
- ViReplies
You're welcome. It is a good one.Delete
This series always seems to get a good work out on the library bookshelves. I've never actually read any but your review might entice me to do so.ReplyDeleteReplies
I'm so glad to hear that these books fly off the library bookshelves. Love to hear that a new generation is finding the series.Delete
Trixie Belden! Wow. I didn't know they were still around. Good to know kids are still reading these. Thanks for the post.ReplyDeleteReplies
I hope kids enjoy these books for years to come.Delete
I'm almost afraid to re-read them now. What if it has changed for me as well?! My memories are quite fond at the moment.ReplyDeleteReplies
I've found that the ones I really loved as a kid hold up well as an adult. A few of the middle of the road books are worse than I remember, but most of them hold up as well as I'd expect them to.Delete


text:
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Aku Dah Terjebak!
11 comments:
Wahh bestnyaa bestnyaaa .. Comfirm best kan dapat jumpa blogger2 lainReplyDelete
tahniah......semoga berjaya.ReplyDelete
wah beznye..nanti share la gambar kemeriahan nanti kak..sure gempakReplyDelete
Bestnya nt share ye kenit :)ReplyDelete
nak pergi tp keje...:(ReplyDelete
nanti share lah.. pengalaman yg sgt berharga nie..ReplyDelete
bestnye..teringat nak pergi tapi jauh..ReplyDelete
See you there Kak..tak sabar pulak haihhReplyDeleteReplies
yes dear, see you there insyaAllah :)Delete
Saya pun pergi.. in shaa Allah.. dpt jumpa dgn ramai blogger merapatkan ukhwah.. :)ReplyDelete
Untunglah suami benarkan... Mga jad pengalaman baru bg dunia blogger..ReplyDelete
If you require any more information or have any questions about our site's disclaimer, please feel free to contact us by email at firstname.lastname@example.com.
All the information on this website is published in good faith and for general information purpose only. www.hanimhashim.com does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (www.hanimhashim.com), is strictly at your own risk. www.hanimhashim.com will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website.


text:
If you are a farmer or landowner in the Big Creek Lake watershed you may be eligible for higher cost share rates to install conservation practices. To find out if you are eligible please contact the watershed project coordinators Sean McCoy or John Swanson. The following information provides general information about the available cost share rates. For examples of the practices see the photo gallery below.
- Grassed Waterways – 90% cost share
- Sediment Basins (aka Ponds) – 75% cost share
- Grade Stabilization Structures – 75% cost share
- Pasture or Hayland Management – 75-90% cost share
- Streambank Stabilization – 75% cost share
- Terraces – 75% cost share
- Manure Settling Basins – 75% cost share
- CRP incentive – one time $100-200/acre signup incentive
- Low interest loans for conservation practices.
- And more.
Click here for contact information.