text:
I'm sorry Paul, I love your blog dearly, but in this case you're wrong. Dawkins did not play it right, and here's why. The inanity of Lennox is obvious to you and me, but a Christian audience just eats that stuff up. Even a largely neutral audience will see Lennox as winning that point, simply because it wasn't effectively challenged.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Atheist evangelism and the problem of infrastructure
I'm sorry Paul, I love your blog dearly, but in this case you're wrong. Dawkins did not play it right, and here's why. The inanity of Lennox is obvious to you and me, but a Christian audience just eats that stuff up. Even a largely neutral audience will see Lennox as winning that point, simply because it wasn't effectively challenged.
77 comments:
I do agree that we need more experienced atheist debaters, but I also somewhat agree with Dawkins et. al. in that scientists should refrain for the most part. The way I see it, debating creationism is not going to move us forward in our scientific understanding--it's just cleaning up the mess. Let the scientists continue to do actual science, and let those of us who are not experts in biology do the pest control. This is not to say that fighting back against creationists is not important, but it is a deliberate insult to creationists: you're not worth the experts' time, and you can be defeated just as easily by amateurs.
ReplyDeleteNice post Kazim.
It's also good for debates/discussions to come from a background where you've heard all the most outrageous claims before, otherwise you can end up being gobsmacked on stage.
I remember hearing a discussion once where someone said "How come not a single Jew showed up for work in the World Trade Centre on 11/9*". Since the person hadn't heard it before they started saying things like, "I don't know, maybe they were just sick that day!", rather than questioning whether the statement was actually true.
In a similar way, although so many apologetic arguments are laughably bogus, it can still take a minute (for me at least) to formulate a response to point out where they fell down.
Small nitpick #1: The Earth is ~4.5byo, not 14.
Off topic for a second. When I was reading the post I was reading it in your voice. When I got to the end I saw it was posted by Kazim. It's interesting to me that you can often tell who's writing by just their style.
*Aka 9/11 for 'Merkins. Seriously, what kind of dating format doesn't preserve LSB-->MSB order?Gav,
Thanks for the correction. I changed "earth" to "universe" in the post.
One thing I find useful when confronting an argument that I've never heard before but that sounds wrong is to take a position of very mild disbelief. Basically: "Really? I haven't heard that before. How do you know that it's true?" If I haven't heard of it then it's probably not common knowledge, so the audience probably hasn't heard it either for the most part. I would want to make sure that point was covered in an aura of vague doubt, such that the audience is left with the impression that this is not a point for anybody. I could simply be ignorant of the fact, or the guy could be making it up. If I can't look it up on the spot, then they can't either. If the guy can come up with a source, probe for details about the source. If it turns out that the source seems to be credible, no harm done: you haven't said that the claim WASN'T true, just asked for clarification. At worst, you've bought some time.
I learned from "My Cousin Vinny" that court cases require disclosure of witnesses. If you're going to bring a witness or a piece of evidence into the case, then both sides should know about it in advance. The parallel for a debate is that you aren't necessarily obligated to respond to a source that can't be verified during the debate. Either way, you should probably close the topic with "I'll look into that later" and move on. This leaves the whole issue with the aura of doubt. And then by all means look it up later, so you can be better prepared the next time.
In the case of the Jews not showing up for work, I'd be especially confident in this approach. Not only would I ask "How do you know?" but I'd also question that it's even POSSIBLE to prove this claim. In order to prove it, you must identify every single Jew who worked in the building and verify that they were not there. Any single counterexample disproves the claim. The notion that not a single Jew died in 9/11 qualifies as an extraordinary claim in my book, and almost certainly false.Susan, I'm with you that the ones most suited to debate theists are not scientists. I once heard an interview with a stage magician who explained why magicians are much better at weeding out dishonesty than scientists. Scientists are used to dealing with honest people, and expect their colleagues to admit an honest mistake. They are, therefore, completely unprepared to handle deliberate obfuscation.
On the other hand, magicians are used to fooling people, so they can sense a fake when they see it.Couldn't agree more, scientists are terrible debaters, they're too interested in communicating their own ideas rather than going on the attack. Look a this interview of George Monbiot (a journalist/activist) debating a climate skeptic -
this is how you debate, you don't let the opposition get away with false claims, you keep hitting them with it. I can't imagine a scientist being able to do this.
We need professional atheist debaters!Just listened to the first bit...
It seems the first slippery issue arises when they begin discussing faith. Dr. Lennox makes the statement that he has faith that is based on evidence...bzzzzzzz (loud buzzer sounding). Professor Dawkins rightly jumps on this suggesting "if what you believe is based on evidence, then why bother to call it faith"? Seems accurate when you consider the definition of faith as 'firm belief in something for which there is no proof', but is it? Can a person have faith based on evidence?
Given, faith in god in so many discussions with theists boils down to complete trust without proof, a trust that is apparently more appreciated and rewarded than belief based on evidence. The implications of that prospect aside, there are also more wide reaching definitions of faith, in which imply hope, devotion and trust. But in these definitions as well, the faith aspect still hints at a lack of evidence.
Let's consider the discussion just prior to this discussion on faith. That was, he agreed that the kind of faith that was used by terrorists to fly planes into the World Trade Center, which he called "blind faith", was "dangerous". Having done so, Dr. Lennox's next move was to attempt to distinguish his faith from those terrorists. To do so, he tried to eliminate the 'blind' element, saying his faith is based on some evidence. Well, it seems to me when evidence comes into the picture, faith goes out the door, for belief no longer requires it.
Thoughts anyone? Can their be evidence based faith?Matt Dillahunty, Kelly O'Connor, Richard Dawkins, (Penn & Teller) and (potholer54, DonExodus2 and/or Thunderf00t) Vs Whomever is stupid enough to step in the ring with them.
Make them go all in, with careful definitions of what science is and how they have to present there ideas for it to count as real science.
Follow the evidence where it leads, if there ideas are destroyed make them acknowledge they have to abandon there position.Great post, Kazim!
I agree that our side needs some "professional debaters" who can cut the apologists down to size. I practically tear my hair out every time I see or hear a debate in which the theist invokes "God's power" or "faith in Jesus" or some other wholly unsubstantiated claim as part of an argument on behalf of ID, creationism, or what have you. This routinely happens because debates aren't fundamental; rather, they're about origins or evolution or the problem of evil. If we are to debate, we should start at the very base of their house of cards: be it resolved, that there is a god. That can be followed up with debates about omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, the claim that the Bible was written by/dictated by/inspired by/pulled out of the ass of God, and so on down the line. Every claim of faith should be inspected and deconstructed. Holding a position based on any facet of unsubstantiated faith should be grounds for forfeit. Once the theists prove that a god exists, that he created everything, that they have psychoanalized him correctly, that he wrote a book, that everything in the book is correct, etc., then we can allow them to enjoy their flights of faith-based fancy.
Of course, no theist would take on a debate under conditions which would require actual logic. That should be reason for us to cheer--and to trumpet the fact that logic is Kryptonite to apologists. As long as the theists are allowed to quote the bible as authoritative or spew out silly and misleading claims that they've never seen a crocoduck, we'll never have a fair chance.
I enjoy watching you folks on AE because (in addition to the power of the hold button), you never let anyone get past the first unsubstantiated syllable. Atheist debaters should do the same, even if it means breaking protocol and interrupting the theist at every turn.So...can we pay to bring in Ray Comfort or one of his ilk (maybe through the atheist longhorns on campus) then sic one of you guys on him?
Record audio and video, post it to youtube for all to enjoy...
But paying one of them would make me feel dirty. So let's approach a fundie church and offer to put up a debate: they bring in the god guy and we bring in the atheist guy.Christian apologists tend to stay away from the scientist's strong suit. Lennox is not about to get into evolution, and Dawkins is not well versed in theology. I like Hitchens. When he's sober, he can handle theology with the best of them. I recommend the John Shook v. William Lane Craig debate here.
ReplyDeleteKazim, to add to your list of atheists who have debated creationists:
Christopher Hitchens did a long book tour after his book "God is not great" was published, and he tried to organize debates with a representative of some local religious organization in each city he visited. Lots of these events were recorded, and debates can be found on YouTube and similar services:
Hitchens vs. Shmuley Boteach
Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson
Hitchens vs. Frank Turek
Hitchens vs. David Wolpe
Hitchens lecturing alone (when no opponent could be organized)
More similar can be found by searching.Yeah I would agree in that many who debate don't do a great job. I think partly because the few that I have seen try to present their own thing rather than refuting the claims of the theist.
Hitchens to me seems to do much of this. I love Hitchens (as well as Dawkins) but they both let things slide. I have seen Hitchens debate and when the theist says something that is easily refuted and helps the case, it rarely gets mentioned.
Thats one thing thats great about AETV is the ability of saying "Whoa there, lets go back to the premise you started with. Needs a tad more explaining before we go on." Obviously thats a little harder in a debate when you can't interrupt, but at least take notes. Thats one reason why the RRS debate with Ray and Kirk vs Brian and Kelly was better as there were more refutations than presenting their own case (part of it was also how the debate was setup, as it was setup that Ray and Kirk had to show that God existed without using the bible, which of course they failed at).We need everyone to be getting these skills, not just one person. That's how the tide of history will be changed. It's true you have to start somewhere, but I think it's important to remember that one famous debater guy isn't good enough.
Also, maybe you should write to Dawkins and explain where he went wrong. I bet he would love the constructive criticism. Why not build on what we already have?I watched this debate between Christopher Hitchens and Shmuley Boatech and found myself incredibly irritated that Hitchens didn't respond to Boatech's first 15 minute tirade with "Three words: Ad hominem attack."
The debate, once realised, is incredibly easy. Normally there is no correct opinion -- the reason there's a debate is that it's subjective. Sorry, but in this case, atheism is for all intents and purposes objectively the correct position. Merely nail them down on one point and focus on that.I dealt with one guy who was "crowing" about atheists/evolutionists refusing to debate creos in an oral format. You brought up some things I didn't.
In the end, after a bunch of back-and-forth, I challenged him to a written debate on the forum I go to with one of the hosts there. So far, nothing.
This guy's too busy bashing atheists, esp Dawkins for some reason, on his several other blogs.Again another very relevant & great post. Thank you.
Firstly I'm an international listener/watcher to AETV & NPR, I strongly support the ACA setting up a debate with any apologist / theologian with public eminence or notoriety.
I would be happy to contribute financially if necessary as I'm sure too would a significant numbers of your supporters. (If coerced correctly!!). Set up a "pugilist" fund please that we can contribute to.
Please don't consider Comfort or Cameron though, whilst I appreciate much pleasure would be gained in undermining their senseless and unintelligent fracas, I believe all serious apologists, theologians and atheists find them as hilarious and pointless as we all do. No credibility to be gained from debating them.
We all appreciate that debunking a god hypothesis draws in numerous scientific disciplines from cosmology, astrophysics, geology and biology to name some but not all.
Dawkins is expertly passionate about biology obviously, although he would not advocate he's an expert on other scientific disciplines neither scripture nor theology. He may and does indeed miss opportunities to drill down aptly within the discussion unfortunately because often that's precisely where the inadequacies, contradictions and fallacies lie.
I agree with your sentiments we (non-believers, atheists globally) need persons with the hard and soft skills necessary for public debates, underpinned with solid, informed and broad knowledge of the common and unusual apologetic and counter apologetic arguments. I agree by regular practice such skills can be honed and perfected. Perhaps AETV & NPR are indeed unique or at least uncommon in that you do have the right skills mix coupled with passion and dedication. Long may you continue.
I would also like to share an observation. Whilst theist / atheist debates are compelling and sometimes frustrating, there's an element of credibility gained by the theist simply because the discussion nearly always seems to contain, on one side a theist with a god hypothesis, the other side an atheist who disagrees. The choice being the theist's particular god or no god at all. A "fifty fifty" split no less!!
When questioned, Lennox is quick to dismiss Islam's miraculous claims, as indeed are we. "No evidence" he states firmly.
Stephen F Roberts quote "I contend we are both atheists" springs to mind.
Anyway my point is that I'd so much prefer to see intellectual apologists from all different faiths be locked in a room to debate vehemently amongst themselves to see which one of their religions, if any, takes the title of being the winner, the perfect and precise, underpinned with evidence, ultimate champion.
Intellectual apologists are all masters of easily and fluently articulating their accounts of evidence, their philosophical and theological arguments, but let's see them twist themselves in knots when they pitch their own arguments against one another, as they make their exclusive claims to the origin of the cosmos, the origin of life and the diversity of life.
Furthermore I would expect the debate to be facilitated by leading secularists, the ACA, scientists and sceptics to avoid letting arguments settle in areas of logical fallacies. The end result can only be a single winner if their theologies are to be believed, or they accept that they are all flawed in some way. They should decide who the liars are, the lunatics, or if there is indeed a single Lord amongst them.Excellent comments. I agree. The big problem, I think, is that atheism and evolution are such strong positions that people tend to feel like preparation is not needed. Then they get blasted by a slick and well-prepared believer. Kent Hovinid was clueless but he spoke so fast and spouted out so many "facts" that he seemed credible to many people.
I think debaters on these topics should talk through the opponent and focus more on speaking to the audience. Simply "winning" rarely changes minds. The ultimate goal is not to put some goon across the stage in his place but to convince the believers in the audience that they need to reconsider their position.
Again, great commentary. You should write a reference book for atheist debaters. You could do it easily. It's all in your head already.Guy P., good comments. I need to go buy your book BTW.
Kent Hovind perfected what was already known as the "Gish Gallop," spouting out a slew of unrelated points quickly. Every one was wrong, but it would take 50 times as long to show why one is wrong than it takes Hovind or Gish to say it. In a conversational format, I advocate taking them on in order and not letting the topic move on until the first point is finished. In a formal debate with time limits and taking turns, I don't think there's any way to make a good impression on an audience that's tilted toward their side already.Great post, Russell. I would add that Dan Barker is absolutely terrible at these sorts of debates, and yet (a) he gets invited to do them all the time, and (b) other atheists seem to sing his praises while he's getting destroyed.
Eddie Tabash is good at this sort of thing. So is Robert Price. But they're two of the only people who do it well.
And yes, I agree that what makes The Atheist Experience such a great show is that you guys do not let J. Random Christian bloviate for ten uninterrupted minutes about unprovable crap.Juju says: "We need everyone to be getting these skills, not just one person. That's how the tide of history will be changed. It's true you have to start somewhere, but I think it's important to remember that one famous debater guy isn't good enough."
You have to realize that the two goals are not mutually exclusive. I hope that the Atheist Experience is in itself a learning tool for some people, where they watch it and hear something new, after which they are better equipped to confront those same arguments.
If the debates were handled right, available on YouTube and widely disseminated and discussed through blogs, I would hope that it would provide the same effect on steroids. These days, with all the international listeners, I'm happy if we get one or two decent theist callers, amidst all the other calls cheering us on and asking for advice. I'd like to see the debates garner the same kind of attention, where the entire draw is the conflict.I think that quite simply you have scared the "easy pickings" off, now that they know they might face recurring online ridicule. For example, that guy who recently offered the Darwin quote mine on the eye.
As one of those international listeners, I should also note that continuing to develop resources like the Iron Chariots wiki can be indispensable. It can already serve as the reference guide Guy P. Harrison suggested.Oh, and an added thought, since you probably will get to the related e-mail I sent in..2010.
I've started egging various theist or creationist posters on Youtube or elsewhere to watch the show and call in. As a town crier of sorts. Maybe we viewers ought to get a bit more active in that fashion.
(Addendum: you just gotta use Tim Minchin's Storm as an intro at some point!)I'd be happy to accept your financial sponsorship to go debate creationist asshats as well. Riding in crowded buses accross the southern parts of the country, greasy dives and campgrounds, and the chance to hand apologists their asses on a regular basis? Count me in too!
I would also like to see you guys do debates with theists. I would also like to see you and/or Matt write a book or books. You are pretty much the only game ion town when it comes to being able to watch theists getting owned in live unedited "real time" TV.
I would love to see Ray C. debate Matt D. just for the ability to quote lines from it in my "debates" with theists. I get a lot of good lines from you guys.I agree with those who hold that debating creationists - or any conservative Christians, for that matter - is pointless. You won't change their minds, you won't change the minds of the audience members, and they'll never admit defeat. If the atheist wavers, or doesn't possess adequate skills, the Christians, like that asshat who was here the other day, will come away saying things like, "Habermas decimated him!" - because that's really all they care about: winning. It's all a game, a competition to them, with heaven as the ultimate prize.
And if the atheist aquits him/herself admirably, and the creationist is made to appear foolish, the Christians will simply claim that it wasn't a fair debate, the atheist didn't follow the rules - whatever. We've seen them do it a thousand times.
Not to beat a dead horse, but this is why I asked all of you recently why you bother arguing with Rho; he's a perfect example. It doesn't matter what you say; the Christian is simply never going to change his mind. Why should he? His belief system offers him eternal life, being reunited with his loved ones, along with the added perk that everyone he dislikes will suffer horribly for all of eternity. What do we have to compete with that? Truth? Reality? It isn't enough for them.
The bottom line is that most Christians will continue to believe precisely what they want to. It's an addiction, and needs to be viewed as such. They are in complete denial, and will do whatever mental gymnastics they need to do in order to keep believing - and they will continue to accuse us of doing the same. The few who can be persuaded will find a way out on their own.I diagree with you there. Those that can be convinced need to hear the arguments first, or they will remain in the universe they likely grew up in. What will likely happen is that those with some doubts will buy the leading apologetics books, get an answer sufficiently obtuse to lull his doubts, remain in the fold and likely become the circular reasoning theists we see on the net.
ReplyDeleteCaffeine Addicted,
My feeling is that they can eavesdrop on our conversations - blogs, radio programs, lectures, etc. - and get what they need from there.
Debate is more about showmanship than it is about objectivity. As the others have said - Christian audiences come already convinced, and they leave the same way. They'll take away only as much as they need to bolster their a priori conclusion.
I think it's a waste of time. In fact, if anything, it serves to empower them.To Cipher:
"It doesn't matter what you say; the Christian is simply never going to change his mind."
That may be true in the case of Rhology, and possibly for 95% of the Christians in the audience, but it isn't always true. Matt Dillahunty is one example of an exception (although admittedly anecdotal evidence), and there are plenty of people who honestly believe that Ray Comfort makes good points because few people bother to publicly state the other side.Cipher, what is the point of having a TV show if it's not about showmanship? In your opinion, is there any point to being on TV and taking calls, or should we just restrict ourselves to print format?
My perception of Christians seems totally at odds with yours. The people who call in and say "Y'all are atheists? Do you believe in nothing?" are actually fairly typical. Most people in the world haven't actually given a lot of thought to what atheism actually means, beyond registering that they are those mean people who are trying to steal Christmas.
I have always felt that one goal of the Atheist Experience is to push information about atheism and correct common misconceptions. Does it also "empower" Christians when we just take callers?Cipher, I'll agree there is a point when debating theists is counterproductive and unnecessary, case in point Rhology. But even if a theist is hardened so that they would never realistically consider atheism, there is still the opportunity we can eliminate some of the bias harbored towards it.
ReplyDeleteKazim, do you feel that you change their minds? Do they come away with the possiblity of a new perspective, or is it more along the lines of, "That Kazim is a nice guy; it's shame he's going to burn in hell."
I can see the value in talking publicly to other atheists, if the Christians come in with the attitude, "I'll just sit here in the back of the room and keep my mouth shut; maybe I'll learn something." - but how many of them do that?
I don't know; perhaps you're right. If you feel you can alter attitudes, go ahead. I haven't got the stomach for it. After more than half a century of being threatened with eternal damnation, I've had it. I've lost what compassion for them I had. I won't even converse with people like Rho any longer, not merely because I don't think they can be salvaged (which I don't), but because I don't really think they're worth saving.Kazim, do you feel that you change their minds?
I don't expect people to go from fundamentalist to atheist in one big jump, but those smaller transitions are facilitated by showing up and being reasonable and interesting. Over the course of several years, a person may drift from being fundamentalist to moderate conservative Christian; from conservative to liberal Christian; from liberal Christian to agnostic; or from agnostic to atheist.
These kinds of little transitions happen *all the time*. You don't see 90% of the email we get, but we hear on a regular basis about how one of those transitions happen as a result of our show.
I personally spent a long time debating a guy on a Creation/Evolution message board. He used to be a completely clueless young earther. He's still a creationist now, but he's retreated from young earthism to a safer, vaguer "intelligent design" advocate because he couldn't support a young earth belief any longer. And once he confided to me that when his pastor went on a diatribe about atheists, he went up to the guy and corrected him.
Would I prefer it if he became a an atheist? Of course. But in the absence of this radical shift, am I happy that he's moved as far as he has? Definitely.I learned from "My Cousin Vinny" that court cases require disclosure of witnesses.
I learned from "My Cousin Vinny" how long it takes to cook grits on a stove.
I agree that Cipher is too pessimistic. Many of us who are atheists today once were believers, myself included.
It is true that debate is largely a form of theater. The "winner" of the debate is not likely to change the mind of the "loser". And it is probably not going to change the mind of a lot of people in the audience, at least not right away. But sometimes it plants seeds in their minds that germinate in time.
As for Rhology, it is not his religious belief that is so much an addiction as his need for attention and self validation. I bet if he were an atheist, he would be the same kind of person, only he would be going to Christian blogs, and just like now, he would be checking off his debate "victories" on some scorecard he has hanging on his wall near his computer.
Rhology has a huge ego and needs to believe that he is right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. It just so happens that his ego is married to a belief in a divine command morality. If he was not a Christian, he probably would gravitate towards some other authoritarian belief system."My feeling is that they can eavesdrop on our conversations - blogs, radio programs, lectures, etc. - and get what they need from there."
I get your point, however the purpose of any debates is not solely to convince your interlocutor or the present audience, it is also to get the word out.
In an earlier post I mentioned that I think many theists who have seen the show refrain from calling because they have seen their best arguments rebutted, and have no actual response. I think this is progress.
I live in Greece, where the Greek Orthodox Church claims an over 90% adherence, where child baptism is almost mandatory, where cemetaries are controlled by the church and cremation is illegal on religious grounds (although that last part is in the process or might have already changed), where religious indoctrination is part of the state-ordained curriculum in the guise of 'religious studies', where until a few years ago, having your religion on your national ID card was an issue the G.O. Church fought hard for (and lost).
Even after all this, we are hardly a fundamentalist country. Yet I would never had had the opportunity to inform myself as I have if it weren't for shows like the AE or the NP, or debates on online forums or b-boards.
Theist debaters often are proselytizers, in it to preach their gospel and not remotely connected to the discussion on a level that they might actually change their minds. However the getting the meme out there that there are atheists with responses, that the theistic claims are not undisputed is important, especially for people that aren't in as pluralistic societies as the US or Canada.Over the course of several years, a person may drift from being fundamentalist to moderate conservative Christian; from conservative to liberal Christian; from liberal Christian to agnostic; or from agnostic to atheist.
To support what Kazim wrote above, from my own personal experience, I didn't leap from Catholicism directly to atheism. I tried to find alternative god-based belief systems first. I still clung to a need for a belief in some kind of universal creator for several years before I finally came to the conclusion that there was no one "up there."Dear Rhology:
Yes, you'll notice that your comments are STILL banned. I can see that you were checking. I imagine that you probably think it's because we're afraid of your piercing insight. Let me toss you a free clue: The fact that you felt the need to close your comment with the words "...like a little girl" might have something to do with it.
Am I being too subtle for you? Okay, let me clarify it in language you might understand: You're not welcome to post here as long as you insist on acting like a giant dickhead. Go away.You know, honestly, I'm not even intent upon "converting" them to atheism. If they'd just give up salvific exclusivism and eternal damnation - the most loathsome ideas ever devised - I'd be happy. The fact that they believe that billions of their human siblings will be tormented for all of eternity has caused me to give up on humanity. If it were just a few lunatics on a compound in Idaho, I wouldn't care - but there are hundreds of millions of them. Probably well over a billion, if we factor in the Islamic fundamentalists. I see absolutely no way in which beings like these can solve their problems. It's they, more than any other factor, who have convinced me that humanity is a terminal species, and that we probably haven't got much time left.
I really don't like them.Dawkins seems to be a good scientist but I was stunned by some of the stupidity he had in matters of religion in tht God Delusion. I recall him spending several pages mocking Richard Swinburne's (Oford theologian) theodicy and piece on the explanatory power of theism without presenting any kind of objection.
I also was frustrated when he spent several pages mocking the ontological argument(has he even heard of any of the modern formulations of it?) without even making a refutation.He's big on rhethoric but small on substance.
I also heard the debate went badly for PZ. He expected some sort of argument from biology but Durston steered clear of that field.
William Lane Craig rules though. The first debate I saw was between him and Bart Ehrman. He pwned Bart Ehrman with probablity calculus. It was sick.Best debate ever.I was wondering, Thinker, if you could enlighten us with these arguments that you find so persuasive.
1. Exactly what was it about Richard Swinburne's theodicy that you think stands as unchallenged evidence for the existence of God?
2. On which points do you feel that PZ lost? How is it that Durston's failure to make arguments against biology in front of a trained biologist isn't just an example of Durston chickening out?
3. I know a fair bit of math myself. Please defend the notion that probability calculus supports the concept of a god.
4. Got a link to this awesome debate, so we can see just how badly Ehrman was pwned?MrFreeThinker:
I also was frustrated when he spent several pages mocking the ontological argument(has he even heard of any of the modern formulations of it?) without even making a refutation.
It's circular. It defines God in the premises as an existent being, and then uses that for the conclusion. I can't define "my penis" as "giant" and then use a magical argument to make it so. God is no different. To say otherwise is special pleading.
Modern versions of the argument are all saying the same thing, and therefore have the same problem.
Moreover, words and dialectic have no ontological value. One cannot create God with an argument. The words may be convincing or not, but they can never actually "prove" a truth.
Is that enough for you, douchebag?Not quite sure why "c" is any stranger than 90% of the other names here. I just didn't think it mattered what I called myself. It was really just laziness on my part. But if I called myself Charlie or Cheetos, or Caroline, do you think you'd know who I was any better?
Anyway, back to the subject, the entire reason I am reading and posting on this site is because I've recently been looking for atheist related material. I find debates and discussions between theists, deists and atheists very entertaining and enlightening.
I think I've seen most of what is available on the web and I'm left wanting to see more. It's an itch I can't quite scratch.
The debates most enjoy are ones where the theist has to specify which religion they propose and defend it. In my opinion, they are the easiest for an atheist to win (thus the most entertaining.) They are also the most honest because if the debate is generalized to simply whether some god exists, there is often a stalemate and no one can be persuaded that way. It is also disingenuous on the theist's part because they don't just believe in some god, they believe in a specific one, which is a far more preposterous argument.
There is a particularly infuriating debate online featuring atheists Dan Barker and Richard Carrier vs. Michael Corey and Hassanain Rajabali. It is on google and I suggest that it should be watched to show what not to do. Corey and Rajabali are constantly rude and play to a home crowd. Barker and Carrier are unfortunately too meek to contest them successfully.
Which is why I love Hitchens. He's exactly the type of asshole who would have wiped the floor with them. Dillahunty also would have done a better job. Someone should challenge these douchebags to a rematch. Hitchens of course would be difficult to get. But Matt Dillahunty could contact these people and challenge them.
Plenty of people on both sides seem to welcome the challenge, so let's make it happen. I'd be happy to donate as I'm sure many others would.
I dare you to watch this debate and not want another crack at it.
Just search:
Theist Vs Atheist Debate: "Does God Not Exist?"
Notice the debate is Does God NOT Exist, which cleverly moves the burden of proof onto the atheists, which seems to me to be a cop-out on the theists' part.William Lane Craig rules though. The first debate I saw was between him and Bart Ehrman. He pwned Bart Ehrman with probablity calculus. It was sick.Best debate ever.
1. That is a matter of opinion. You're predisposed to agree with Craig. Ehrman supporters perceive the outcome rather differently.
2. As far as math is concerned, you people think it begins and ends with Berlinski, who (as he recently admitted) is in your pocket for as long as the Discovery Institute continues to pay him. For a presentation of the argument for the statistical improbability of the existence of God, try Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up by John Allen Paulos.
Kazim, this is what I'm talking about. This really isn't what you do on your program. You're engaged in conversation and argument; formal debate is more along the lines of being staged. It's almost performance art. And they always come away saying "My guy mopped up the floor with your guy."
Centuries ago, Buddhist and Hindu philosophers used to debate points of doctrine - nature of the self, existence of a creator, etc. I used to manage a Tibetan Buddhist teaching center, and the resident lama once told me that the Buddhists won all the debates. I thought, "Oh, really?", so I asked a friend, a young man who is a monk in the Tibetan tradition, comes from an Indian family and has a Western education (a rather unique triple threat) if there are records of these debates recorded from the Hindu perspective. He told me there are, and that the perception of who won them is quite different.
This is the way people are.This one is for cipher. I received it minutes ago in my inbox.
This message was sent via the contact form on the ACA website:
As a former Catholic seminarian, I learned more about apologetics than
I did the bible, so I thought I was reasonably well prepared to now
support my atheism (yes, you devils helped knock me off my Agnostic
throne...bless you! :)
The defense rests.I'm sure that's true. I'm not saying what you're doing is a waste of time. Again, as I said above - what you're doing isn't formal debate. But, I did read your post of this morning, so perhaps I'm wrong about that as well. I tend to focus on the negative, like this character J.K. from the other thread. He's doing what he did on Florien's blog - just keeps saying the same things, over and over. It doesn't matter what you say. You can't cut through denial that thick.
"The defense rests." Who are you, Strobel? "Case closed!"Naw, if I were Lee Strobel I'd talk about this email in story format, like this:
"I listened to the former Catholic seminarian, reeling in shock. Of course! I realized. It was all so simple! You WOULD think that a former Catholic seminarian would know about the Bible, but this can't be the case! The piercing insight of his simple words landed on me like a ton of bricks."
But seriously, folks. :)
When I saw I don't care what JK thinks, I mean it. Whether that one guy changes his mind is irrelevant to me. What you may not realize is that JK does us a favor by presenting his weak arguments and then acting as if he's won something. If you were to pick up a thousand strangers and make them read that post, most of them would come away with the same opinion, but a few would be saying "Gee, I have never heard that argument before but it's TERRIBLE."
Not that this would sway a believer in itself, but it's one incident among many.I understand. The mere fact of his existence, though, depresses me utterly. He's jumping through all of these hoops in order to justify a belief system that, ultimately, abandons billions of human beings -and he doesn't really care, so long as he gets the ontological security blanket for a few brief decades.
I can't see how humanity can survive with millions of people like this. It's funny; I suppose I agree with the Calvinists about "inherent depravity" - but it's because of them that I do! I see their belief system as the quintessential expression of it.I've spent a long time watching and listening to the shows (and a shorter time wishing the pre-show stuff made it onto the Podcast recording), and I've frequently made little mental notes of particularly good arguments, take-downs, analogies, references, and so forth. I do the same thing when I'm reading atheist books and blogs. It's incredibly useful (though my experience with face-to-face debate is limited and lousy), and I wonder if it might be useful to folks like PZ and Dawkins as well.
Here's my suggestion: we put together a CD or video/audio file with a set of the best arguments, debates, glib take-downs, and so forth, limited to an hour or so (for easy digestion). We send it, along with a very polite letter to the effect of Russell's post here, to folks like PZ and Dawkins, with hopes that they may be able to use some of the tips, tricks, and quotes to improve their debates with theists.
It needn't be a matter of presumptiveness, and I agree with Juju that they'd probably like the constructive criticism. The problem is a lack of infrastructure, in that we lack any kind of shared knowledge pool. In twenty years of debates, Dawkins might be as good face-to-face as the AE guys, but he shouldn't have to learn it all through experience when we can just share the knowledge we've already accumulated.@ Kazim
I was wondering, Thinker, if you could enlighten us with these arguments that you find so persuasive.
My point wasn't really that arguments were persuasive, but Dawkins brought them up and refuse to address them.
1. Exactly what was it about Richard Swinburne's theodicy that you think stands as unchallenged evidence for the existence of God?
It was about the problem of Evil. Dawkins was talking aout the problem of evil and suffering. He quoted Swinburne's statement that sometimes suffering brought people closer to God and let them show courage. Dawkins never really counters Swinburne and put out some appeals to emotion about suffering.
2. On which points do you feel that PZ lost? How is it that Durston's failure to make arguments against biology in front of a trained biologist isn't just an example of Durston chickening out?
I wasn't really supporting Durston. I never really heard of him before PZ's debte. But it was clear that PZ was caught off guard. It reminds me of Religulous where Francis Collins expected to talk about evolution but was caught off guard with questions on New testament history.
3. I know a fair bit of math myself. Please defend the notion that probability calculus supports the concept of a god.
William Lane Craig was not making an argument for God with probability. Bart Ehrman made some mathematically poor claims where he equivocated between intrinsic probability and specific probability with regard to miracles. W.L. Craig was able to use Baye's theorem to show how his reasoning was mathematically fallacious. Ehrman was unable to counter Crag's claims but made some backhanded ad hominems later on saying that Craig would be laughed at if he tried to bring his calculations on miracles to any secular university. W.L. Craig then pointed out that philosophers such as Richard Swinburne (a eminent philosopher of science at Oxford University) had also made similar calculations it was a moment of sheer pwnage.
(On a side note Swinburne's calculations on the probability of Jesus' Resurrection and God's existence are available in his books "The Existence of God" and "Resurrection of God Incarnate")
4. Got a link to this awesome debate, so we can see just how badly Ehrman was pwned?
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdfWith regard to the ontological argument see here
(From article- I found this oart rather funny)
"Dawkins chortles, "I've forgotten the details, but I once piqued a gathering of theologians and philosophers by adapting the ontological argument to prove that pigs can fly. They felt the need to resort to Modal Logic to prove that I was wrong" (God Delusion, p. 84). This is just embarrassing. The ontological argument is an exercise in modal logic—the logic of the possible and the necessary. I can just imagine Dawkins making a nuisance of himself at this professional conference with his spurious parody"
And as to Hitchens, he seems rather sarcastic but sometimes I don't follow his arguments. For example I remember once he was ranting about how God could see what we did all the time in our private bedrooms like a dictator and how God cares what you do with your genitalia.
Was he trying to say that people could have illicit sex if God didn't exist?And this would be a good thing?Quick reply to one of your points, since I have access to Dawkins' book here but I won't when I get to work:
It was about the problem of Evil. Dawkins was talking aout the problem of evil and suffering. He quoted Swinburne's statement that sometimes suffering brought people closer to God and let them show courage. Dawkins never really counters Swinburne and put out some appeals to emotion about suffering.
Oh, I see. Swinburne is trying to deflect the problem of evil by saying that sometimes suffering brings us closer to God, and Dawkins ridicules and dismisses it by bringing up the holocaust. He doesn't elaborate on this obviously weak excuse, so you feel that he didn't address it.
I'll elaborate, then. Swinburne's claim that people get ill because "sometimes they need to be ill for their own sake" is just cherry-picking cases of "evil" which fall far short of the more accessible examples. Six million people gassed to death isn't justified because God may have wanted to make the other Jews a tougher people -- it doesn't do a damn thing for the people who are already dead. And, since they were Jewish rather than Christian, probably in hell now, according to the doctrine of faith.
Oh sure, I expect that your next step would be to blame Hitler on atheists, or at least the fall of man, but that would miss the point. Dawkins says that SWINBURNE was trying to justify the Holocaust through theodicy. That is simply so stupid that I don't blame him for taking less than a paragraph to respond.I wasn't really supporting Durston. I never really heard of him before PZ's debte. But it was clear that PZ was caught off guard. It reminds me of Religulous where Francis Collins expected to talk about evolution but was caught off guard with questions on New testament history.
I've read some more background on PZ Myers' debate. I haven't seen it, but from what I've read it sounds like PZ did poorly. My thesis in this series of posts is that atheists and professional scientists have an inclination to be bad at the "performance art" aspect of debating, and need improvement and coaching. I don't mind accepting PZ as another illustration.
I know Bayes' theorem really well, it's central to some aspects of computer logic and data mining. I'll read the transcript and get back to you on that. I've heard some of my own fellow presenters misuse statistics badly, so I'm not going to assume that you're wrong about Ehrman until I've read it all.MrFreeThinker:
From Wikipedia:
"Interestingly, Plantinga himself does not think the modal ontological argument is always a good proof of the existence of God. It depends on what his interlocutor thinks of the possibility premise."
So the most celebrated modern modal logic version, put together by one of the most celebrated modern theological wankers, is admitted by said wanker to not actually prove anything unless you accept one of its questionable premises (note: more than one of its premises are questionable).
Modal logic is no more ontologically binding than any other kind of logic. "Proving" that something is "necessary" about the world using words strung together into sentences put into arguments that accord with the rules of an axiomatic system generated by humans is futile and ridiculous. Unless and until there is evidence of a deity, those words are worthless.
One of the assumed axioms of modal logic (one that is necessary for Plantinga's ontological argument) is axiom S5 that says that "possibly necessary" implies "necessary." As an axiom, it cannot be proven. It is simply asserted and assumed. I see no reason to believe this axiom is true outside the confines and constructed rules of modal logic. Under this axiom, I can say "It is possibly necessary that the moon is made of green cheese, therefore it is necessary that the moon is made of green cheese." Given that just about anything is possibly necessary, this axiom allows me to prove anything is necessary.
This is what happens when you assign too much power to an axiomatic system.
Again, let me use Plantinga's modal logic formulation to prove something else (this is his formulation with a few key words replaced):
1. It is proposed that my penis has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is very wide, very long, wholly able to satisfy women, and possessed by me in W; and
2. It is proposed that my penis has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified. That is, it is possible that there be a penis that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly it is necessarily true that a very wide, very long and perfectly satisfactory penis that belongs to me exists.
5. Therefore, it is necessarily true that a very wide, very long and perfectly satisfactory penis that belongs to me exists. (By S5)
6. Therefore, a very wide, very long and perfectly satisfactory penis that belongs to me exists.
Let me check my pants...
Nope. Just the same as before.@Aksuai
I reject the idea of a "maximally great" body part. If you say yours id=s maximally great I can conceive of a much larger one, and a larger one that,..ad infinitum. The idea is not coherent.
Plus your penis is a physical object and would require necessary space and time to exit, which is a problem too.Modal logic is no more ontologically binding than any other kind of logic. "Proving" that something is "necessary" about the world using words strung together into sentences put into arguments that accord with the rules of an axiomatic system generated by humans is futile and ridiculous. Unless and until there is evidence of a deity, those words are worthless.
That's a good observation. As I read back over my own notes on Kirk Durston, and also try to follow the debates by William Lane Craig, I see that as a major pattern. It's the same thing I observed years ago when I read Behe's "Darwin's Black Box."
Basically, apologists really like to pile on abstruse mathematical equations in front of an audience who is probably not going to understand them. They never choose to say things in a simple, accessible way when a more convoluted way is available. I'm trying to contemplate how to counter this effectively, and I'll say more in an upcoming post.
But basically, it always boils down to using pure math to "prove" the existence of God in a vacuum. No evidence. No observation. No experiments. Just equations purporting to show that the god must exist.@Akusai
Plantiga says that no-one has provided evidence against the possibility premise while there was evidence for it.
Even if we accept a 50-50 chance of the premise being true you have to admit that the theist is at least rational for believing in God and that there is a decent probability that God exists.I reject the idea of a "maximally great" body part. If you say yours id=s maximally great I can conceive of a much larger one, and a larger one that,..ad infinitum. The idea is not coherent.
Plus your penis is a physical object and would require necessary space and time to exit, which is a problem too.
Translation: God is different. Special pleading.
If you say your God is maximally excellent, I can say that I can conceive of something greater, too. Therefore your claim is also incoherent.
Besides, I'm defining my penis as maximally great. There is nothing there to argue about. You can't conceive of a better penis because mine is, by definition, as great as one can be. I reject your idea that any penis can possibly be better than mine.
But let's assume that only "transcendent," "spiritual" objects can be used in an ontological argument. I think that's a crock, but fine. I posit that Shmorkle is the most excellent possible being, and I urge that you accept at least a 70/30 possibility that Shmorkle exists. Shmorkle is more excellent than God; you can claim otherwise, but it simply isn't true.
Am I rational in my belief in Shmorkle?
Plantiga says that no-one has provided evidence against the possibility premise while there was evidence for it.
Nobody needs to provide evidence against it, and there is no evidence for it. You claim there is? Fine. Where is it? Go ahead and bring it on. Yours is the burden of proof.
Even if we accept a 50-50 chance of the premise being true you have to admit that the theist is at least rational for believing in God and that there is a decent probability that God exists.
I don't have to accept the 50/50 split here any more than I have to in Pascal's Wager. It's an ass-pull of a figure that is used when there is no reason to suppose it is true to make it appear that it is somewhat rational to believe in God.But let's assume that only "transcendent," "spiritual" objects can be used in an ontological argument. I think that's a crock, but fine.
It would be incoherent to claim sort of necessary physical subject.
I posit that Shmorkle is the most excellent possible being, and I urge that you accept at least a 70/30 possibility that Shmorkle exists. Shmorkle is more excellent than God; you can claim otherwise, but it simply isn't true.
If you define Schmorkle as a maximally great being, then we would have to admit we are talking about the same being. So would I say you would be rational.
Please learn about modal logic and the possibility premise. Axiom S5 is widely accepted by logicians.
Unless you are willing to go disprove modal logic now I think you should accept that there is at least a decent chance that God exists.
Anyway my point was that Dawkins mocked the argument without addressing it.No. Don't ever fall into the ever too common 50/50 debate. Put philosophy to one side and consider the facts. There are hundreds if not thousands of gods out there in popular belief, not one. If you ever feel perhaps your god maybe real, pitch him against the other 5000 and suddenly you'll see there's a 5000:1 chance your god is real, crappy odds you'll agree. Pitch childish logic against 5000 other arguments from childish logic and guess what you've got, more childish logic.
When people recognise the sheer magnitude of gods out there, ontology become utterely pointless. Precisely Dawkin's point.Unless you are willing to go disprove modal logic now I think you should accept that there is at least a decent chance that God exists.
Or Shmorkle?
This is why I think the whole focus on logic is a big fat red herring. Logic is not evidence. Logic is simply a set of rules and tools to help a person formulate arguments. But there is no guarantee that the thing you are arguing logically in favor of is actually true. "All cats die. George Washington is dead. George Washington was a cat." That's bulletproof logic. It's also false.
If I were debating, I start with the point that the focus on logic and mathematical formulae in theistic arguments is, as Kazim has pointed out, pure obfuscation. Dazzle 'em with bullshit, as the saying goes. You may be able to use modal logic and Bayesian mathematics to construct an unassailable argument for anything. When it comes down to whether or not there's an invisible magic man running the universe, just give me the hard evidence. Bullshit talks, but evidence walks.Please learn about modal logic and the possibility premise. Axiom S5 is widely accepted by logicians.
Unless you are willing to go disprove modal logic now I think you should accept that there is at least a decent chance that God exists.
Dude, stop it. It's embarrassing. I have a master's degree in software engineering. I've studied logic, okay? Proposition 5 doesn't say ANYTHING about what probability you should assign to the existence of God.
Logic teaches you how to deduce facts or probabilities once you already know the truth-value or probability of other known quantities. Logic doesn't make stuff appear out of thin air. It doesn't tell you the probability that today is Thursday, or it's raining outside, or my cat is hungry, or God exists. To deduce things about specific propositions in the real world, you have to actually gather data. Pure math and pure logic don't make propositions true or likely in a vacuum. Do you understand?
Anyway my point was that Dawkins mocked the argument without addressing it.
Well, some arguments really aren't worth much more than that.Proposition 5 doesn't say ANYTHING about what probability you should assign to the existence of God.
I know. I was saying that even if Akusai rejected Axiom S5, he still had to understand that
1)It is widely accepted by logicians
2)Akusai has no arguments against it
So he has to at least acknowledge a decent possibility of it being true.
Pure math and pure logic don't make propositions true or likely in a vacuum. Do you understand?
I think it can. Logic can prove something if the negation implies a contradiction. Statements like "Married bachelors do not exist" can be proven because the negative implies a contradiction with pure logic.1)It is widely accepted by logicians
Of course it bloody well is. It's a necessary assumption for the logical system. To throw it out is to throw out the system, but that's silly because it is assumed for the purposes of creating the system. It doesn't make the system internally inconsistent, so it is accepted.
2)Akusai has no arguments against it
So he has to at least acknowledge a decent possibility of it being true.
It is an axiom. An assumption. A claim posited with no argument mad for it because it is necessary for the function of the logical system in which it exists Given its context in the system of modal logic, of course I cannot argue against it. It does not even make sense to argue against an axiom that is assumed for the sake of argument.
From outside the system, though, in a different context, I am under no duress whatsoever to admit that it has to have any probability of being true. S5 is intuitively false. The idea that simply maybe being necessary makes something necessary is silly on its face.
And you're shifting the burden of proof. Again. Like all of you douchebags. If you want someone to accept S5 outside of its proper context as an assumed axiom of modal logic, then "There are no arguments against it" is not enough. There have to be arguments in favor of it. But there are none. Because it is an axiom.
If you want to assume it for the purposes of the logical system, fine. That's what logic is: an internally consistent axiomatic system. But don't pretend that the system and reality are the same. That is, don't use the fact that it is assumed without proof inside the system to mean that it has any relevance without proof outside the system. It's like ontological equivocation.he still had to understand that
1)It is widely accepted by logicians
And this is relevant how? Whether or not logicians accept something has no bearing on whether or not that thing is true or applicable to the real world.
2)Akusai has no arguments against it
Except, you know, the argument he presented against it. The reductio ad absurdum? Where he demonstrated that it has no bearing whatsoever on reality? That argument?
So he has to at least acknowledge a decent possibility of it being true.
Why? You've provided no evidence to suggest that it's true, only that a bunch of nameless logicians supposedly accept it as an aspect of a particular logical system. I wonder, do those same logicians all assign it the power to create reality that you seem to be assigning? I'm sure there are plenty of great, valid ontological arguments, but I can say with certainty that not a single one of them is sound unless its assumptions are backed up by real-world evidence. Since, you know, that's the whole point about soundness. So, where's the evidence for the assumptions underlying the ontological arguments?
I think it can.
You think wrong. Logical arguments can prove nothing about reality unless the axioms and assumptions are based in reality. They may be able to prove all sorts of things conceptually, but they have no bearing on the real world.
Statements like "Married bachelors do not exist" can be proven because the negative implies a contradiction with pure logic.
So pure logic can be used to prove that oxymorons are oxymorons. That's quite the power there. I mean, it allows us to determine whether or not two conceptual labels with specific definitions contradict one another. That's some amazing ability right there, and certainly it implies that pure logic is therefore able to prove things about the real world that aren't based on semantics.
Here's a trick: use pure logic to prove the existence or nonexistence of bachelors. Go ahead, I'm interested to see the results.Here's an interesting podcast that relates to this topic. A guy from a podcast called "Reasonable Doubts" goes on the "Reason Driven Podcast" and they dissect a debate they'd had with a Christian the week before. There's a lot of discussion about the tactics and rhetoric used by the Christian debater.
PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.
This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.


text:
If you're looking for a 24 Hour Emergency Electrician in Barrow, or a 24 hour Call Out Electrician in Barrow, then you've come to the right place
Emergency Electrician Barrow
If you need a 247 Emergency Electrician in Barrow, then give us a call. We are on standby for any local emergency electrician call outs across Barrow.
We are proud of our fast emergency response rate in Barrow and we aim to get to you in the shortest possible time. We understand emergencies can't wait. Our goal is to reach a clients property between 30 to 90 minutes from the initial call. Sometimes we might get to you quicker, sometimes it might take slightly longer depending on our workload.
Our contracted 247 electrician is fully qualified, professional and takes great pride in his work. Customer satisfaction is our number 1 priority – You're in safe hands! Even though our urgent electrician is based in Dudley, we come out to and cover Barrow and all surrounding areas.
24 hour Emergency Electricians Barrow
We are open around the clock – all day and everyday, up to 95% of the time. Got an emergency in the middle of the night? Or has has electrical fault just popped up and you need an emergency electrical service in Barrow? Then just give us a call for a rapid response across all of Barrow.
One the odd occasion, we might miss a call – please ring us back as we might be on another line.
There are many hazards and electrical dangers around the home. Sometimes you might be tempted to try to fix or repair an electrical fault on your own. According to the UK Government, there were 7,000 cases of fire caused by misuse of equipment or appliance. So electrical dangers are real. So call us if you are looking for an 'emergency electrician near me' and avoid risky DIY.
Barrow Emergency Services
Electrical Fault Finding
Our same day electrician is an expert in electrical fault finding. If you can't find where the fault is, let us investigate.
Lighting Repair
On rare occasions light bulbs have known to burst. If this happens to you, call us straight away and we'll send out an after hours electrician to Barrow.
Emergency Electrical Repairs
We also deal with fuse box repairs, alarm repairs, and all other emergency electrical repairs. We can help if you need an emergency commercial electrician in Barrow
We can install new sockets and repair burst ones (it does happen!). We are open on weekends, so if you need a Saturday electrician/Sunday electrician, call us.
6 Possible Electrical dangers in Barrow Homes
Let's face it; we can't live without electricity in our homes. However, there are several different potential electrical dangers that could be lurking in your home. If not remedied in a timely fashion, these electrical safety hazards can pose a threat to your property, valuables and, of course, the safety of your loved ones. Thankfully, being aware of these electrical dangers is the first step in avoiding an electrical accident from taking place in your home.
We are going to look at the 6 most common electrical dangers that can arise in your house. We'll also touch a bit on the benefits of hiring a professional electrician or an out of hours electrician to help fix.
(1) Defective Wires and Poor Wiring
Poor quality wiring that's not up to industry standards can pose a great safety danger. And may lead to arch faults, power surges, fires, and other serious electrical injuries. That's why electrical wiring should not be done by every layman. Instead, you should hire a well-trained, certified, and licensed 24hr electrician with years of experience of delivering top-notch wiring work.
On the same note, corroded, cracked, worn out or damaged electrical cables/wires can be other serious electrical hazards in your home. If not checked and rectified, these faulty wires can increase the chance of an electrical accident happening. If you suspect that this is the case, don't hesitate to call in our 24 hour emergency electrician serving Barrow when you need an electrical contractor in Barrow.
(2) Overheated Electrical Cords or Wires
If you plug a power-hungry appliance into a low-rated socket, the chances are that the electrical cords and wires will get overheated. If you leave the overheated wires or cords plugged in, you may be courting an electrical accidents like fire, shocks, and so forth. As such, you need to replace old sockets, upgrade your appliances, and always stay away from faulty or overheated wires.
(3) Faulty Appliance
Appliances with loose plugs, frayed wiring or exposed/naked wires can pose an electrocution danger. To keep your loved ones safe and prevent your property from getting gutted down, please dispose of or repair any faulty appliance. Of course, don't try to repair the appliance on your own, unless you're a certified electrician. Get the assistance of a emergency call out electrician.
(4) Outlets Exposed to Water
Water and electricity don't mix. Electrical outlets in your kitchen, bathrooms, and other areas of your home should avoid water contact. They should be located far from a water source like a sink, faucet or bath. If your outlets are exposed to water, you or your loved ones risk being electrocuted.
As a rule of thumb, never use an electrical device on a wet surface or close to the pool. There was the recent sad story regarding a young girl being electrocuted, when her phone which was charging, fell into the bath. Don't risk it.
(5) Uncovered Outlets in a Home with Babies
Babies and toddlers are a curious bunch. If your electrical outlets or sockets are not baby proofed or at least covered, that's a big no-no. Your little ones can stick their fingers, spoons and other objects into the gaps.
(6) Overheating Lights and Bulbs
Lights are a life-saver. However, if they are prone to overheating, they should be kept at a safe distance from flammable stuff like beddings, drapes, aerosol sprays, leatherworks, and so on. If these materials come in contact with the already overheated bulbs, they can spark into an electrical fire (if you do have an electrical fire, call the fire brigade and never put water on it).
Be on the Safe Side – Hire the Best 24 Hour Emergency Electrician in Barrow
Electrical hazards are best remedied before they turn into something ugly, messy, and costly. While you might attempt to do it yourself to save a few quid, don't. There are plenty of no-brainer reasons why you need to call in an expert 24 hr electrician serving Barrow:
Safety – When it comes to electrical dangers, your safety and the safety of your family and your property is on the line. There's no room for error because any DIY electrical accident can be devastating.
Save money – Trying to do it yourself can make the situation worse, costing more money to repair it professionally.
Equipment – A good out of hours electrician has the right tools for troubleshooting and making repairs.
Expertise – Obviously, an experienced emergency electrician has the right expertise, knowledge, and techniques to get the job done right the first time.
Peace of Mind – Our contracted call out electrician operating across Barrow is certified and fully insured for an added layer of protection. So call us if you need a 24 hour electrician in Barrow.
External info; Electrician Wiki, Electricity History. Other Areas Covered;Emergency Electrician Aldersley, Emergency Electrician Mamble, Emergency Electrician Four Ashes, Emergency Electrician Brewood, Emergency Electrician Badger, Emergency Electrician Chadwick End, Emergency Electrician Great Wyrley, Emergency Electrician Far Forest, Emergency Electrician Allen End, Emergency Electrician Newland Common, Emergency Electrician Castle Vale, Emergency Electrician Lea End, Emergency Electrician Walsall Wood, Emergency Electrician Kingshurst, Emergency Electrician Darby End, Emergency Electrician Bluntington, Emergency Electrician Oxley, Emergency Electrician Pensax, Emergency Electrician Grimley, Emergency Electrician Rake End, Emergency Electrician Rushbrook, Emergency Electrician Broseley, Emergency Electrician Foul End, Emergency Electrician Fordhouses, Emergency Electrician Stonydelph, Emergency Electrician Bell Green, Emergency Electrician Hanbury, Emergency Electrician Bourne Vale, Emergency Electrician Ludstone, Emergency Electrician Drayton, Emergency Electrician Middleton Priors, Emergency Electrician Armitage, Emergency Electrician Palfrey, Emergency Electrician Stourton, Emergency Electrician Hollywood, Emergency Electrician Broad Common, Emergency Electrician Caunsall, Emergency Electrician Beobridge

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I can't find any real documentation on the quoted-printable-encode stream filter, but I've gathered info from several places. It seems there are 4 options that can be passed in the param array as in my other note on this subject:
line-length: integer, simply sets line length before a soft break is inserted
line-break-chars: Which char or chars to consider as a line break - note that "\r\n" will only match CRLF, not CR or LF, so make sure it matches your content.
binary: boolean, hex encodes all control chars, including spaces and line breaks, but leaves alphanumerics untouched
force-encode-first: Forcibly hex-encodes the first char on each line, even if it's alphanumeric. This is useful for avoiding corruption in some incompetent mail servers, like Exchange.


text:
Return to 'Quarterly mortality, England'
Provides files to download data as it existed for this dataset on previous dates.
Statistics are most often revised for 1 of 2 reasons:
- For certain statistics initial estimates are released with the expectation that these may be revised and updated as further data becomes available.
- Revisions may also be made when methods or systems are changed.
These types of planned revisions should not be confused with errors in released statistics, which are genuine mistakes. Such mistakes occur rarely and, when they do happen, corrections are made in a timely manner, announced and clearly explained to users in line with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics (Principle 2, Practice 7).
Latest version
xls (317.4 kB)Previous versions
Superseded files | Reason for update | Date superseded |
xls (316.9 kB) | 2 May 2018 14:52 |


text:
Benefits of Becoming an Agent
The Western Union value proposition
- Generate revenue through a commission earned on every transaction, sent or received, from your retail location(s).
- Attract new customers by offering Western Union money transfer services.
- Increase your footfall and revenues by leveraging cross-selling opportunities.
- Enhance your customer relationships by offering them more convenience.
- Strengthen your competitive position.
Our studies show that offering Western Union money transfer services increases cross-selling opportunities as well as shopping frequency. We also know that Western Union consumers are frequent, committed and loyal, with 77% of consumers transferring money between once a week and once a month whilst over 65% of these consumers always use the same agent to make their transaction.
Additional benefits
- No investment or annual fees involved; all you need is a computer, an internet connection and depending on your country, a printer.
- Get a free marketing and sales starter packs for your retail location(s).
- Receive, free of charge, training and money transfer software updates.
- Take advantage of 24-hour customer service support.
- Benefit from best-in-class compliance program.


text:
Store Associate - Part Time
Become a Part of the NIKE, Inc. Team
NIKE, Inc. does more than outfit the world's best athletes. It is a place to explore potential, obliterate boundaries and push out the edges of what can be. The company looks for people who can grow, think, dream and create. Its culture thrives by embracing diversity and rewarding imagination. The brand seeks achievers, leaders and visionaries. At NIKE, Inc. it's about each person bringing skills and passion to a challenging and constantly evolving game.
To work in retail is to be the face of NIKE, Inc. With a relentless focus on product knowledge and customer service, Nike Retail teams give valuable experiences to consumers every day. From Shanghai to San Francisco, every store has a unique perspective and hosts an inspiring community of sport and style devotees. A career in Nike Retail demands creativity and ambition and offers the opportunity to grow with some of the best athletes, teammates and retail partners in the industry.
This position has a starting rate of $15/hour. Information about benefits can be found here. Nike Lancaster is looking for the next Part Time Athlete (Sales Associate) to join our team and provide world-class service to the consumer.
What We're Looking For:
SERVES LIKE A PRO: Friendly, team player, cares for customers, wants to deliver the best experience —we hire for service
AIMS TO BE THE BEST: Coachable, goal and career-oriented learner who is innovative & influential to others
PLAYS BY THE RULES: Professional who takes attendance and integrity seriously, is reliable, task-focused & does the right thing
IS DRIVEN TO WIN: Brand advocate who brings passion, energy, drive & positivity into customer interactions
- Be passionate about Nike products and services
- Demonstrate enthusiasm and eagerness to learn the fundamentals of all store Athlete roles, including but not limited to Service, Visual Presentation, and Stockroom
- Deliver the best possible service and attention to all consumers
- Assist the team in executing all daily retail operations to ensure premium service and smooth store functioning
- Develop positive relationships with consumers and teammates
- Be an active member of the store community by attending and supporting store events
- Model reliability and flexibility by being able to work varied hours and days to meet the needs of the business
- Maintain knowledge of various store departments and be available to operate cash register for regular transactions, perform shipping and receiving duties, stock the floor, perform cleaning duties, and build visual displays when necessary
- Must be 18 years of age
- Able to effectively communicate
- Physical requirements include the ability to
twist, bend, squat, reach, climb a ladder and stand for extended periods of time
with or without reasonable accommodation - Able to accomplish multiple tasks in a
fast-paced environment - Able to work effectively with others in a
team-oriented environment and provide excellent customer service - One or more years of customer service and/or
retail experience preferred - Flexible with scheduling and available to work
retail hours, which may include days, evenings, weekends and/or holidays, based
on department and store/company needs
Of course, our commitments
don't stop with our customers. If you're up to the challenge of Nike Retail
we'll make it worth your while. You'll be working in a great team environment,
with access to the latest and greatest Nike products and apparel. Not to
mention, a compensation and benefits package that's among the best around. Join
us and see what it means to become part of the Nike Retail experience.
NIKE, Inc. is a growth company that looks for team members to grow with it. Nike offers a generous total rewards package, casual work environment, a diverse and inclusive culture, and an electric atmosphere for professional development. No matter the location, or the role, every Nike employee shares one galvanizing mission: To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete* in the world.
NIKE, Inc. is committed to employing a diverse workforce. Qualified applicants will receive consideration without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran status, or disability.


text:
If you are looking for Meeting Rooms near Martins Ferry, OH, the Ohio County Public Library in Wheeling, WV, is the place!
The Ohio County Public Library in Wheeling, WV provides free meeting rooms to non-profit community groups. The Boardroom can accommodate approximately 12 people, the classroom 30, the meeting room 80, and the auditorium 120.
Since the OCPL is a public institution, supported by public funds, all programs must be open to the public at large. This means that anyone may sit in on your group's meeting. No group may charge admission to a meeting held in these facilities nor may it solicit or collect a "free will" offering, nor may it present for sale any item which is conditional for attendance to the program. For-profit groups and/or businesses are only permitted to use library meeting rooms for nonprofit purposes such as staff training sessions. Groups may be asked to furnish a copy of their 501(C)3 statement verifying non-profit status.
➤ Click here to read a full version of our meeting room policy.
➤View our meeting rooms.
To book one of our meeting rooms, please call the Reference Desk at 304-232-0244 to check for availability.
© Copyright 2024 Ohio County Public Library. All Rights Reserved. Website design by TSG. Powered by SmartSite.biz.


text:
"I'm going to be in his face, and he's not going to be able to handle
it. I don't think he's ever fought anyone as tenacious and aggressive as
me." - Nik Lentz
After the fight is over, when the results appear online as the latest entry on a fighter's resume, the subtle nuances, close calls, and near misses of the bout fade into the ether. All that remains is a win or a loss, the round and time the fight ended, and the method – decision, submission, or knockout.
While a resume conveys the bare essentials of a fighter's career – their "tale of the tape" statistics, and an account of who they've beaten, who got the better of them, and how both happened – those names, dates, and results don't tell the whole story. They're the black and white bits that jump off the page, but the good stuff is in the grey that is often unseen or forgotten over time.
A 15-minute contest that goes to a decision could have more excitement than a bout that ends with a knockout in the closing seconds of the final round. On paper, the former looks like a boring affair, while the latter creates visions of a back-and-forth slugfest in our heads, the reality now lost on a resume, reduced to a handful of words and numbers.
Nik Lentz knows all about a fighter's resume only conveying part of the story.
The 28-year-old Minnesotan began his UFC career by going unbeaten over his first 18 months in the organization, collecting five wins, with a majority draw with Thiago Tavares in January 2010 standing as the only hiccup. Instead of being propelled up the ranks by his string of success, Lentz' suffocating brand of grappling and constant trips to the scorecards were the focus; sticking points with fans and critics who dubbed him "boring" while overlooking how difficult it is to go unbeaten in six consecutive trips into the UFC cage.
"The intent has always been there," laughs Lentz, discussing his string of decision victories. "Regardless of what people want to think, these guys fighting in the UFC are not easy to finish, and I sure wasn't given an easy road. Nobody was throwing me easy fights; they gave me hard opponents all the time.
"Even the guys who are not well known are still some of the top guys in the weight class in the sport. I was just missing little things – I would be very close to a submission or I would be very close to a knockout, but I was just missing something."
Following his six-fight unbeaten run, Lentz hit a rough patch, going winless in his next three fights – a "no contest" result against Charles Oliveira was followed consecutive losses to Mark Bocek and Evan Dunham. He needed a change, and opted to hit the reset button on his career by changing camps and changing weight classes.
After an extended association with Greg Nelson and The Academy, Lentz opted to shift his training camps to Coconut Creek, Florida, home of American Top Team, and enlisted nutrition specialist Mike Dolce to make help him make the move to the featherweight division.
Seven months after losing to Dunham, Lentz made his featherweight debut against Eiji Mitsuoka, and everything clicked.
"I always felt like I did pretty well at '55," says Lentz, who stopped Mitsuoka just 3:45 into the first round of their UFC 150 encounter. "Once I got new coaches, and started doing all the right things, I realized how wrong I had been preparing. I realized how much I was missing. Sometimes you don't know how much you're missing to get to the next level, and you get better coaching, better training.
"Now I've got all these new coaches, new tools, a nutritionist, a strength trainer, that just kind of opened my mind to realizing that I could pursue a championship. I always knew that I could be a champion in fighting, but it wasn't until I got all the new coaches and stuff that it really clicked; that I really thought now is the time that I can actually do it."
His performance against Mitsuoka appears to have changed the way a lot of people viewed him as well, the UFC brass included. After struggling to climb the ladder in the deep lightweight ranks during his unbeaten run, Lentz' first-round stoppage win over the Japanese veteran last August has quickly elevated him to the fringes of contention in the featherweight division.
Though the weight class is growing deeper with each passing month as more lightweights opt to relocate south of the 155-pound weight limit, Lentz will look to continue his climb towards championship gold when he squares off with perennial contender Diego Nunes this coming Saturday in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Coming off a victory in a Fight of the Night-winning battle with Bart Palaszewski last October, Nunes has been a fixture near the top of the featherweight division, boasting wins over former WEC champion Mike Brown and Manny Gamburyan, while dropping decisions to former title challenger Kenny Florian and rising contender Dennis Siver.
The 30-year-old Brazilian is viewed by many as a gatekeeper in the 145-pound ranks – a tough out hopefuls need to beat in order to be considered worthy of title contention. Lentz sees his next opponent the same way, and is intent on making another statement as he moves to the next level.
"I was super-excited, but I didn't do anything different," admits Lentz of his reaction to the news that he'd be facing the top-10-ranked Nunes in his sophomore appearance in the featherweight division. "It's always the same: they text me and say this guy, and I always say yes, regardless of who it is. It's always been the same, so it's pretty simple, but I do like the matchup. I like the fight. I was real excited once I got a chance to think about it a little more. I'm ready for this. I'm ready to bust through that gate, not just walk through it. I'm ready to kick that sucker down."
Looking at his resume, it'd be easy to dismiss Lentz and his upward ambitions following just a single appearance in his new division. The focused and candid featherweight contender knows this, but he also knows the wins and losses on his resume don't tell the whole story.
"It's all a process. I haven't always planned it right, and I haven't always done everything the way you're supposed to, but I feel like it has all been for a purpose. Looking back and saying something like, `I'm pissed off because people didn't pay attention' doesn't do me any good. People need to pay attention now.
"When I moved down to '45 and changed over to ATT, I got a lot of new coaches, and everyone started seeing how talented I was, people started saying, `There is so much potential here that you haven't been using.' It took a move to '45 for me to realize that myself. Once that happened, it changed my whole outlook on fighting.
"It was a frustrating process, but I think it has all worked out. Now I know how the game works. Now I know I've put the time in. Now I know I can beat the top-level opponents."
And that's exactly what he intends to do when he steps into cage with Nunes Saturday night.
"I'm going to be in his face, and he's not going to be able to handle it. I don't think he's ever fought anyone as tenacious and aggressive as me. I don't think he'll be able to keep up with all of the parts of the game. I think we're on the same level when it comes to striking, but once we get into the scrambles, once we get into the wrestling, once we get into the clinch, once we do all these things, I think it's just going to wear on him.
"(The finish) is going to happen just like Mitsuoka. The same way it happened with him where it was kind of a slow, systematic destruction. He came in, he tried to strike, and he got hit. He tried to go for the takedown on me, which wasn't his game plan. I blocked his takedown, got on top, and when he tried to stand up, I threw him down a bunch of times, and finally he cracked.
"That's what's going to happen with Diego too."


text:
Customer Login
If you are already registered, please log in.
Zoom the image with the mouse
Brand | AILINKE |
Special Feature | Digital Display, Quiet, Auto Shut Off, Aroma Diffuser, Humidistat |
Color | White_13L |
Filter Type | NO NEED |
Capacity | 3.43 Gallons |
Floor Area | 1000 Square Feet |
Operation Mode | Ultrasonic |
Product Dimensions | 8.66"D x 29.52"W x 9.18"H |
Runtime | 48 hours |
Room Type | Kids Room, Office, Bedroom, Living Room, Nursery |
Material | Plastic |
Included Components | Remote, Manuel |
Voltage | 120 Volts |
Wattage | 28 Watt-hours |
Power Source | Corded Electric |
Control Method | Remote, Touch |
Shape | Rectangular |
Product Dimensions | 8.66 x 29.52 x 9.18 inches |
Item Weight | 7.63 pounds |
Nam tempus turpis at metus scelerisque placerat nulla deumantos sollicitudin felis. Pellentesque diam dolor, elementum et lobortis at, mollis damos risus. Sedcus des faucibus sullamcorper mattis fusce molestie elit a lorem tempus scelerisque blandit est cursus. Quisque volutpat orci ut metus malesuada in interdumos demus lectus scelerisque lorem. Praesent deu odio des nisios dullamcorper
You may return most new, unopened items within 30 days of delivery for a full refund. We'll also pay the return shipping costs if the return is a result of our error (you received an incorrect or defective item, etc.).
You should expect to receive your refund within four weeks of giving your package to the return shipper, however, in many cases you will receive a refund more quickly. This time period includes the transit time for us to receive your return from the shipper (5 to 10 business days), the time it takes us to process your return once we receive it (3 to 5 business days), and the time it takes your bank to process our refund request (5 to 10 business days).
If you need to return an item, simply login to your account, view the order using the 'Complete Orders' link under the My Account menu and click the Return Item(s) button. We'll notify you via e-mail of your refund once we've received and processed the returned item.
We can ship to virtually any address in the world. Note that there are restrictions on some products, and some products cannot be shipped to international destinations.
When you place an order, we will estimate shipping and delivery dates for you based on the availability of your items and the shipping options you choose. Depending on the shipping provider you choose, shipping date estimates may appear on the shipping quotes page.
Please also note that the shipping rates for many items we sell are weight-based. The weight of any such item can be found on its detail page. To reflect the policies of the shipping companies we use, all weights will be rounded up to the next full pound.
If you are already registered, please log in.