Definition of delusional: A guy who has cheated on his taxes and considers himself above the law, pontificating that his legal opponents should "obey the law!" I guess Dr. Dipshit doesn't know that jails record phone calls. Let the world see what pathetic scum he truly is. He's clearly living in his own dream world.
Prior to his conviction: The whining, the victim complex, the never ending mantra of "lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits!" This guy sure does love listening to his own bluster. In the first clip you will find yourself actually feeling sorry for his wife, listening to her say, with a notable tone of despair, that "I'm just hearing things [from you] that sound all the same." Hovind's cold reply, "Well, maybe I need to change...or maybe you need to change and accept it...Your hope is always that I will change. Maybe the hope ought to be that you will advance."
Prick!
In this one, Hovind and his son discuss hiding assets, like DVDs and other merchandise, that can be seized.
Here, Hovind continues to insist the IRS is breaking the law, and that he's under no obligation to pay the payroll taxes he owes because his employees aren't employees. I love this line: "Okay, they beat me, they embarrassed me, they had me all over the news media — now, get me outta here!" Isn't it funny how fundies treat the Constitution like toilet paper, until they're the ones in trouble — and suddenly, the Constitution must be upheld at all costs!
Hovind has completely gone off the mental deep end in this one, going on to make Mafia protection-racket comparisons to what he and his wife are going through. As he prattles on, you can tell Jo is on the brink of tears. She says at one point, "I guess my fear all along — I mean, I believe that we want to please God — but are we right in this particular...whatever?" Hovind keeps repeating that the IRS are the ones breaking the law, not him, and "I wish they'd tell me what I did wrong!" He's just barking mad.
One wonders, how does someone this dishonest and deluded get this way in the first place? I guess it's that when someone is this slick a bullshit artist, and he can convince himself of his own bullshit, then it becomes easy as pie to say literally any self-serving nonsense you can come up with, with unassailable confidence. Take note of the last thing Hovind says in the final clip, if you're ready for a true Irony Meter-Breaker.
PS: Since Hovind wants to know what laws he's broken, according to one source I've found, here they are: 26 U.S.C. § 7202, 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), 31 U.S.C. § 5324, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 31 C.F.R. sec. 103.11, 26 U.S.C. § 7212.
these phone conversations are slightly amusing, but what's the point in continuing to batter a man like this, probably making him worse? I mean, he's got enough troubles as it is, right? He doesn't need us hurling poo at him.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't need us hurling poo at him.
ReplyDeleteYes, he does. He has learned nothing about how not to be a guniea worm.
-Graculus
Hovind has been impervious to evidence, reason, and to the inevitable mockery of his absurdly mindless creationism. I don't see how one more posting of the latter will push him over the edge.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that ever got to him was an actual, physical imprisonment -- and even now he still resists thinking about what he might have done wrong. He's stewing in his own ignorance, and I can't think of a more appropriate punishment for such a deluded life.
Hovind has only ever listened to Hovind. And probably the voices in his head.
It's not just the creationists that are crazy. The moderate Christians might actually be crazier:
ReplyDeletehttp://normdoering.blogspot.com/
It's interesting how he keeps suggesting that there is no specific law that he has broken, only general laws. How specific does it have to be for him to acknowledge that applies to him? Does it actually have to say, "Kent Hovind owes the IRS x dollars"? What a delusional asshat.
ReplyDeletePoor Jo... on so many levels. But hey, that's the price she pays for her "faith" in Ephesians 5:22-24!
Hovind is totally crazy.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, he hit the nail on the head when he said that the government is just a mafia.
Id rather Kent be out there bilking Christians out of their money and speading his junk science than rotting in some concrete hole, while you and I pay for his healthcare and food and clothing.
FREE KENT HOVIND! Kooks have entertainment value!
You can almost picture him sitting in a cell, rocking on in the fetal position, on the balls of his toes, just repeating the mantra: "They are breaking God's law. I will make them pay."
ReplyDeleteHe has absolutely no ownership of his transgressions. And, when he said "Hitler", my eyes almost rolled out of my head!
I *do* feel bad for his wife. You almost get the feeling that she is to the point of not taking his calls anymore. He just repeats the same bullshit again and again. I love when he tells her, "Well...maybe you just need to love me as God made me." or some crap like that. WTF?! You're in jail, dumbass!!
He's gone straight into martyr mode now.
To me Hovind's response to his wife was the coldest and most loathsome thing on any of these tapes. Here she is, expressing a moment of desperate, painful emotional openness to him about her concern for their lives and their marriage (and, in a fundamentalist household, how often do you think a woman gets a chance to speak to her husband this way?) — and his self-absorption is so great that all he can do is tell her she needs to "advance" and love him the way he is (in a voice expressing no feelings of love whatsoever), because he's clearly always right and infallible.
ReplyDeleteSorry but I can't agree with the first anonymous. Hovind cannot be beaten down enough. He has plenty of troubles, sure. But until he's willing to be a real man and accept responsibility for them, yeah, bring on the poo-hurling.
and his self-absorption is so great that all he can do is tell her she needs to "advance" and love him the way he is (in a voice expressing no feelings of love whatsoever), because he's clearly always right and infallible.
ReplyDelete*nods furiously*
I was just stunned when he said that. She was trying to express her most heartfelt fears and insecurities about their marriage and here's this asshat who can't even put aside his ego long enough to say, "I know this is hard on you. I'm so sorry that we're going through this. I'm so sorry that I've put you in this position."
Oh, how I would love to slip these tapes into one some of the religious, premarital counselling sessions and say, to the soon-to-be-brides, "THIS is what you are going to have to live with if you marry an egomanical, fundamentalist jerk!"
This lunatic actually thinks the law is on his side? What an insane jackass. Kent Hovind is clinically insane. Perhaps he should plead utter insanity. Hell the douchebag thinks the world is 6000 years old because his book of fairy tales told him so.
ReplyDeleteThese comments, and this blog give me further proof-
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as an atheist.
They're all anti-theists, every last one. None of them apathetic to it, they're all antagonistic to it.
How you can get that much pleasure from the misfortune of others is beyond me.
See, you LOVE separation of church and state, when it means keeping the church out of the state's affairs....
But let the state tell the church they need to act as an agent OF the state, and collect taxes on BEHALF of the state, and you're all for it.
Hypocrites.
I learned about vitamin B17 from Kent Hovind. Thank God because it saved my left testicle. He was also instrumental in me becoming a Christian, I was able to conquer my addiction to drugs. I don't agree with all of his scientific stuff but at least he makes people think outside the box.
ReplyDeleteI guarantee you this. In one hundred years all of us are going to know whether he is right.
These videos will be removed shortly. Only today have the lawyers been made aware of them. They are illegal.
ReplyDeleteDownload these files:
ReplyDeletehttp://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-prison-calls-part-1
http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-phones-calls-part-2
http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-jail-calls-3-of-4
http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-jail-phone-calls-4-of-4
To the person who says the videos are "illegal."
ReplyDeleteYou are at the very least wrong and at worst lying. Evidence used in federal court is public domain. This is in the matter of public interest, especially since Hovind has decided to make himself a public figure.
I understand Hovindites are embrassed by these audio recordings because they show him as a delusional man. However, if you follow Hovind's arguments it is hardly suprising that this is the case.
Hopefully, after a few years in prison he can revaluate his understanding of truth and intergity. Then again he's been a tax dogger his whole life.
Oh yeah, Hovind's claims about B17 are WRONG. Do not follow his instructions. The FTC has cracked down on those that make his claims because of its poisonous cyanide content. I repeat by doing that you are ingesting cyanide! That is very dangerous.
"It's not just the creationists that are crazy. The moderate Christians might actually be crazier:
ReplyDeletehttp://normdoering.blogspot.com/ "
Titled "A blog from Hell", since when have people who have faith in a greater power ever become "crazy"? Your lack of description points your ignorance soo many have come to know in this day in age. Stop posting with the people who actually give a damn about their views and defend them. As for you, whos side are you on? The Atheist i presume.
...since when have people who have faith in a greater power ever become "crazy"?
ReplyDeleteThat little incident in New York a few years ago with the planes comes to mind. There are a few others.
What is it that angers you more; the fact that he is a tried criminal (according to our gov't) or that he teaches creationism, and believes that Jesus LOVES you and me and him.
ReplyDeleteI understand that false religion had done a great deal of harm to our world today, but belief in Jesus is not a religion. Belief in Jesus is forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
If anyone would like to further discuss this with me my email is Goldfngr222@hotmail.com.
-With understanding and appreciation.
Don't care what Hovind believes about Jesus. We attack him here for being, as you surmised, a criminal fraud and huckster (according to the heaps of evidence against him) as well as a pathological liar who deceives the ignorant with his absurd young-earth creationist drivel.
ReplyDeleteIf he really did these things that you say I would totally understand your anger; However, I don't know if there is anyway to know that for certain. It sounds to me like at least the first tape is doctored toward the end. Also, I think it would be worth checking out how the IRS directs their business, because their have been others who have spoken up about them.
ReplyDeleteAND who would disagree with Jesus' reaction to the woman caught in adultery; "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
If what the gov't says is true then Jesus loves people like Kent Hovin. I mean he does live porn stars....xxxchurch.com
I hope you will consider my point. Thanks.
Well Peter, I will say, you Hovind defenders certainly do have to reach. If there is a reasonable doubt as to Hovind's guilt, then you'd think his defense counsel would have actually presented a defense. But they didn't. The prosecution rested, the defense presented no case, and the jury took three hours to convict. That's pretty open-and-shut, you must say. Only a person as heavily into the denial of reality as Kent Hovind would continue to think there's still a fight for him to win here.
ReplyDeleteAs for the tape "sounding" doctored, that's kind of like the way creationists say organisms "look" designed, right? The multitudinous incriminating and reprehensible things Hovind says over all four tape excerpts can hardly be made to go away by the feeble claim that one of them might "sound doctored towards the end," which is, of course, only an assumption on your part.
As for the IRS, hell, no one likes them, but it's not as if people for years haven't been dealing with them, in court and elsewhere, and politicians have wanted to reform to organization as well. But so what? That is irrelevant to the case at hand. Love the IRS or hate them, the fact is that we have specific tax laws in this country, and if they are violated, then whomever does so is guilty of a crime. You might not like how they conduct their business, but how they conduct their business right now happens to be law. If the law ever changes, then they will conduct their business differently. All of that is irrelevant to Hovind's guilt in this circumstance.
AND who would disagree with Jesus' reaction to the woman caught in adultery; "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
This passage refers specifically to hypocrisy. It does not mean to say that only people of squeaky clean, unblemished moral perfection can ever judge the wrongdoing of others. I've done good things and bad things in my life, like anyone. I have never, however, built a career based on lies nor committed tax fraud. I have no problem feeling entirely qualified to criticize people who do.
You poor Atheist sods , I feel so sorry for the lot of you , you all are so glad that Kent Hovind is out of the way because you could not prove any of his theories wrong and now you can go on and believe in your Religion (evolution).Or do you all believe in nothing? The end of the world is coming you better get your lives right. Deep down you all know that there is a God so stop fooling yourself and go to church.
ReplyDeleteKent Hovind has "theories"?! LOL! Who knew? And all we thought he had were the uneducated blatherings of a delusional fool.
ReplyDeleteReally, anonymous, all you Hovindites have a troubled relationship with reality, don't you? Maybe staying in school wouldn't have been such a bad idea after all. At the very least, you'd have learned how to write your name.
wow, what shcoks me is how our government is stupid and dont use logic,
ReplyDeletejails are a nobrainer,
if ur petefile or serial killer, jail aint ganna help u,. its just ganna take people taxes to feed u and waste money, why dont they use money fro treatment for that person,
ok anyone who owns couple hundred g s to government, how they ganna get it if they dont got it?
oh ye 10 years is ganna do something to fix the problem.......
what a joke,
fist "TAX" money that u and me pay will be wasyed on jail that that person sits, does nothing,
why dont make the person work to pay of the "DEBT"
live home and work hard, would be good punishment instead of stupid sentetence that resolves NOTHING......
as for the scientific evidense that every sientist agrees on and hovind,
they get along well,
lots of facts axists, and when hovind puts some explaining, they make most sense, vs 'EVOLUTION"
that got everyone lost........
fro example, we dont have to put god in picture, since all you "EITHIEST" or what the hell u call urself dont believe in one,
there is tons and tons of evidence that proves that earth is NOT millions and millions years old,.....LAME!!, think about it,
u aithiest, even for u there stuff u would agree, on its just those people with retardation who religiously defend gay "DARWIN"
are scared if one spear of truth hits the theory of evolution and there will be a hole, and people will question and they are afraid of it like they ganan shit their pants.
and try to defend their gaynus theory.....
:-D ROTFLMAO!!!
ReplyDeleteFolks, there you have it: the "mind" of the creationist in all its glory!
What was it I was saying about staying in school...?
u aithiest, even for u there stuff u would agree, on its just those people with retardation who religiously defend gay "DARWIN"
ReplyDeleteO. M. G.
Is this 'tard for real!?
Martin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your lengthy response, and well spoken ideas. I would like to say also that I am myself trying to bring ideas to the table as well. Ideas that have to do with Kent Hovin's character.
I see that you are a man with ample intelligence, and one that puts a lot of thought into what he believes.
I would encourage you Martizle to check out the tapes and decide for yourself Hovin's character instead of taking an easy to come by world view. This is what i do when I read the bible or listen to a sermon...I ask myself what I think.
Anyway, I don't want to tell you what to do. You can decide for yourself. lol :)
Christ died for the sins of the WORLD..."It is finished". We who believe are justified before God with nothing to our name, but the GRACE we have received. It is this Grace that allows Christ to work in me, so that one day I might be perfect. God's kindness is what leads men to repentance...and THAT is what I could not stay away from. He is unimaginably kind.
ReplyDeleteIs sending non-Christians to an eternity of torture in hell an example of God's unimaginable kindness? Christians do seem to have a peculiar notion of kindness. And why do you wish to be perfect?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, re: Hovind. I did check out the tapes (after all, I posted them) and reach an assessment of Hovind's character. It wasn't pretty. He's a bad guy, Peter. You'd do well to be rid of him, and stop buying his lies that science is your enemy.
Sr, i feel really sorry for u, i'm a christian and that you beleive or not in GOD , heaven or hell, creation.. doesn't mean that is not true or real, so when the Lord comes again and you go to hell i can tell u the last thing that you will be thinking about is Dr Kent Hovind who by the way (since he is saved ) wont be down there with u.. u should star doing something better with your life instead of keep wasting your time in other people's lives.. and disrespecting their privacy..after all the Lord died even for u.. since your are not in hell yet think about it,, eternity is a long time..
ReplyDeleteAgain, thought I'd let this one through ("anonymous" tried posting it three times; just one approval was enough, you know) just so you all could have a straightforward exhibit of what kind of person — illiterate, morally adrift and ill-educated — supports crooks like Kent Hovind and drivel like YEC. Heed the example of "anonymous": this is your brain on religious fundamentalism. Choose the happiness and optimism of science, reason and knowledge! Reject the fearmongering, threats, dead-end ignorance, and hopelessness of religion!
ReplyDeleteOne thing is that you hate hovind that is understandable since he has attacked your worldview.
ReplyDeleteBut let me ask you one question.
Are those recordings legal??
Are you legaly postig these recordings?
We don't hate Hovind because he has attacked our "worldview". We hate him because he is a dishonest, meretricious sleaze who doesn't think that laws apply to him, and who has built an entire career on miseducating and misinforming people about scientific disciplines of which he knows nothing. He's a liar and a cheat, pure and simple.
ReplyDeleteThe recordings are entirely legal. All phone calls into and out of prisons are recorded as a matter of policy and publically available. You have no right to privacy when you are in prison.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
ReplyDeleteSir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Charles Darwin (1809-1895)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
These individuals believed in God. Although it has been said that Christians are stupid, the list above gives me evidence to the contrary, or is this evidence suspect as many of you claim Kent Hovind's evidence for creation science is suspect? Note that the scientific evidence he presents was individually discovered by other scientists.
The problem is not intellectual, it is moral. But then, how can we argue against the morals of someone who decides for himself what is moral and what is not? How can we argue for truth with someone that believes truth is relative? "Truth is only as relative as your distance from the facts" -me
Anyone who believes that Kent Hovind's legal conviction is anything but politically and professionally motivated is living in a dream world. If the law finds him guilty, then he presumably is breaking the law, but watch out! Many politicians side-step law when it is convenient and supreme court judges create law when it is outside the powers given them by the constitution. It is in these matters that Kent Hovind compared the legal system to Hitler... you may find it cognitively satisfying to laugh at his comparisons of government to the mafia, but all you have to do is watch the news with a memory longer than most of you have years on this planet and you will see how much of his "faulty science" turns out to be accurate. You might even discover his true innocence. Avoiding making yourself a target of the IRS doesn't make you guilty. It makes you wise to the system they use to try to catch people doing what the IRS has determined is wrong.
That said, I would have paid the taxes if I were in his shoes because I'd be more worried that what I was doing was not glorifying God. I'd rather glorify God rather than be correct about any amount of taxes... but I'm not him.
-a fundamentalist
How can we argue for truth with someone that believes truth is relative?
ReplyDeleteThe only people I've ever heard argue that truth is relative have been Christians. I find myself asking how one can argue at all with someone who openly uses logical fallacies and hasn't got the courage to sign his name to his posts. But then one gets used to this sort of thing when dealing with reality-challenged fundamentalists.
Trotting out a list of scientists — some of whom were theists as you claimed, some of whom later abandoned their theism — is nothing more than the appeal to authority fallacy. It is also a fallacy to assume, as you have done, that just because there are some Christians in history who have been brilliant, it necessarily follows that all Christians — especially clowns like Kent Hovind, who got his phony Ph.D. from a phony mail-order degree mill — are equally brilliant by association. The existence of brilliant Christians (whether or not any of the names on your list actually represent any of them, and some don't) doesn't mean that there are not, in fact, stupid Christians. We deal with them here all the time....
Whatever "scientific evidence" you think Hovind has presented would not be endorsed by any of the people on the list you've given, nor is it endorsed by any legitimate scientist of repute working today. Not one of these historical figures would have accepted Hovind's young earth claims. As for your attempt to associate the achievements of the people on your list with Christianity, you should be reminded that figures like Darwin, Copernicus and Galileo went against Church dogma, and were often punished for it.
Galileo was placed under house arrest by the Church. And another scientist you neglected to name, Giordano Bruno, was executed by the Church for suggesting that the little points of light in the sky at night were actually suns like our own sun, and that some of them might have planets like our own Earth. So much for Christianity's wonderful contribution to the sciences.
No science of any kind supports a young earth, and it is safe to say that anyone in 2007 who still believes the earth is 6000 years old is a born fool. But how can we argue for truth with someone who rejects the findings of modern science in favor of the proclamations of a 2000-year-old holy book produced by an ancient, unenlightened and barbaric culture?
I am not sure what you mean when you suggest Hovind's conviction is "politically and professionally motivated," but it sounds like you're offering up just the kind of vague conspiracy theory one typically hears from Hovind's few remaining defenders.
If the rest of us are dreaming that Hovind might actually be guilty of crimes, then ask yourself why, if the idea that there was a conspiracy to "get him" is so obviously true, Hovind's attorney failed to present evidence of it in court in the interests of getting his client acquitted. Indeed, ask yourself why Hovind's defense presented no case at all, leading to a guilty verdict in under three hours' deliberation. Were they hoping God would descend upon the courtroom and save Hovind in the nick of time with divine intervention? Why didn't God make the truth known to the judge and the jury, so that his courageous servant Kent could be freed?
If it was Hovind's goal to avoid making himself a target of the IRS, he failed miserably, as his every action over a period of years was practically a flagrant dare to the IRS to nail him. Eventually they obliged. Hovind has consistently displayed an attitude that he is above the law. He boasted to his associate, David Charles Gibbs, that he had "beat the system" and that tax laws did not apply to him. He boasted he preferred to deal in cash, as it isn't traceable. His refusal to get a simple $50.00 building permit for his dippy dinosaur park resulted in three years of legal wranglings, resulting in eventual fines of over $10,000.
Hovind's actions are all a matter of record. Refuse to face them if you will. I think you ought to reconsider just who's "living in a dream world."
So any evidence you might think exists of Kent Hovind's innocence is obviously of equal caliber to that which he offered for a young earth. Which is why he's in jail and his appeal was rejected.
As you are willing to admit you'd have paid your taxes were you in his shoes, it would seem to indicate you know in your heart of hearts that what Hovind did was wrong, but your fundamentalism is confusing you — as fundamentalism tends to do — as to the boundaries between the truth and the "dream world" in which you think Hovind's critics (but in actuality, Hovind and his supporters) live.
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
ReplyDeleteSir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Charles Darwin (1809-1895)
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
You asked if your evidence was suspect in the same manner that Hovind's is...and the answer is, "yes".
First of all, you're relying on several logical fallacies:
1. argument from authority
- As Martin pointed out, the individual beliefs of these scientists have no bearing on whether or not a god exists or whether or not belief is justified.
2. equivocation
- You said "These individuals believed in God. Although it has been said that Christians are stupid, the list above gives me evidence to the contrary..." However, you're equating theism (belief in a God) with Christianity (belief in a particular god).
Second of all, I have a sneaking suspicion that you're simply quoting someone else's list of scientists who believed in God. It's a shame you didn't bother to find out how reliable that evidence was before you quoted it...which makes you a bit like Hovind.
Thirdly, none of us here are claiming that all Christians are stupid. That sort of melts away the whole point of your argument. At most, I would claim that there is no rational justification for belief and that believing things without justification is, in my opinion, stupid. However, this has very little to do with the intelligence of any individual or the capability of individuals to be brilliant outside of their religious beliefs.
When you dig into antiquity, of course you're going to find many scientists who believed in a god. The level of human knowledge was such that many more people believed in a god. We now have more answers...and the situation is changing. Among the elite scientists of today, less than 15% believe in a personal god.
While the beliefs of these famous individuals are irrelevant, let's take a look - just to see how "suspect" your evidence is:
Bacon's views on God were very different from what you're implying. He believed that logic, reason and scientific investigation were the true path to knowledge and, more specifically, to the only knowledge of any use to men - knowledge of the material world. He believed in God but considered religion a private matter separate from everything else. Religion was separate from philosophy. Ethics were rooted in reason and involved our duty to humanity, they had nothing to do with our duty to God, and vice versa. He was an Anglican and believed in God, certainly - but his views aren't recognizable as the sort of Christianity you seem to be linking him to.
Darwin? Saying that Darwin believed in God is like saying I believed in God. I used to...but I don't any more. Darwin answered the question on many occassions, stating that he gave up Christianity at age 40 and that agnostic was a good description of his position.
Planck's views on religion are a little different from your own. He was a Christian but looked on all religions favorably, as matters of faith purely separate from science. He rejected the notion of unquestioning belief and wrote: "the faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time." Clearly he didn't believe in miracles.
Einstein's views on God are clear and every list like this seems to include him - making every list like this horribly flawed. Einstein didn't believe in a God in the way you do. No personal deity, no benevolent creator, just the complex laws of the universe - the "god" of Spinoza". Here's a quote from him after some other theist tried to twist his words to support their own belief in a god:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Please stop including Darwin and Einstein in your list...Bacon, Planck and the others should be on it (some more so than others) but including Darwin and Einstein only testifies to your propensity to see what you want to see - instead of the reality of the situation.
Matt d and Martin Wagner,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your full rebuttals. I have to admit that I made qute a leap from various beliefs
in God (per the loose list) and being a Christian, and a fundamentalist one at that.
I was also up too late, but that is my own fault.
One point I was making was that giving up one's belief in God, does not necessarily make one
more intelligent, enlightened, or more correct.
The point I was making about the legal conviction being politically motivated is not about a
conspiracy theory, nor is it in any way to make him out to be right about taxes. It was about
how in spite of the fact that too many people and corporations are doing corrupt things, it is
interesting to watch who actually gets taken down, why, and when.
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. There are plenty of people who love to find others who
claim to have answers to life's questions (but are not perfect), and take them down like crabs
in a barrel. I think it's human nature for most. Take down an uppity person to make yourself
feel better. It's almost the American way these days.
"Fundamentally", he should have taken his case to court under the agreement that if he was found
to be incorrect that he would pay the taxes and any applicable fines (unless I misunderstand
what his options were at some earlier point). "Give unto Caesar..." was said earlier in the
thread and that is Biblical.
So, I cannot defend the many decisions he made about taxes.
I really could be wrong, but it is interesting how he was not only a target of tax fraud, but of
ridicule for his scientific beliefs.
If there is another thread for this next part, clue me in and I'll move the scientific debate,
if one anyone wants to step up to the plate, over there.
I would be amazed at how many people call themselves Christians and think that although the
Bible speaks of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ (subjective), that somehow Scripture
is not Objective. I would be amazed, that is, if the Bible itself didn't tell me that many
people would do just that.
Scripture itself claims to be objective. As a fundamentalist, I believe, that the greatest
reason for athiests is Christians, who in spite of their claims to believe in God, do not fully
subscribe to all of scripture, nor do they read it daily. I am a fundamentalist, probably for
some of the same reasons many of you are athiests. I do not like hypocrisy. If I have come
across as hypocritic, I will certainly take a look into it. I am willing to look and find
myself wrong, but hopefully not a hypocrite.
I want to debate some of what is being called junk science if I can continue to find the time.
I have made a fossil. I have seen stalactites form in a matter of years, not centuries. Ice
forms rings with freezing and thawing cycles, not just years. If 174 different cultures around
the world have flood legends, why do we contiue to debate if it ever happened?, etc...
There are too many inconsistencies in evolutionary "theory" (macroevolution) for it to be a law,
as many take it to be. Based on Thomas Kuhn's ideas of scientific inquiry and paradigms, I
believe we are ripe for a shift.
If there is no God, I wonder if there is any reason for us to be debating any of this at all,
since when we die there will have been no point to it.
-A fundamentalist, Brad L.
There are plenty of people who love to find others who claim to have answers to life's questions (but are not perfect), and take them down like crabs in a barrel. I think it's human nature for most. Take down an uppity person to make yourself feel better.
ReplyDeleteExcept this is simply not why Hovind was "taken down". He was taken down because he flagrantly violated tax law.
Sure there are corrupt corporations. Sometimes they get taken down, too, like Enron. Heck, our whole White House right now is as corrupt as they come. Sometimes the bad guys get what they deserve, and sometimes they get away. A shame, but there it is.
"Fundamentally", he should have taken his case to court under the agreement that if he was found to be incorrect that he would pay the taxes and any applicable fines (unless I misunderstand what his options were at some earlier point).
Except in our criminal justice system, the accused, while he has several rights, does not enjoy among them the right to tell the prosecutors what punishments he is willing to accept, and to agree to be tried under. You can always get your lawyers to plea, but Hovind didn't do this.
I do not like hypocrisy. If I have come across as hypocritic, I will certainly take a look into it. I am willing to look and find myself wrong, but hopefully not a hypocrite.
I don't see that you have been hypocritical, only that you have come to some incorrect conclusions about things (like Hovind's guilt), based either on misinformation or misunderstanding.
There are too many inconsistencies in evolutionary "theory" (macroevolution) for it to be a law, as many take it to be.
Based on the brief examples you have given, I do not get the impression you know what you are talking about here, and your claim about "inconsistencies" in evolution comes across as just parroting a boilerplate creationist talking point. I do not get the impression you have actually studied the subject of evolution in sufficient depth to have reached an informed opinion on its validity. Certainly you have not studied it as thoroughly as the legions of working biologists worldwide, who have devoted their lives and careers to just such a study, and who have concluded evolution is factual.
Virtually every scientific theory has holes and gaps. That is why the process of scientific inquiry is an ongoing one. Theories are revised, amended, often thrown out and rewritten from scratch. But evolution has held up over 150+ years, and new discoveries all seem to shore its basic precepts up more and more.
You can think of it in terms of a simple visual metaphor. Imagine you have a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle. You've got a lot of it done, but you're missing about 50 to 100 pieces. But overall, you can tell it's a picture of the Eiffel Tower. Based on what you have so far, while the picture is incomplete, it is reasonable to conclude that, when all those missing pieces are found, you'll still have a picture of the Eiffel Tower. It is not reasonable to conclude that the missing pieces will suddenly transform the picture into one of Mount Rushmore.
If there is no God, I wonder if there is any reason for us to be debating any of this at all, since when we die there will have been no point to it.
Atheists always feel a twinge of sadness when we hear believers say things like this, as it demonstrates how religion has stripped you of the ability to love and appreciate the beauties and wonders of life itself.
Do you honestly think there will have been no point to your life unless you "wake up" following your death to find God standing there, smiling, with a big heavenly reward to hand you? What a bleak view of life. Honestly, think of three nice things that happened today to you (if you can)? Do you have children? Did they smile at you and say "Hi Daddy?" Did you pet a dog today? Enjoy the sunset? Listen to a beautiful piece of music? Savor a tasty meal? Take a deep breath of clean, fresh air? Or just take a pleasant nap on a comfy recliner?
Did you do any of those things? And, if so, do you still feel there was no point to them without their being validated by the post-mortem prospect of meeting your God? Is the afterlife so important to you that this one is nothing but a waiting room, with blank walls, bad muzak and tattered magazines, where all you're doing is twiddling your thumbs in boredom?
Again I say...what a bleak, depressing view of life.
With regard to your specific objections to evolutionary theory, they've all been addressed - many times over.
ReplyDeleteHere's (probably) the most complete list of responses to various creationist claims:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Answers to your specific objections:
I have made a fossil.
I don't see how this is an objection to evolutionary theory. Was your fossil reliably dated to millions of years? Are you implying that your ability to make a fossil renders the rest of them fraudulent? That's quite a leap from a single data point.
I have seen stalactites form in a matter of years, not centuries.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD250.html
Essentially, they're a different type of stalactite and we can easily identify the difference. This may be a bad analogy, but we can tell the difference between natural diamonds and manufactured diamonds. It's a bad analogy because that may not always be the case...I only include it as a quick example of how something can be similar at one level, yet completely different at another.
Ice forms rings with freezing and thawing cycles, not just years.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html
If 174 different cultures around the world have flood legends, why do we contiue to debate if it ever happened?
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html
Actually, some of us don't debate whether or not it happened. A global flood never occurred. There's no evidence to support the claim and much evidence to reject it. All hypotheses which support a global flood rely on explanations invented out of whole cloth. Consider Kent Hovind's hypothesis, as an example. He rails against evolution and then proposes a water canopy that has no evidenciary support and is scientifically impossible (the required vapor canopy wouldn't have produce "Eden" it would have increased Earth's pressure and temperature beyond the Cinderella zone) - which leaves him appealing to miracles.
macro evolution
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
(Probably most of the 900 series)
-----------
When Martin said that he was convinced you hadn't really looked into things carefully, this is probably why.
You're repeating many of Hovind's claims when real experts have responded to them many times over.
Somehow the word of real scientists isn't making it out into the pews, while Hovinds fictions are simply repeated. Why is that?
Could it be that, in truth, most believers are only interested in things that support their beleifs and not in what is actually true?
I am pretty sure your just cussing and doing this because you know he's right..He has scientific proof. And sorry if you think he's a horrible person, but frankly, by making this, your a horrible person. Kent Hovind is trying to save us not destroy us. And, if ya like it or not, Im trying to get President Bush to pardon him thank you very much. Have a nice day. Wanna talk to me? My email is faith_springs2006@yahoo.com
ReplyDeleteI'd say that one was a joke, but Hovind's followers do seem to be exactly that stupid and deluded!
ReplyDeleteIf it was a parody, anon, it was a brilliant one! Spot on!
Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your rull responses. I can tell you took time to reply in full, but you have probably been here before and could have almost cut and pasted your own replies. I know most of us (believers)come to the same conclusions for similar reasons, and these replies get pretty manotanous so thank you.
I can't speak for te others, but for me, I think I bit off more than I could chew with what is going on in my life, so I have to say touche for taking on my challenge. A few years back I could have kep my word more fully to rebut some of what you have come back with.
Re:Matt d. (scientific stuff)
I do wonder about a few things however.
According to this source.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
this was found there:
"[R]adiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older."
How is it that we date anything older than this, if such a finely calibrated instrument is to be trusted? We know that the industrial revolution has begun a spew a great deal of carbon into the atmosphere, but "real scientists" also have pointed out that volcanoes and other natural phenomenon account for a much greater amount of carbon in the atmosphere and in the surface of the planet.
For reasons such as this, I assume there are other dating methods that account for much older timelines. I have not come across them in my searches (admittedly a curiosity only).
I don't trust carbon dating based on it's instability, which is evident by the inability to use it very recently or very long ago.
My reference to making a fossil wasn't meant to say that fossils can't be very old (millions of years), but rather two things:
1 Fossils are made through a wet process such as flooding. Dry processes produce bone-powder (putting it in layman's terms).
2 Fossils CAN be made in a short period of time so millions of years are not necessary.
In short, I do not consider these "scientific" areas concretely sewn up.
===============================
Re: Martin (personal stuff)
I actually live a very full life. Realizing that I could also live a very full life without believing in God, but rather believing in something else like science that doesn't prove anything.
My point about thinking that this will mean nothing if all we do is die in the end, wasn't meant to be construed as making the conversation uninsteresting. My point was that I believe that the whole reason for reason itself is for SOME reason. Something greater than myself. All by itself, it has given me some new information... a web site full of answers etc... (thanks for that) for one.
As for what was wonderful today? My 6 and 9 year old helped out in daycare at church with their 2 year old brother and the kids with him. They were all blessed and so was I.
I was able to teach a number of life lessons to each of them (would take pages).
I conforted my daughter who told me a secret she was worried about and got to be a support for her and calm her fears... a wonderful feeling.
I thanked God for the good weather just as I do the bad weather.
I took notice of the beauty of a flower and shared some helpful advice with my wife. I also took a portion of "humble pie" from my wife for an admonisment of how I had a particular misplaced priority and thought to myself how wonderful it was that she would care enough to correct me.
I had a great day. Not all Christians live in bleary dread waiting for an angry God to show mercy on their pittiful little selves.
===========================
I do wonder one thing, though. If disbelieving in God is so much better, why is it that the steps that many societies have taken AWAY from God have led specifically toward the destruction of that nation. See the book "When Nations Die" by Black on the historical portion of that.
Thanks again gentlemen, I may not be back simply for time. I may try from time to time if I am still welcome.
-A fundamentalist, Brad L.
Faith Springs and some others...
ReplyDeleteFrom one believer to another, can be please have some more grace in the room?
I really meant what I said when I blogged that the greatest reason for Athiest is Christians. Jesus called for peace on a personal level (not to be confused with governmental powers which are clearly given to governments to exercise)
I may disagree with them about the truth and how they arrive where they do, but I don't dispise their desire for truth. If you have read the analogy above about the large puzzle appearing to be the Eiffel Tower, my point is that I believe the pieces go together a different way and that many "real scientists" have jammed the pieces together in the hopes that they will make an Eiffel Tower rather than the Mount Rushmore that is claimed.
... but we accomplish nothing by demeaning those that need the same grace we also have received.
God Bless you gentltmen as you search for truth. (no offense meant or implied) My best friend is an agnostic deist.
-A fundamentalist, Brad L.
Hello Brad...Here are some quick thoughts in reply...
ReplyDeleteMy point about thinking that this will mean nothing if all we do is die in the end...
Shakespeare died, and yet his plays live on. Da Vinci and Michelangelo died, and yet their art lives on. Mozart and John Coltrane died, and yet their music lives on. Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock died, and yet their films live on.
Not everyone will create lasting work that will live on after they die. But it's what we do with our lives while we're here that makes our lives meaningful, and that can be achieved on a small scale as well as a big scale. If a person really thinks life will have meant nothing once you die, then he should perhaps review how he's living his life right now.
And if, for the sake of argument, we accept the notion that we don't just die at the end, but go on to some glorious afterlife: how does that fact have any bearing on whether or not this life meant anything or meant nothing?
An afterlife would not convey "meaning" on your present life simply by its existence. Unless you adopt a belief system that tells you the only "meaning" this life can have is one in preparation of the afterlife. But lacking any credible evidence at all for such an afterlife, that would seem to be a wasteful and unwise use of this life.
If disbelieving in God is so much better, why is it that the steps that many societies have taken AWAY from God have led specifically toward the destruction of that nation.
Right now in Europe, there are countries like Norway which are thriving democracies, and yet in which only about 10% of the population are churchgoers. People, given a choice, quite often realize that it's possible and even preferable to live in purely secular cultures where the government plays no part in religious practice.
I suspect what you're referring to are Eastern Communist countries like the Soviet Union. But a nation that tries to impose atheism on its population is just as wrong-headed as one that tries to impose theocracy. The ideal society respects freethought, and allows personal decisions (like religion) to be left to the citizens. And in any event, the USSR wasn't destroyed for reasons of atheism; it collapsed because communism is a failed economic theory and the whole thing crumbled from within.
While we atheists certainly consider life without religion to be preferable, we would never force that choice on others or assume that the way to live that's best for us is equally the best for everyone. We're all about the free exchange of ideas. You don't get people to abandon bad beliefs through force. They make the decision to abandon their own bad beliefs through education.
While religion has served useful functions in culture (such as fulfilling a sense of community), we simply take the opinion that all of religion's benefits could be just as easily appreciated in a secular context, only without the requirement of irrational belief in invisible beings to go along with it.
Though I could do so, I'll allow Matt to respond to your scientifically-directed questions, since you asked him.
Well heck, while I'm here.
ReplyDeleteFor reasons such as this, I assume there are other dating methods that account for much older timelines. I have not come across them in my searches (admittedly a curiosity only).
Yes, there are many other methods of dating, such as radiometric isochron dating. Carbon-14 dating not only just takes you back about 50K years, but it also only works on stuff that used to be alive. For older rock formations, mainly igneous rocks, radiometric dating is used.
Fossils CAN be made in a short period of time so millions of years are not necessary.
But that alone is no argument in favor of a young Earth.
Briefly (as you only seemed interested in a quick glance, anyway)...
ReplyDeleteYour concerns about the accuracy of radio-carbon dating aren't justified. Without intentionally being insulting, they're the result of your tendency to accept claims that support your beliefs and your disinterest in trying to actually find the truth. There are answers at the site I sent you to.
Scientists don't typically rely on just one method and the creationist examples of inaccuracy are strawmen. It doesn't matter that you can get a flawed reading on item X using method Y - what matters is this: for item X, have we dated it using reliable methods M, N and O - and are those dates consistent within acceptible margins of error?
You're correct that other dating methods are used for dates beyond 50,000 years - as Martin pointed out.
You're correct to point out that fossils can be made quickly - but you seem to have missed the significance of that.
This is what I mean when I refer to the "way" religious people think. I'm not slamming you and saying you're stupid or anything - it's a different way of thinking, and it happens to be one which is flawed and leads to unsupported conclusions.
You got it in your head that fossils form over millions of years and that a quick-forming fossil is somehow evidence against evolutionary theory. This is completely backward.
Fossils that form quickly give us the best information as they may contain tissue that is critical to helping us learn more about the plant or animal.
The issue isn't "how quick did this fossil form" it's "how long ago did this fossil form" - THAT is what we're dating. The age of the fossil, not the time to form.
As a quick analogy, when I ask how old a doughnut is, I don't care how long it took to fry - I care about how long it's been sitting on that shelf. ;)
-Matt
Just to let everyone know - You can hear the other side of the story at:
ReplyDeleteFreeHovind.com
The FreeHovind site appears to be little more than a compendium of Hovind's YEC silliness, accompanied by a petition to pardon him. Evidently Hovind's supporters understand the legal system about as little as they do biology and paleontology. Or at the very least they have a hard time with this concept called "the law". Kent broke da law. Kent go to da pokey. It's like that, kids. "Spreading the Creation message" won't change that fact any more than it's changed the facts about evolution and the age of the Earth. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteAtheist? Been there done that. Quite empty and confused. The meaning of life... personal and as a planet?. Bothered me, I could not find it.
ReplyDeleteMy heart told me my life was worth something..but when i thought I realised i would be forgoten just as the generations beffore us are. Who has time for them?
The whole deal seemed meaningless. Now I could set e purpose for my life, but was there really one,outside of me. Was a purpose in existence? Was a purpose in being born? What is the purpose of dying?
I don't know if you people are ever bothered by these questions? I tried to fill my life with laughter and jokes, and making fun of others ... it was a way of leting my frustration out. But it did not make me happy or bring me peace.
Why born? why living? Why dying and what deos that mean? I could not find answers to these questions. Not that would satisfy my inner need for assurance and clarity.
But what a difference Jesus has made in my life!
I know I am born in His plan, I live because of His plan and I am going to be with my Creator after I leave this earth. I experience his love and presence now. He has made my world colorful and bright.
Complete in meaning and purpose.
May you find the Sorce of all and be satisfied to the full!
Blessings on you
Homer
Christian? Been there done that. Completely empty and confused.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if you felt your life was meaningless until you attached yourself to a collection of ancient myths and legends about an invisible magic man in the sky.
You say you could not find answers to questions about "meaning and purpose" that plagued you. The thing is, we have. Most atheists find meaning within our lives, not in the realm of dreams. For us, the love of our families and friends; the fulfillment of our careers; the excitement of the pursuit of knowledge; the pleasure we take in simple little moments of day to day life, like admiring the beauty of a sunset or listening to a stirring piece of music or poetry...
Alas, none of these things is ever good enough for a Christian. Whatever life offers you, you feel entitled to more, more, more!
Naturally, I am given to wonder to what degree you already suffered from the crushingly low level of self-esteem you describe before religion came along to exploit it, or whether or not you simply allowed religion to convince you there was no other way to be happy than to swear fealty to it. Either way, your ability to appreciate and draw happiness from the beauty of life itself — as well as your ability to understand that what makes life meaningful is its very brevity and fragility, thus inspiring us to make the most of each day and leave behind a legacy we can be proud of — has forever been stripped from you. And for that you have my sympathies.
If you can only derive "meaning and purpose" in your life from wispy promises of magical gifts from another world, and the "love" of an invisible being and not from the real people who surround you, hey, so be it. Keep in mind that this "meaning and purpose" of yours is motivated solely by fear and anxiety: fear of your own death, of your own insignificance in the "grand scheme of things". And that your religious beliefs do not really answer these fears, but mask them, sweep them under the rug where you can pretend they no longer exist. The "plan" you feel you are now part of is merely a placebo. As I said, I know. I've been there.
As atheists, we are not running from the fears you've confessed to having, but confronting them and looking ahead to actual goals we can achieve in this lifetime.
It would be nice, I guess, if we got to live forever in a paradise where nothing ever went wrong and we got to hang out with our beneficent cosmic daddy — though I confess the "meaning and purpose" of such a static existence, lasting for eternity but apparently not directed at any kind of goal or process of intellectual or moral advancement, totally eludes me.
But as we have no credible evidence for the existence of such an afterlife beyond the delusions of people who desperately wish to believe in it based on their choice to fear and hate the one life we do have, it is incumbent upon us to make this life as close to heaven as we know how. One day, we may yet succeed, if the people who prefer this alleged afterlife can hold off blowing us up with car bombs or shooting us or crashing airplanes into our buildings long enough.
Thanks for hoping that my life will be satisfied to the full, Homer, but like you said, been there done that. I'm grown up enough to know that that is my responsibility, that it is something I have to earn and work for, and that no one — let alone an invisible magic man in the sky — is simply going to hand it to me because I'm too scared to figure it out for myself. May the Sorce be with you, Homer, ol' buddy! You'll need it when the day comes that you can't hide from reality any more.
this man will walk free and he will fght evolution thats the whole reason why he is looked up, a scam set up by the goverment to contain him from speaking the truth. just like the law murdered Jesus.
ReplyDeleteYou said: It would be nice, I guess, if we got to live forever in a paradise where nothing ever went wrong and we got to hang out with our beneficent cosmic daddy — though I confess the "meaning and purpose" of such a static existence, lasting for eternity but apparently not directed at any kind of goal or process of intellectual or moral advancement, totally eludes me.
ReplyDeleteI am very curios to know how have you been a christian, and what was that you believed then.
From your above description of what you think Heaven is like, I get a feeling that you had it all wrong in the first place. I would not want to go either in a Heaven like you describe,it would be boring. I understand your veiw but just for the sake of the argument, if God created this earth, and is not boring, how and why would He create a heaven (that is suposed to be better place) that was going to be boring. That is not logical.
Heaven will be a place of learning experiencing, feeling and growing, endlessly.
As an Atheist I could not believe in a God because the picture that I head in my mind was not acceptable. I can understand you. But let me tell you that if God was such as you say, I would not be interested either.
Also as a Christian my capacity to love people, enjoy, feel and experience all those little moments of life, that you mention, has encreased not decreased.
Actually from my point of veiw now, believing that dead matter just by pure chance created all the beauty of life takes more faith than believing that the fingerprints of an inteligent artist are the cause...
Anyway...
Responding to love is natyral. When you understand and experience the love of God in Jesus, loving God back is the most natural thing to do.
I am not religios, but I am in love with the One that loved me first. And I can't help it.
Heaven will be a place of learning experiencing, feeling and growing, endlessly.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know this how? Have you been there? Have you seen travel brochures? Videos? Heard from people who went there, stayed a long while, and came back to tell of their experiences?
Of course not. You are simply constructing this belief in heaven as how you want it to be, just as you have constructed a god to provide you with the love and purpose in your life you never believed you had. Say that you are not religious all you like, but a rose is a rose is a rose.
Also as a Christian my capacity to love people, enjoy, feel and experience all those little moments of life, that you mention, has encreased not decreased.
I'm happy to hear that, though I wonder why you didn't bring it up before. In any case, you'll note that the difference is that by your own admission, you weren't able to experience the appreciation of these things until you were Christian, while we do not need Christianity to do so ourselves.
This is where we're coming from as atheists. We're basically regular folks trying to live our lives, and around every corner, people keep trying to put religion in our way. An example would be two people standing in a lush, beautiful garden. One of them says to the other, "You know, there are fairies that live in this garden and make everything grow." The other one says, "Where? I don't see any fairies. If you showed me evidence of fairies, I might believe you, but as far as I can see, the garden grows naturally all by itself, and it doesn't need fairies to tend it." And then the first person says, "What? How can you appreciate the beauty of this garden if you don't believe in fairies!?" And then they go on to tell him how meaningless his life is.
That's what we as atheists have to put up with from folks like you, and it gets really old. Believe in your fairies all you like. Just don't bother us about it.
Actually from my point of veiw now, believing that dead matter just by pure chance created all the beauty of life takes more faith than believing that the fingerprints of an inteligent artist are the cause.
I suspect that's because your point of view is untroubled by any actual scientific knowledge of how the universe works. While we certainly do not have all the answers, there are no observations to be made of the earth and the universe that can credibly support the notion that it was all put here for us. If the premise of theism is that some all-powerful sentient being created the whole universe with the residents of a single planet in mind, then there are a few problems. As Christians like to bring up "chance" arguments, I'll use one myself (though just for argument's sake — it isn't a strictly scientific approach).
Our solar system is only one of about 100 billion star systems in our galaxy. There are another 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. So, even if the premise is true, the odds of us living on the relevant planet are, at best, one in 10,000 billion billion, or 1:10^22.
If we also take into account all of the billions of species that have ever lived on this planet, the odds are further diminished.
Due to limitations on the speed of light and age of the universe, we can only observe a fraction of the universe that may actually be out there. In principle, the universe may be infinite (though this isn't actually thought to be true), with infinitely many galaxies. So at the limit, the odds that a god cares about us at all — even if the underlying premise is true — are precisely zero.
Also, you're taking a very selective view of conditions on Earth. There is a lot of "beauty of life" to be sure. But there are also diseases and natural disasters. Most of the Earth, in fact, is completely hostile to human life, not amenable to it. Over 70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, where we cannot live. Even on land, there are areas of environmental extremes — the Sahara Desert, the poles — where conditions are too hostile to support human life. Why would an "intelligent artist" create the beings he chose to be "in his image," then plop them on a world that is not particularly well suited to them?
Sure, if you understand how the natural processes by which life arose on this planet actually work, it all makes a little more sense. But once you invoke an all-powerful deity who presumably had us in mind from the beginning — indeed, as far as scripture goes, is supposed to have put us here first, then created the animals — it makes no sense at all that this "intelligent artist" didn't go about his business more intelligently. There should be no reason why this Earth could not have been the "Heaven" that Christians dream of going to.
And as for us, we're not particularly impressive specimens for an all-powerful intelligent artist to have come up with. Our bodies are prone to all manner of ailments. Our spinal columns are weak and susceptible to damage; back problems are common. Our circulatory systems are easily clogged by plaques that lead to heart disease, the most common killer among us. Our appendixes serve no useful function at all, and seem inordinately prone to life threatening inflammation. Our knees bend the wrong way for optimally efficient locomotion. Our respiratory systems allow all manner of infection right into our chest cavities. Seriously, what intelligent artist would let such slipshod work go by?
Responding to love is natyral. When you understand and experience the love of God in Jesus, loving God back is the most natural thing to do.
It is natural to respond to love. But is delusional to "respond" to love one claims to be receiving from a being for whose existence there is no credible evidence, and who appears to be merely a figment of one's imagination; just as it is delusional for "breatharians" to claim to be receiving nutritional sustenance when they refuse to eat any food. Sorry, but when I hear testimonials from people who profess "love" for a being who exists nowhere but in their minds, all I can think is how lonely that person must be. Religion, it seems, is something that keeps our species in infancy, when we were at an age to concoct imaginary playmates to compensate for the real ones we lacked. No offense, this is just how the whole thing looks from the rational side of the fence.
this man will walk free and he will fght evolution thats the whole reason why he is looked up, a scam set up by the goverment to contain him from speaking the truth. just like the law murdered Jesus.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Hovindites demonstrate how completely divorced from reality they are. When Hovind goes free — after serving his full sentence — he may well continue to "fght" evolution. But he may as well fight the weather. Living things will continue to evolve, as they always have done, regardless of what uneducated dolts like you or Hovind believe, and regardless of whatever war against reality you insist on fighting. As for the "scam" you claim the government is running, these are commonly known as "laws," and I suggest you acquaint yourself with them. Otherwise, your separation from reality seems to be evidence of genuine mental illness, and I hope — though I'm not confident — that you will get the help you truly need before your entire life is thrown away.
Dear Martin
ReplyDeleteI am posting this last one. Not that I don’t like the discussion. I just don’t want to be a headache, and I respect you.
If you like me to continue after this one, please let me know.
From before being a Christian I am an artist – a painter. I think I must have had some appreciation for beauty and enjoy a lot of the things of life. I just said I do love more and enjoy more now. And the quality has changed. Loving like Jesus did when he prayed from the cross for those who crucified him is not what I could do before.
My evidence for Paradise comes from the Bible and Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one that came from heaven. He knows all about it. And all those that come to a living relationship with God, through Jesus can enjoy glimpses of it.
Since there is a lot you brought up I will try to sift though few of the things:
If the premise of theism is that some all-powerful sentient being created the whole universe with the residents of a single planet in mind, then there are a few problems.
We don’t know what goes on on other planets, either way. I am not a scientist but still it looks to me that everything is in such a perfect balance for life on earth to exist that if things where just different to a small degree, life would be impossible. How come such perfection!
It makes no sense at all that this "intelligent artist" didn't go about his business more intelligently. There should be no reason why this Earth could not have been the "Heaven" that Christians dream of going to.
You are right. God gave Adam and Eve this earth, (although it must have been a lot different from what it is now). It is because of sin and the implications of it that neither men nor the earth are what where meant to be.
Actually we as men just in recent history have been able to cause a lot of problems to it and have all the means to destroy it completely. It could be a matter of time until some kind of weapon falls into wrong hands. Things are going from bad to worst worldwide and that is what the Bible has been warning all along.
That’s the reason for Paradise. A better place! Actually the Bible writes that there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth.
All physical weaknesses we inherit and you mention are also the result of a fallen mankind. We sort of can compare ourselves to an exotic but old and rusty car that can not run that well anymore but still shows the signs of the glory it once had.
As for the design, man was not made to be the fastest, or the biggest (evolution has to explain that). But like no animal we have the capacity to create.
.Due to limitations on the speed of light and age of the universe, we can only observe a fraction of the universe that may actually be out there. In principle, the universe may be infinite (though this isn't actually thought to be true), with infinitely many galaxies. So at the limit, the odds that a god cares about us at all — even if the underlying premise is true — are precisely zero.
Again it depends on the picture you have of God. If God was like me and you – yes you are right. But He is not!
Also your illustration of the garden and the fairies does not draw your point. It makes the point that fairies could not make the garden, but not that no one planted it. It would have been crazy if the other person thought the garden was created by itself, and no one really worked on it.
It is true that man has the ability to create different gods. And I know this is confusing if you put in the same plate Confucionists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Christians.
Yet to me the wealth of religions is evidence that man has it written in his DNA his need to worship. Where does it come from?
It is evidence also that one true God must be somewhere. If all my life all I saw was counterfeit dollar bills, I still am lead to believe that there must be true ones somewhere. Otherwise why the fake ones?
If I am a dreamer, this dreaming has not started with me but with Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Have you considered Him? He was really a unique man. What was he? A mad man? Was he a deciever? Or was He who He said he Was?
I have, and have found Him to be true!
Wish you the best
Homer
Hi Homer. Thanks for the exchange. Here is my quick response to your latest comment, so that you can understand how you and I think differently.
ReplyDeleteWe don’t know what goes on on other planets, either way. I am not a scientist but still it looks to me that everything is in such a perfect balance for life on earth to exist that if things where just different to a small degree, life would be impossible. How come such perfection!
On the contrary, there isn't much perfection to be seen. As I mentioned before, there are many areas on earth where conditions are deeply hostile to life. What we learn from evolution and biology is not that the world exists in a perfect balance to support life, but rather that life has adapted, as best it can, to its environment.
In any case, things being "different to a small degree" or even a large degree would be no impediment to an all-powerful creator deity. An omnipotent deity could create life, with no effort whatsoever, to exist under any conditions, or indeed all of them. There would be no reason not to have human beings who were able to breathe both air and water, as well as survive in hard vacuum. A "perfect balance" would be entirely irrelevant to an omnipotent creator.
You are right. God gave Adam and Eve this earth, (although it must have been a lot different from what it is now). It is because of sin and the implications of it that neither men nor the earth are what where meant to be.
I knew you were going to give me this one. And I also knew you were going to overlook the incovenient truth: that God, being omnipotent, would have to have known about the "sin" that was going to mar his beautiful world ahead of time. Therefore he is either responsible for all of it, or indifferent to it, or indeed, intended for evil to be part of his "plan" all along. Either way, it doesn't seem like this would be a god worthy of worship, or even much respect.
Actually we as men just in recent history have been able to cause a lot of problems to it and have all the means to destroy it completely. It could be a matter of time until some kind of weapon falls into wrong hands. Things are going from bad to worst worldwide and that is what the Bible has been warning all along.
The "wrong hands" you're talking about here are most likely to belong to fanatic followers of your God, itching to bring about Armageddon and the End Times so they can enjoy the glory of Heaven. Yet your God does nothing to stop this.
That’s the reason for Paradise. A better place! Actually the Bible writes that there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth.
If a better place is necessary, that would seem to be a concession on the part of your God that he screwed up royally. Again, why is this being worthy of worship? He cannot seem to do anything right.
All physical weaknesses we inherit and you mention are also the result of a fallen mankind. We sort of can compare ourselves to an exotic but old and rusty car that can not run that well anymore but still shows the signs of the glory it once had.
Back pain and appendicitis are the result of a fallen mankind? Well, that seems bizarrely petty of your God, to hit us up with a bunch of little maladies in retribution for our "fall." Indeed, it is not merely petty, but downright evil, because the notion of punishing blameless descendents unto the nth generation for some alleged crime committed by ancestors in distant antiquity takes injustice to a horrible and perverse level. Imagine the police showing up at your door and saying, "Homer, we're going to run you in, because in the year 3,762 BC, an ancestor of yours stole a couple of sheep from his neighbor. You can expect to do 10-15 years." How is this justice?
As for the design, man was not made to be the fastest, or the biggest (evolution has to explain that). But like no animal we have the capacity to create.
I thought we were in "God's image". Are you thus implying that God is not the biggest or fastest?
Next you say: Again it depends on the picture you have of God. If God was like me and you – yes you are right. But He is not!
Again, everything I ever remember about God is that he made us in his image. Now you've flatly denied that twice. Which is fine, but all you've told me is that you've come up with an unorthodox definition of God that you can change around whenever you need to rebut some dissenter's criticism of him. "Oh yes, I can see what you mean, but God is really different!" Again, how do you know this? This is simply belief on your part, built to be impervious to criticism because it is forever malleable.
Also your illustration of the garden and the fairies does not draw your point. It makes the point that fairies could not make the garden, but not that no one planted it. It would have been crazy if the other person thought the garden was created by itself, and no one really worked on it.
Fair enough, so just replace the word "garden" with "forest" in my original analogy, and you'll see how it stands up.
Yet to me the wealth of religions is evidence that man has it written in his DNA his need to worship. Where does it come from?
There is still a lot of debate going on about the degree to which human beings have a genetic predisposition to worship. I don't necessarily agree with the view that they do. I can see, from a standpoint of evolutionary psychology, how religions developed because they had an advantageous quality in helping to codify laws and create community, though they also helped enhance tribalist and xenophobic tendencies, too. But anyway, even if there were such genetic predisposition, that would not be evidence for a real deity, only evidence that a certain set of behaviors played a beneficial role to the species. (To some degree. Again, I'm not satisfied with treating religion genetically. I think it can be explained wholly sociologically.)
It is evidence also that one true God must be somewhere. If all my life all I saw was counterfeit dollar bills, I still am lead to believe that there must be true ones somewhere. Otherwise why the fake ones?
Well, I must say I've seen more real dollar bills than fake ones, so I know they exist. I've never seen a real god. Also, your argument here is fundamentally silly, because you could just as easily say, "The fact there are paintings of unicorns must mean there are real unicorns, because where would anybody get the idea for a unicorn if they didn't have a real one to draw upon?" You're completely not taking into account human imagination and our long custom of mythmaking and storytelling. As you correctly mentioned earlier, we are the one species that is artistically creative. That's where unicorns and gods come from. We've always done it. Yours is just one in a long line. He wasn't the first god people worshipped, and he won't be the last.
If I am a dreamer, this dreaming has not started with me but with Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Have you considered Him? He was really a unique man. What was he? A mad man? Was he a deciever? Or was He who He said he Was?
Well, personally, I think he was a mashup of Mithra, as well as numerous other deities worshiped at the time who were said to have been born of a virigin and all the rest of it. Take a look at the history of Christianity, and you'll find yours is a belief system with virtually no original content. Just about everything has been borrowed from earlier faiths.
Thanks for stopping by!
All I know is you all need the love of Jesus Christ in your lives.
ReplyDeleteKent Hovind is a gigantic Prick. I am glad he is in jail. I am also glad that Hitler, Mussolini and David Koresh are dead (not in the order and the list is far from complete). lt's OK to be glad that justice is done. Kent Hovind in jail is only partial justice. Him getting reamed and Christians reading this and thinking "Wow, maybe religion does control me . . . and WTF was I thinking?" then . . . that's when we have final justice.
ReplyDeleteFunny - The movie producer Aaron Russo makes a movie practically endorsing tax evasion and you guys make a hero out of him.
ReplyDeleteHovind will be fine, his eternity is sealed by the Creator and Judge. I have no worries about him, you guys on the other hand, should be very concerned. Because contrary to popular belief you are one day going to die, and you will meet your maker.
And rest assured it will be a very himbing experience.
Funny - The movie producer Aaron Russo makes a movie practically endorsing tax evasion and you guys make a hero out of him.
ReplyDeleteI looked up Aaron Russo on IMDb, and I've never heard of him, nor made a hero out of him on this blog or anywhere else. In fact he's never been mentioned on this blog once. So just what are you babbling about here?
Hovind will be fine, his eternity is sealed by the Creator and Judge. I have no worries about him, you guys on the other hand, should be very concerned. Because contrary to popular belief you are one day going to die, and you will meet your maker.
Actually, dumdum, the popular belief is that we'll "meet our maker" after we die. Having been presented with zero, zip, zilch, nothing, nada in the way of convincing evidence to support that belief, we reject it as childish superstition. As with others like you, you don't offer any evidence either: you just declare it to be true. Why should we take you seriously -- especially as we've already seen you'll lie out your ass when trying to make a point?
And rest assured it will be a very himbing experience.
"Himbing"!?!?!
The Price hovind is paying does not compare to the price most of the people who agree with the views of this website will have to pay one day.
ReplyDeleteYou don't mean... Harvey the Invisible Rabbit will deny us the anointing of his Magic Carrot!?!? Oh noes!!
ReplyDelete"Let he who has no sin cast the first stone."
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Ben.
Hmm...nice try, Ben, but I don't think that's how the criminal justice system works in this country. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteI'm a deist, and that is the only way in which I differ from atheists. I don't see how fundamentalist christians believe the things they do, or any christian for that matter. They don't have hard science backing them, and all they have in regard to the miraculous is the bible's word for it. Just because the bible claims there were witnesses to, say, the parting of the red sea, or the resurrection of jesus, doesn't mean there really were witnesses. They cannot interview those supposed witnesses themselves. All they have is an ancient, outdated, book's word for it. I didn't know Kent Hovind was in prison until today. He belongs in prison or a mental institution. He is a dangerous and mentally disturbed man (I read the entry on him in wikipedia). I also believe his hardcore supporters belong in prison or the nut house too. They are as dangerous and mentally disturbed as he is.
ReplyDeleteThis is that funny. THe man didn't know what he was doing wrong. He actually wrote the IRS several times before this all happened asking if he was breaking any laws, and what to do if so. The IRS never wrote him back! How was he supposed to know. Kent Hovind is a good man trying to disprove false science.
ReplyDeleteKent believes in 'giving caesar what is his'. No one said he didn't. His anger I believe is from the IRS neglect, untill they decided to give him a charge, and from what I can tell, the process from the prosecuting attornys.
Give the guy a break; why is it anyone elses business. Don't we have enough probelems ourselves. Shouldn't we be paying attention to whats wrong in our lives and not someone elses?
My heart breaks for this man. I can almost hear the attacks on my comments as I'm typing them. Our government, has overstepped it's boundaries over and over again. God will be the judge, whether you believe in him or not. Scoff now, laugh at the idea. It disgust me what my tax dollars goto. I have to work the first 5 months of the year just to pay them. Dr Hovind, has a non-profit ministry, that just got raped by our government. Sit back and watch, God will move-- be ready, because this isn't the end of this story--- God will prevail. Shame on the I.R.S. How about the millions of illegals-- get them for taxes-- or the drug dealers-- I'm sickened by your priorities. This is simply religious persecution, no matter what sideways manner you come at it. I say again-- God will prevail--- scoffers, and those who judge this man, and those who lie and promote wrong doing are going to have there place, and soon I fear. God help you.
ReplyDeleteActually, MrPaul, Hovind never applied for, and never received, tax-exempt status for his theme park. Hovind was busted for evading taxes he duly owed, and concealing income, and was guilty on both counts. Those of you who pitifully keep protesting his innocence need to remember to ask yourselves: if Kent is so obviously innocent, why didn't his lawyer present any arguments at all in his defense?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the illegals and the drug dealers? Well, we got law enforcement agencies that deal with those things. It's not the IRS's department. Nice try at evasion, but irrelevant.
So, just keep on waiting for your God to show up and dispense his, um, justice or whatever, dude. I'm sure it'll be just as effective as the defense Kent has already got. Don't strain your heart too heavily over Hovind, MrPaul. He did the crime and now he's doing the time. The only ones who are still supporting him are those of you who are every bit as reality-challenged as he is.
Why is it so terrible that Hovind wants to defend himself and talk to his family from jail? You atheists are so blood thirsty you can't see straight. It tells me a lot that you are so happy to see someone else suffer. (regardless of why) Poor little atheists, afraid they might believe in God if this guy doesn't get 100 years in prison. I bet you worship Thoreau for tax evasion. Thoreau was unrepentant. Where's the venom for Thoreau? Poor little atheists, never have found one that could make a logical argument.
ReplyDeleteNice try, moron. Like you're such a master of logic. As if! Gaw! ROTFL and more. Mine eyes, they are rolling!
ReplyDeleteNewsflash: I don't worship Thoreau, so there. There's your whole pathetic whine down the commode. As for being "afraid" I might believe in your invisible friend if Hovind isn't jailed for life...? Uh, what? I do believe that's called a straw man. Stupid little (and I do mean little) theist, attacking us for illogic while using logical fallacies the whole time. But then, they don't exactly teach you to think in Sunday School, do they? (That was called snark.)
If your hero Kent had a defense to make, then his lawyer should have made it. Deal with reality, as tough as it is, veracious. (Hey, maybe they do teach you irony!)
Try coming back with one of your oh-so logical arguments for the existence of your god. I eagerly await being bowled over by your veraciousness!
How can you say that Illegals are another agencies responsibility? We have millions (yes MILLIONS) of illegals in this country-- who work and pay no TAXES-- the only evasion there is TAX evasion. Dr. Hovind has made his stance very clear. I won't debate you on this, because we both have our own stance. I believe that the government has no part in the governing of the Church. We have a church congregation and we pay our Pastor by check every week--- he is responsible to pay his own taxes. The church does not file tax papers each year-- Does this make us TAX-evaders? We are no more evading taxes than he was. Those who worked for the ministry could have paid there own taxes. The church is Governed by God and his ordinances-- and not by the IRS. If your ATM allows you to pull 149. out without penalty-- but 150 cost you extra-- would you repeatedly pull 149-- or 150-- this is no more criminal than what Dr. Hovind and the ministry have done in Florida. If this man were from Mexico, and drawing food stamps, the IRS wouldn't even look at him. This man is doing a good work, whether you agree with it or not--- and this is 100% PERSECUTION, and judgement by a crowd who has no fear or love for the LORD. God help those who stand back and judge any man in this manner-- one day you too will be judged. By the one who created you.
ReplyDeleteMay God open your eyes, and mine too as well to where we need to be, and what we need to be doing.
Sorry MrPaul, but I'm gonna get very Simon Cowell on your ass here. You've earned it.
ReplyDeleteHow can you say that Illegals are another agencies responsibility?
Because they are. Illegal aliens are the responsibility of the Dept. of Justice and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). (They've actually changed their name to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services.) You need to educate yourself on different government agencies and how they work.
We have millions (yes MILLIONS) of illegals in this country-- who work and pay no TAXES-- the only evasion there is TAX evasion.
No. They have entered the country without the proper visas. They have crossed the border illegally. You seem to be too ignorant to know even this.
I won't debate you on this, because we both have our own stance.
Yes we do, and yours is the one not informed by the facts (par for the course for the creationist camp). Anyway, you obviously do want to debate since you keep coming back here, evidently out of masochism. You're out of your league, my friend.
The church does not file tax papers each year-- Does this make us TAX-evaders? We are no more evading taxes than he was.
(sighs, rolls eyes in despair at yet another example of a True Believer determined to keep his head in the sand all his life) Look. I'll try to explain this in words of one or two syllables. Churches no pay taxes. Kent's theme park NOT church. Theme park business. Kent not file for tax free non profit status. So theme park must pay. Not report income. Break law. Go to jail. Duh. Simple. Do you GET that? Why is this hard? Oh, I get it. You guys do love your persecution complexes, don't you...
If your ATM allows you to pull 149. out without penalty-- but 150 cost you extra-- would you repeatedly pull 149-- or 150-- this is no more criminal than what Dr. Hovind and the ministry have done in Florida.
Oh, brilliant defense there, Johnnie Cochran. Hovind's lawyer should have tried it in court. It couldn't have been worse than the defense he actually did offer -- which was none at all.
Do something for me. Go find a nice brick wall and beat your head against it while chanting in rhythm, "I am an idiot..." BANG "I am an idiot..." BANG. There is no law about withdrawing tiny amounts from ATM's. There is a law about reporting bank account withdrawals over $10,000. The Hovinds know of this law, which is why they made all those sneaky sub-$10,000 withdrawals: to avoid having to tell the IRS what they were doing with the money. Like paying employees off the books.
That is just reality, a place I know you creos don't like to visit but exists all the same. Making up bogus comparisons does not affect what laws do and do not exist in reality. Duh.
This man is doing a good work, whether you agree with it or not--- and this is 100% PERSECUTION, and judgement by a crowd who has no fear or love for the LORD.
Waah waah boo hoo. Cry me a river. Poor widdle Christians, sooo persecuted. How dare anyone expect you to obey the same tax laws that everyone else in the country has to obey. It's just not fair!
Anyway, any man whose career involves lying is not doing "good work." Kent Hovind lies about science and makes money doing it, and then lies to the IRS about his income and tax-exempt status, all of which makes him a sleazebag.
God help those who stand back and judge any man in this manner-- one day you too will be judged. By the one who created you.
Ho hum. Appeal to fear, appeal to consequences. Logical fallacies, the weak tools of a lazy mind. You neglected the part where you have to prove this bully-creator's existence first.
May God open your eyes, and mine too as well to where we need to be, and what we need to be doing.
What you need to be doing is extracting your cranium from your posterior. And maybe going back to school.
wow! I'm a little late on the discussion. but my goodness Martin, I understand that maybe some believers on here were criticizing you, but you're relentless! You responded to almost every post on here (in depth), trying to make Christians look retarded. And I'm sure you'll say something offensive to me just because I posted on here, but seriously buddy, do something else to try and boost your self-esteem.
ReplyDeletelfc, why not go back and read some of the comments from Christians I've responded to, and then ask yourself sincerely if I'm the one making them "look retarded," or if they are. Shoot the messenger if you will, but that doesn't do anything to support the delusions of Hovind's dwindling base of supporters.
ReplyDeleteDetailed responses to false claims and inane comments are, in my experience, only offensive to people who find facts which inconvenience their deeply-held beliefs offensive. If that's where you're coming from, it's hardly the fault of me or my self-esteem, both of which are just fine, thanks.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteI read every post on here thoroughly, even before I posted. Some of the comments made by believers were embarrassing (haha), but they were only trying to defend themselves from being ridiculed. However, some posts, like those posted by "Peter" were very well thought out and respectfully put together. Yet, you made fun of him for believing in a higher power anyways.
I'm a Christian myself, but in some sense, I can't blame those who refuse to believe in God. TV evangelists, Catholic Priests, and pastors who care more about money and attendance, have given Christianity a bad name. Of course, then there's this whole Hovind deal. It's so frustrating to know that this is what nonbelievers see Christianity as.
The only thing I can say in defense to all of this is that Christians are not perfect (obviously). Christians are not better "people" because they have chosen to follow Christ. Christians make the same mistakes as anybody else (we're human beings for goodness sake).
If nothing else, respect us for our values. The Bible teaches about loving others, and treating others as you would want to be treated. Take a look at the Ten Commandments and tell me that we are wrong for following these laws.
I don't expect to "convert" you. I hope that someday you'll see Christianity more clearly, and without the influence of garbage in the media. You seem like a very intelligent man, and if you have any questions whatsoever, or if you even feel like just commenting back, feel free to respond, or shoot me an email..mrfess@hotmail.com.
- Mike
I read every post on here thoroughly, even before I posted. Some of the comments made by believers were embarrassing (haha), but they were only trying to defend themselves from being ridiculed. However, some posts, like those posted by "Peter" were very well thought out and respectfully put together. Yet, you made fun of him for believing in a higher power anyways.
ReplyDeleteI don't think your reading was as thorough as you imply. First off, I didn't "make fun" of Peter for "believing in a higher power anyways." I criticized his feeble attempts at defending Hovind. Peter asked:
What is it that angers you more; the fact that he is a tried criminal (according to our gov't) or that he teaches creationism, and believes that Jesus LOVES you and me and him.
And I responded quite clearly:
Don't care what Hovind believes about Jesus. We attack him here for being, as you surmised, a criminal fraud and huckster (according to the heaps of evidence against him) as well as a pathological liar who deceives the ignorant with his absurd young-earth creationist drivel.
Later Peter makes numerous weak attempts to defend Hovind's crimes with such feeble Biblical homilies as "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone..." Far from being "very well thought out," this sentiment is curiously insouciant for a religion that makes a big deal of being all about moral absolutes.
As for "making fun" of people (which seems to be the default description some Christians have of any atheist rebuttal to their arguments), again, consider the number of Christian comments here — most of them by people hiding behind anonymity, note how many of them consist of nothing but name calling and personal insults and slurs against atheists (sure, I called Hovind names in my initial post, but then he's a felon), and ask yourself if it's so unreasonable for me to have responded to those in kind. Christians have a habit of conveniently forgetting Matthew 7:3 in that they see no problem being as offensive and vile as humanly possible to atheists, but then wail and play martyr the minute the atheist swings back. You get what you give in life.
Christians are not better "people" because they have chosen to follow Christ. Christians make the same mistakes as anybody else (we're human beings for goodness sake).
Having once been Christian myself, I am well aware of this. If only more Christians shared your humble view of Christians' human fallibility.
If nothing else, respect us for our values. The Bible teaches about loving others, and treating others as you would want to be treated.
And very few Christians of my experience actually put this into practice. For every live and let live Christian, I see many who are grossly intolerant of anyone not of the fold. Right now, among Christian conservatives, one big push is to pass Constitutional amendments prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from enjoying the same rights as straight couples. Organizations like the Boy Scouts ban gay and non-theistic kids from membership. Right wing judges like the disgraced Roy Moore tried to impose his Biblical beliefs on his community through the illegal installation of a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse, and often made judgments from the bench that discriminated against defendants based on his religious prejudices. These are just small examples, but suffice it to say that I don't see too many examples of Christians in America going out of their way to obey the golden rule. Try walking in my shoes and your experience will be a lot different.
Take a look at the Ten Commandments and tell me that we are wrong for following these laws.
Well, which set of Ten Commandments do you mean, the one in Exodus 20 or the revised version in Exodus 34? :-)
Assuming you mean the former, well, as far as I can tell, the first four are useless, five through nine are simply common sense that no one should need to have carved on a tablet, and the tenth is silly unless it leads someone to violate #8. (After all, coveting is what drives competition in a free market economy.) And as we've seen in Hovind's example as well as throughout the entire "intelligent design" movement, so many Christians violate #9 with such wanton impunity God might as well not have bothered.
I don't reflexively have it in for all Christians, lfc, but that doesn't mean I will hold back from criticisms when they do things that are wrong, and especially when they do those things in the name of their God or to promote their beliefs, in what would seem to be clear violation of the principles on which those beliefs are supposed to stand. If you're serious about your own commitment to the Ten Commandments, the person toward whom you should be directing your ire is Kent Hovind as well as the people who lie in his defense — not the nonbeliever who happens to be exposing all this fraud and deceit, that is, as you admit, giving Christianity a bad public image. If you really do disapprove of "TV evangelists, Catholic Priests, and pastors who care more about money and attendance," then it seems you ought to be thanking me for exposing Hovind, not jumping in here with indignant and irrelevant snark about my self-esteem. What has my self-esteem got to do with anything? This is about right and wrong.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'd like to say that I'm enjoying this very much. I've only had one other instance with a full fledged atheist, and he wouldn't allow me to speak very much. Like I said before, you seem to be a very intelligent person, and the responses you've put together appear really well thought out for the most part, although there is a lot that I already anticipated an atheist would respond with.
For example, the idea that "Christians hate homosexuals". It breaks my heart that nonbelievers actually believe this. Ever since I was a child I was always taught that even though we may not agree with same sex relations, we are called to LOVE them regardless. I will agree that there are extreme christians who do submit hate towards the homosexual community, but it's not common, and sadly these are the christians that are being displayed in the media. However, we are called to LOVE and RESPECT the homosexual community, but we don't have to AGREE with their lifestyle and VOTE for their pursuit of marriage. I don't know what kind of church you went to, but I have never been to a church that taught hate towards homosexuals. If anything, Christians are becoming more accepting of the homosexual community. I'm very involved with the church, and a pastor friend of mine openly claims that he doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin.
Secondly, you talked about how, through your experience, very few (if any) Christians live out what they are taught. I won't deny that at all. That's YOUR experience. And you know what, I would agree with you in regards to the Christian community as a whole, and it's frustrating. But from MY experience the Christians I have walked through life with thus far have been trying to live life to the best of their ability, showing love to EVERYONE around them. I'm sorry that your experience did not reflect anything good, but Christianity is not about people who claim to be Christians, it's about God.
Finally, and I've heard an atheist response to this before, but I want to hear it from you....
you stated that the ten commandments are common sense and didn't need to be written. Without the Bible where do "morals" come from? If there's nothing powerful than oneself, then who says what is right and what is wrong? and what makes that person's opinion right or wrong?
Anyways, I hope to hear a response from you soon.
-Mike
Hey Mike,
ReplyDeleteFor example, the idea that "Christians hate homosexuals". It breaks my heart that nonbelievers actually believe this. Ever since I was a child I was always taught that even though we may not agree with same sex relations, we are called to LOVE them regardless.
That's great. I certainly do think a lot of Christians, especially of the right wing stripe, do hate homosexuals (I've heard the rhetoric and seen the hateful behavior firsthand), but I agree it's an unfair stereotype to apply to all Christians everywhere. In my comment, I specifically referred to a push "among Christian conservatives" to pass anti-gay legislation, so if you took that as a criticism of all Christians then I'm afraid you misunderstood me.
Without the Bible where do "morals" come from? If there's nothing powerful than oneself, then who says what is right and what is wrong? and what makes that person's opinion right or wrong?
Anyways, I hope to hear a response from you soon.
Some atheists roll our eyes at these questions because we hear them so much, but in actuality, they are good questions, so I'm happy to give you my views on them.
Human beings are like all other primates in that we are a social species. So in order for us to survive, we have evolved instincts towards group cooperation, as opposed to, say, sharks, which are just machines that eat anything that won't eat them. We've seen similar examples of ethical behaviors among gorillas and chimps, for example. We have learned as our species developed that working together is better than not working together. For example, one reason homo sapiens survived as a species while homo erectus died out is that homo sapiens, with our larger brains, figured out that joining together in hunting parties could bring down the big game, and feed more of the tribe. Homo erectus, despite their huge, linebacker sized bodies, didn't have the brains to figure this out, and never got beyond foraging. So they couldn't compete, and went extinct. Natural selection.
As humans stopped being hunter/gatherers and settled into agricultural communities on the first big step towards inventing civilization, all those cooperative behaviors became moral precepts that were understood as the kinds of behaviors best for the continued survival of the group. They were eventually codified into laws, which encouraged adherence to these moral precepts and assigned punishments for violating them. Religions eventually picked up on this -- indeed, in the early days of civilization religion and government were always pretty much the same thing -- and basically staked a claim on morality, and some religions, like Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic faiths, used the promise of reward and threat of punishment as a way to keep the flock in line.
So, after all that long-winded history, the basic answer to your question is that what we call morality is no mystery. It's something human beings are hardwired for, unless you're just plain sociopathic. When I do nice things for people, or rescue a kitten out of a ditch, or choose to refrain from chaotic and violent behaviors, I don't feel like I need to do those things so that God will put a smiley face next to my name in the Book of Life or anything. I act that way simply because I find it entirely natural to do so, just as it's entirely natural for you as well. Human beings, unless there's something really wrong, are rational beings, and as Aristotle pointed out thousands of years ago, "Virtue arises from the proper application of reason."
The objection I have -- and shared by other atheists I know -- to Christian ideas about morals is that Christianity gives people bad reasons to be good. Christians are often given mixed and confusing messages. On the one hand, salvation can only be by faith and not by works, but then there are a whole host of immoral behaviors you should avoid unless you want to land in hell. A reward/punishment based system of religious morality makes self-interest (desire for God's favor, fear of punishment) rather than altruism the motivation for moral behavior. I've actually had several Christians tell me that if there was no God, they'd see no reason not to run wild and commit mass murder and all kinds of crimes with total impunity. I'm not sure if they were being honest with themselves or with me in arguing that, or if they were just saying it, but the fact they thought they had to say something as crazy as that in the first place in order to defend Christianity and refute the idea of secular morality is pretty solid proof that their religious beliefs have given them some wildly screwed up ideas about right and wrong and why we should behave one way and not the other.
A more realistic approach might be to remind someone that the world does not revolve around them and that basically, if you're nice to people they'll be nice to you, and if you aren't nice to people, you won't have many friends. You get what you give.
That was all very interesting as far as the "where morals came from" story, but my question is, just because according to evolution doing something "wrong", like murder, is not good for the community, what makes it wrong? The People or primates long ago that decided murder was not good for the community were just people or primates like you and me. no one, or nothing, is apparently greater than each individual. Each individual does not need to submit to a higher source. Why does an individual have to submit to another individual or group of individuals opinion of right and wrong and what's best for the community?
ReplyDeletejust because according to evolution doing something "wrong", like murder, is not good for the community, what makes it wrong?
ReplyDeleteWell, because it results in someone ending up dead. That certainly isn't a good thing for them. If you're a person capable of empathy (and unless you're mentally ill or sociopathic, I'll assume you are), you can probably put yourself in that person's shoes and say, "Boy, it sure would suck if someone came along and killed me. Gee, maybe that other person has the same feelings I do."
From my standpoint, the fact I even have to explain these things and that you'd even ask the question "what makes it wrong?" in the first place demonstrates pretty conclusively that Christianity damages rather than clarifies a person's understanding of moral behaviors that are, in fact, completely natural. Christianity rejects the idea of a person's natural predilections towards empathy and group cooperation, and instead paints a picture of human beings as irredeemably corrupt and vile sinners whose only shot at redemption is through slavish devotion to God and the faith. Christianity tells people that goodness is not only not normal for people, but actually impossible unless one is redeemed by Jesus, etc. This is, in a nutshell, how Christianity takes over and controls its followers, by making them believe, in essence, "Wow, I'm completely awful, and the only thing standing between me and the worst fate I could possibly imagine — towards which I would otherwise uncontrollably hurl myself — is Jesus!"
An atheist would find it no more sensible to even need to ask "why is murder wrong?" than it would be to ask "but why shouldn't I jump off the cliff?"
Why does an individual have to submit to another individual or group of individuals opinion of right and wrong and what's best for the community?
Well, if you're not particularly keen on remaining part of that community, then I guess you don't have to. Our prisons are filled with people who decided they didn't need to conform to the culture's prevailing notions of right and wrong. But are they the happiest and most successful members of society? Who would you rather be? A killer rotting in prison, or Bill Gates?
But anyway, the idea of rewards and punishments aside, cooperating with the group to which you belong just comes naturally to most people. Otherwise, you aren't in the group anymore, and like the game show says, "You are the weakest link — goodbye!" Like poor homo erectus, you'll be selected out of the running and not survive. It's just not a thing you should need to ask "why" about.
Martin,
ReplyDeletewhy you're getting frustrated, I have no idea. I'm simply asking questions. your mindset is COMPLETELY different than mine, so I'm just curious as to what your answers are to some pretty interesting questions. (or at least I think they're interesting). You certainly aren't inclined to answer my questions either, I just like the fact that you are, and it's helping me better understand you.
This whole discussion on right and wrong has opened up the door to so many questions, but you don't have to answer them if you don't feel up to it.
1. The only answer you really gave me to my last question was, "because it results in someone ending up dead." But people die every day, whether it be from old age, to disease, to accidents. Death is a part of life. You've got to give me something else.
2. How big is our community, that a death would directly affect it long term? For example, if our community is considered all of mankind, then there's thousands of people dieing everyday in africa. Why aren't we doing absolutely everything we can to solve the death problem there?
3. Let's put murder aside. What about any other crime? What is a crime, but an individuals opinion on what's wrong. Someone a long, long time ago said "hey, that primate stole my dinner! He should be punished and put in a cave by himself!" But they've been scrounging for food all along, why all the sudden is it wrong? It's survival of the fittest. Why all the sudden is it wrong just because someone said "naughty"? The fact that one primate stole another primate's food isn't affecting any of the other primates. They had their dinner. They're fat and happy.
4. An atheist once told me, "everything you need is within yourself. You don't need God to tell you what to do." Okay, then why do I or anyone else have to submit to another individual? everything I need is within myself.
Martin, I've got so many questions I don't know what to do with them all, so those are just a few of the questions that popped in my head right away. Like I said before, I'm not trying to upset you. I'm simply interested in your logic
- Mike
I'm not quite sure where you got the idea I was getting frustrated, I really haven't been. I've been enjoying answering you, though I do admit I find a lot of your questions kind of depressing in the way they reveal just how much damage religion seems to have done to your understanding of basic human nature. (It's a thing not unique to you, by all means. Lots of Christians have asked me these same questions.) Anyway, on to your latest round:
ReplyDelete1. The only answer you really gave me to my last question was, "because it results in someone ending up dead." But people die every day, whether it be from old age, to disease, to accidents. Death is a part of life. You've got to give me something else.
Like what? And why? Again, your question espouses the theist's biggest obsession: self-interest. "In order to get me to be a good person, you've got to give me something!" I suppose I could say something at this point about virtue being its own reward, but I suspect that wouldn't get very far.
If you don't care that other people die, and the only person whose fate you're interested in is your own, then perhaps you don't possess empathy and are something of a sociopath. I don't know, perhaps you're just asking these questions for rhetorical purposes. Anyway, you might as well ask, people die every day, so why shouldn't I jump off the cliff? Perhaps the reason you aren't asking that question is because in that example, the person who would get hurt is yourself, and your own fate is something you care passionately about while at the same time being entirely indifferent to that of others. I don't know. I can only say that if the issues at hand are really this incomprehensible to you, you're going to need to do a lot more inner work than just having conversations with me will accomplish.
2. How big is our community, that a death would directly affect it long term? For example, if our community is considered all of mankind, then there's thousands of people dieing everyday in africa. Why aren't we doing absolutely everything we can to solve the death problem there?
Well, there are quite a number of people trying to do things to improve situations in Africa. Sometimes they've made good headway: apartheid is over, ad Ebola outbreaks usually get held off by the brave efforts of a few. But wouldn't you know it, the people trying to do good things — doctors, scientists, humanitarians — often find themselves thwarted by other groups of people determined to keep the killing and the inhumanity going at full steam. Care to guess what's motivating those folks? I'll take "religious ideology" for $1000, Alex. Tutsis at war with Hutus, Muslims slaughtering Christians in the Sudan...seems to me those are situations where religion certainly isn't prompting people towards moral behavior and the milk of human kindness.
What about any other crime? What is a crime, but an individuals opinion on what's wrong.... The fact that one primate stole another primate's food isn't affecting any of the other primates. They had their dinner. They're fat and happy.
You seem to have forgotten everything I wrote about our evolved instinct towards group cooperation, and have reverted back to your "I've got mine so screw you" sentiment so prevalent among the religious. Once more with feeling: what our society considers a crime is hardly just one individual's opinion on what's right or wrong. Moral precepts are based on an understanding of the consequences of actions. This is an empirical and stochastic process where you can see actual results. And knowing what actions have beneficial results and which have harmful results, it's pretty easy to set your moral precepts, and thus your laws, accordingly.
I find it fascinating that you simply cannot comprehend the idea that anyone would care about anyone else. As long as you're not the one being hurt, you don't seem to see any reason to care. Well, people, being what we are, do care what happens to others for the most part, but that's because we're empathic. Except, apparently, for the more religious among us.
Another thing I find interesting about this question in particular is that it can be effectively directed against theistic notions of morality. If you want to believe that morality is just whatever some divine authority figure says it is, then one could say, "What is a crime, but some god's opinion on what's wrong?" Indeed, Plato addressed this thousands of years ago with the Euthyphro Dilemma, which laid the vacuity of theistic morality bare: Is a thing moral or immoral just because God says it is? Or, does God have actual, practical reasons for declaring something to be moral or immoral? If he does, then those reasons necessarily stand independent of God and their understanding should be entirely comprehensible to any rational being, and so God's authority is superfluous. If the former is true, then God has no reasons for declaring things to be immoral or moral, and he's just being completely arbitrary in assigning those standards to things. QED: Appealing to God as a source of moral precepts or understanding is irrational and unnecessary.
An atheist once told me, "everything you need is within yourself. You don't need God to tell you what to do." Okay, then why do I or anyone else have to submit to another individual? everything I need is within myself.
Since I didn't hear the conversation I don't know what this atheist meant by this. Perhaps that all you needed to do to live a good life was think for yourself and not submit to the authority of some religion. I don't know. In any case, I would suggest this atheist was wrong about you. I don't think that everything you need is in yourself, because in your case, you can't seem to understand basics like why it's a good idea to be the sort of person who gets along in a friendly and helpful way with others, unless such behavior comes with some sort of punitive religious reinforcement. If I'm wrong about you there, sorry, but I can only go by what I read in the questions you send me.
I also think this atheist was throwing his net too wide. If by saying "everything you need is in yourself," he just meant that a rational mind is all any person needs to figure out how to live successfully and well, then fine. But in fact, we are a social species, and there are needs we have that only association with others — friends, family, a community to belong to — can give us. If literally "everything" we needed was in ourselves, then in a sense, you're quite right, why care about other individuals? You might as well be a shark, swimming around eating. Well, we aren't sharks, we're people, and while our individuality is important, so is being able to belong.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I don't think you understand my motive behind these questions. I know my reasonings for right and wrong. My questions are directed towards reasonings in an atheist mind. I simply want to know how you think. The mind of a Christian and the mind of an atheist work completely differently, they see the world through completely different eyes. You keep stating that I'm the one that doesn't understand the concept of being a "good" person, but look who's resorted to name-calling in every comment, "Perhaps you don't possess empathy and are something of a sociopath." (from your most recent reply). Never once have I resorted to such. I've simply been asking questions.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you base your beliefs on that of "faith" just as much as any religion. Evolution has absolutely zero evidence to support it. If it did, we wouldn't even be talking right now. What's the most amazing thing about the whole deal, is the reply you provided for me about primates from millions of years ago and how community was established and good morals as we know them developed. What's amazing about it, is you're telling me a story, and that's all it is A STORY. You're repeating a conclusion some scientists conjured up based on NOTHING. I don't say this to ridicule you, only to say that Christians aren't SO DUMB for having faith in something they can't tangibly prove. Atheists are in the same boat. If either one could be proven without a shadow of a doubt, then evolution vs. creation debates would have no reason to exist.
I appreciate you answering my questions, and as always, I look forward to hearing from you.
- Mike
This has been an interesting, if not disturbing, debate. The Christians spout off the little bits of Bible Trivia that their know-nothing pastors gave them in a Sunday "message."
ReplyDeleteThe Atheists spout off, nearly word-for-word, exactly what their College Professors programmed them to believe.
Automotons, all of you.
God created everything and gave us His book and His laws to accept or reject. Requires faith to believe? Absolutely.
I love this quote from an earlier post: "For us, the love of our families and friends; the fulfillment of our careers; the excitement of the pursuit of knowledge; the pleasure we take in simple little moments of day to day life, like admiring the beauty of a sunset or listening to a stirring piece of music or poetry..."
Yeah, and all of this beauty (and the entire Universe and everything in it "started out as a dot, no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence." Quoted from my Jr. High "Science" textbook, the one that Hovind cites.) just "happened" into existence. A simply amazing scientific conclusion. Requires faith to believe? Absolutely.
Science hasn't proven anything in regards to Evolution, nor has Christianity proven anything about God or the Bible. Neither side was there, that much Hovind says is true. It's ALL non-provable. It ALL requires faith.
Is the earth millions of years old? Probably. There's enough evidence for that, but does that prove Evolution? Hardly.
Is there a God? Probably. There's enough evidence in the overall design of things and the natural order of the Universe and its Laws. Does that PROVE there's a God? Hardly.
Hovind did have one other thing correct: "Where there's a design, there's a designer." I doubt anyone with any intelligence would deny that fact.
And now to the real subject of this blog (and the Bottom Line fact of this blog): Hovind did wrong. He got sidetracked with all this anti-tax and conspiracy theory BS and it kept him from his, um, "calling" if you will. You can't fight Uncle Sam. The guy was wrong in what he did. Period. And he's not doing himself, his ministry or fellow Christians any good by his present actions.
Am I a Christian? Yes, however I reluctantly admit it. And not because of the anti-God propoganda spewing all over this room about imaginary daddys and ancient barbaric cultures inventing the Bible to maintain order and give the masses some hope (yeah, I was in those same colleges and the liberal professors all said the same thing); I am reluctant to admit it becasue of WHAT CHRISTIANS HAVE DONE TO GOD AND THE BIBLE THEMSELVES. Just look at some of the posts here by Christians...REDICULOUS! Please, do ALL of us a favor and be quiet about things of which you know little or nothing about. These Atheists have been programmed long and hard on how to refute your weak arguements. Please, with all respect, stop embarassing your fellow Christians and yourself. Live your life "as unto the Lord," just like I do, and leave places like this and the people in it alone. You're not going to change their minds, you're only going to strengthen their beliefs. Besides, if you really believe the Bible, then you "know" that God is in control and that "all things work together for good to those who love God...", so why waste your time presenting weak arguments? Try finding a Pastor who knows the original languages and interprets the Bible in the time in which it was written. Someone you could actually LEARN something from. You know...someone who isn't serving "Cool Whip" on Sundays. Believe me, your time would be well spent in search of such a Pastor, because few exist.
Pray for Kent, pray for all who post here and move on. After that, go and find out why you believe what you believe.
Question EVERYTHING. And that's advice for BOTH sides.
Thanks for your time.
George C.
Science hasn't proven anything in regards to Evolution, nor has Christianity proven anything about God or the Bible.
ReplyDeleteWrong on the former, correct on the latter. Sorry, but I think I'm more inclined to respect the expertise of, oh, you know, all of the world's biologists over you in the matter of what can or cannot be proven regarding evolution. The next time you get sick and have to take antibiotics, you might want to rethink your "nothing can be proven about evolution" foolishness.
Since you consider yourself a smart guy, I'd caution you against the pitfalls of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and don't pretend a level of expertise on a subject about which you possess none.
Beyond that, I guess it doesn't surprise me that you'd equate education and the ability to reason with "programming." Funny, I always thought that was religion's racket.
"...all of the world's biologists over you in the matter of what can or cannot be proven regarding evolution."
ReplyDeleteALL of them? SO you've spoken to ALL of them and they ALL agree with you. Good for you, that's more than I could ever have done. Another amazing "Scientific" conclusion.
And this "proof" that you say ALL of the world's biologists agree on would be what exactly. Please educate us, but beofre you do, remember one thing: Propoganda does not equal proof.
"If you tell a lie long enough and often enough and loud enough, the people will believe it." -Adolph Hitler
And indeed the liberal professors HAVE spoken long, loud and often enough.
I am genuinely interested in this proof you have. Please do share. Please do cite sources as well. And please do not use any of the supposed "proofs" that have been refuted for years, I can get that from my old college textbooks (i.e. Lucy and other fabricated evidences). Oh, and while you're spouting biological facts, please DO tell us how each one "proves" evolution. ANyone can spout facts, but adding conjecture and propoganda to the facts does not prove anything.
Looking forward to your reply sir.
George C.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your earlier post. Many of the frustrations you expressed were the same frustrations I had. However, in regards to myself, I was simply asking questions to understand the mind-work of an atheist. I'm a believer, and always will be, but I have never had the chance to have a one on one conversation with such. I was simply curious.
A word of advice, don't let Martin get to you. I noticed he was quick to respond to your post, and he's not too nice. haha.
Instead of using a solid foundation of facts, he resorts to name calling and other childish come-backs. He'll try to get under your skin as much as possible.
LFC,
ReplyDeleteI know the type. Every blog, forum and chat room has one. The one you can't tell anything to (other than what he believes), the one who has the answer to everything and has an unteachable spirit. His choice, but a poor one I might add. Yes he is a troublemaker more than anything, that much is crystal clear. I love the type of person who, even after having a Paul-like experience, would still deny God.
The only reason I see through him is that when I was in college, I saw these same, wide-eyed, easily-impressed-upon freshmen staring adoringly at their new father-figure professor. The stately, authoritative, seemingly wise professor who speaks firmly and matter-of-factly. One who emboldens the ideals of the man these freshmen want to become. The pseudo-intellectual whose propoganda and overall BS dazzle the faith right out of the freshmen, turning them into little Evolutionary-touting lemmings of their beloved know-all, see-all professor-creator. Seen it a hundred times, seeing the apple fall not far from the tree here as in so many other places.
Thanks for the heads-up, but I had this guy figured out from his first post. It should be hilarious what he comes back with, and sad at the same time. I wouldnt' call his argument a straw man but more like grasping for straws.
Take care.
Its funny to point out that even though Dr Dino does not pay taxes, The people who do pay taxes are involuntarily paying for organizations like planned parent hood. ((If)) you are one who believes humans evolved from apes and there are no right and wrong absolutes, then do the rest of us a favor and jump off a bridge!!!!! becouse you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, a polluter of the enviorment and a disrupter of so called mother earth.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that penetrating insight into the hate-filled nightmare swamp of ignorance and delusion that is the religious mind. It's always nice to have some true believer turn up and prove our points for us.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly does Obama's middle name have to do with anything he supposedly thinks, believes, represents and stands for? Except, of course, to the pathologically bigoted and stupid like yourself? Doesn't have anything to do with anything, of course, just like evolution having nothing to do with whether or not right and wrong moral absolutes exist. And seeing as how your idea of "moral absolutes" makes it okay for you to express hatred and death wishes upon people who don't believe as you do, I don't think your "moral absolutes" are a good thing for humanity at all, are they? The sooner the world is rid of the filth of religion, and its phony "moral absolutes" rooted in fear and hate, the sooner intelligent, decent people can breathe easy!
Hopefully you are brave enough to put this comment up along with the rest of them. My name is Adam Brooks by the way, not anonymous.
ReplyDeleteDr. Kent Hovind is a man who stands up for what is right. And he is also a Christian, one who actually does practice what he preaches.
I wouldn’t expect any of you to know anything about reaching out into a lost world and trying to help people. All I know about any of you is that you obviously spend a lot of time on website bashing honorable men and blabbing about things you have no idea about.
What does the law say about tax exemption for a religious institution? Do you even know? Have you ever bothered to look into it? If you do you will quickly realize that he is in fact innocent.
If any of you had half a brain you would realized that the silencing a man for his beliefs will eventually mean silencing idiots with opinions. Namely you.
Adam/Wesley/whoever: We are more than "brave" enough to post comments by people like yourself, who need desperately to lash out angrily when reality doesn't flatter either your heroes or your beliefs. Indeed, we're happy to provide you with an outlet for that, and I hope it's therapeutic. However, you've been deluded about many things, and while I don't expect you to be open to having yourself disabused of those delusions (there is no cure, I have learned, for willful ignorance, especially that which is religiously inspired), I'm still willing to correct some inaccuracies in your comment. Put it down to my innate desire to reach out and help those who are lost.
ReplyDeleteWhat you ought to look into a the actual laws Hovind broke, which are linked to, in detail, in the original post. The short version is that the theme park he was trying to run was not being run as a church, and in any event, even churches have to report wages paid to their employees, which is one of Hovind's many crimes.
So in short, no, Hovind is not at all innocent of a variety of tax-evading shenanigans, but is in fact guilty as a puppy standing next to a pile of poo, and I think I'll trust the legal expertise of the court that convicted him over your own, which appears not to exist. Rather like Hovind's "expertise" on science. Until you demonstrate that you actually understand the laws Hovind broke, you're not in any position to lecture anyone on what they need to look into. Piss and moan about the whole thing in these comments all you like, Adam/Wesley/whoever, but your hero is going to stay in jail.
You can also entertain the comforting fantasy that this is some kind of sprawling conspiracy to silence Hovind for his beliefs, as if his beliefs were worth anything in the first place. It's the kind of fantasy that allows Kent to wear his Christian Martyr hat, and stupid sycophants like yourself to entertain a persecution complex that allows you to feel important. Again, delusions don't change reality, which is that Hovind is a dishonest, egregious, and hopelessly moronic slimeball who violated numerous tax laws and even threatened federal agents. Which is why he's sitting in a jail cell losing his mind and thinking he's chatting with his God.
Feel free to scream and whine some more if it makes you feel better. Considering that this comment thread more than any other posted here has heard from the angriest, most hateful, and most psychologically and behaviorally dysfunctional Christians we've ever encountered, it's very clear that you people have a lot of rage and hurt and helplessness to process. It's a tragic thing to be in your shoes right now, and you have my sympathies.
Martin, wow-- "behaviorally dysfunctional Christians," -- "and stupid sycophants like yourself"-- where do you find the need to insult? I'll not stoop to that level.
ReplyDeleteRomans 3:23 says that all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God-- that includes you and me. The only way to get straightened out from that is to accept Jesus Christ, and the sacrifice that he gave (his life). So I won't stand in judgment of you--- I need that sacrifice as much as you do. Anyhow, one of the great things about God is he loves us, even when we're not acting or treating others like we should. "Yet while we were sinners Christ died for us." It's part of our history-- it happened. Would you consider reading a book like "Signature of God"-- I believe the author if Jeffrey Grant. None- the-less.... it is an awesome book, that really gives some compelling evidence about God and his exhistance. Anyhow, I encourage you to look into it.
I encourage Christians not to take part in name-calling, and things like that. The bible says not to give offense in anything, that the ministry be not blamed. Remember-- the greater cause, and that's the ministry that we have been all called to-- the reconciliation of lost souls. Jesus said the two greatest commandments-- Love God, and love one another..... he didn't say it would be easy. So if you get insulted-- turn the other cheek.... you don't have to retaliate.
I believe Kent Hovind broke some laws, but I believe the punishment didn't fit the crime. This man is obviously not a danger to society. Anyone on here knows, that often times, much more severe crimes- are treated much less severely everyday.... so being as biased as I possibly can be (as a supporter of Dr. Hovind)-- I have to say, it does look like he was treated more severely than those in the same state, that had committed more severe crimes. In that there appears to have been some bias against him. Maybe I don't have all the facts-- but that's how it appears.
Anyhow, if your lost (I mean without Christ) -- today is a great day to get saved (from yourself and sin) -- God bless those who are walking in the light of God this wonderful day. Be encouraged, God is on his throne and in control.... he is still extending this time of mercy for those who don't know him-- and for that we have to give him praise. God bless,
Brother Paul Hensley
Martin, wow-- "behaviorally dysfunctional Christians," -- "and stupid sycophants like yourself" - where do you find the need to insult?
ReplyDeleteFrom the dysfunctional and insulting behavior of some of the Christians on this comment thread, that's where. It has not gone unnoticed that you're happy to call me out for being a big insulting meanie, but not Adam. ("If any of you had half a brain you would realized that the silencing a man for his beliefs will eventually mean silencing idiots with opinions. Namely you.") Double standards much?
In that there appears to have been some bias against him. Maybe I don't have all the facts-- but that's how it appears.
I'd suggest it appears that way to you because that's how you want it to appear, in order to convince yourself that Hovind's conviction was an exercise in Christian persecution, rather than what it was, the conviction of a man who committed tax fraud in a deliberate manner over a period of years. He could have avoided his fate had he chosen to work with the IRS to settle his affairs at any time before his actual arrest. But his whole "creation ministry" has always been a money scam for him, although he never seemed to notice the irony in the fact that while defending himself by claiming to answer only to a higher authority, his God, the money he was hiding was minted, not by God, but the US government. Hovind was perfectly happy to disdain the laws of the US while spending its cash. What was that thing Jesus said about rendering unto Caesar?
God bless those who are walking in the light of God this wonderful day.
And may the Holy Hooves of the Invisible Pink Unicorn anoint you with their sparkly love.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteWe had conversed on this thread quite a ways back. I'm just interested to hear your beliefs (from a logical standpoint). Without name-calling or anything (and I'm certainly not saying that you are the only one doing it)please explain how and why you believe what you do.
It's obvious that even the idea of God angers you. So I'm just curious as to what caused such. It would help me better understand where you're coming from.
You've got two ends of the spectrum debating here. You have one end who thinks the idea of God is lunacy and one can't fathom why people would believe in such a thing, and then you have the other spectrum (including me) who thinks that the idea of God is amazing and one can't fathom why people wouldn't believe in a being that, through their perspective, is blatently obvious in existence.
I'm not sure if this is too much to ask of you, but I would certianly appreciate it.
- Mike
The idea of God does not anger me, any more than the idea of Zeus or Spider-Man angers me. What I do find frustrating are people who cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy, and what does anger me are con artists and charlatans like Kent Hovind, who earn their living shoring up their fantasies by spreading pernicious lies about reality, and contribute to a culture of arrogant ignorance. (For example, in the way he and his cohorts convinced you that, to quote you, "Evolution has absolutely zero evidence to support it," a statement which is just plain pants-on-head false, like saying two plus two equals eight.) The "two ends of the spectrum," as you refer to it, really are no such thing. There's fantasy, and reality. One is empirically verifiable, and capable of actually being studied, and the other exists solely between the ears of its believers, who have convinced themselves it is as "real" as the other.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you're right, we have had these discussions before, in which you ask me some questions, and I reply in exhaustive detail, only to have you reply with things "why you're getting frustrated, I have no idea," and "instead of using a solid foundation of facts, he resorts to name calling and other childish come-backs," when you cannot rebut the points I make. Anything I say in response to any of your questions, no matter how detailed or reasoned, will be met with variants of "oooh, you're so angry." I mean...yawn. All of which leads me to be just a tad skeptical when you come back, months later, trying to sell the same friendliness act when I've seen how you've been in the past.
If you want to know why I don't believe in your god, simple, just ask yourself if you believe in any of the thousands of gods worshiped by all of the religions apart from the one you were raised in. If the answer is no, list your reasons why. You will likely have the reasons I don't believe in your god. You and I are both atheists, Mike. I just believe in one fewer deity than you. Perhaps if you could be bothered to meet your burden of proof for your god, I might change my mind.
I find it extremely insulting when people imply no logical person could ever take Kent Hovinds claims serious, and that anyone with faith in Christ is on the verge of insanity. Conversly, I don't approve of the scorn with which Hovind often dealt with non-believers, calling them "liars". No doubt, there have been, as in the case of "scientists" entirely fabricating evidence, been "liars". But then, I see a liar when I look at Benny Hinn. Both "sides" have been guilty of deceit. However, I am a thinking man. My I.Q. has been tested at 154 (I say this only to make a point). I'm not an idiot. I have, at different times in my life, found myself on both sides of the fence. When I watched Hovinds videos, I must admit, some of his ideas are very provocative. To me, it doesn't seem wise to state, from either side, that all people who comprise one side or the other are liars or otherwise totally irrational people. Much of the evidence Hovind presents does seem very convincing. However, much of the evidence to contrary does, as well, seem convincing. So, in the end, it seems, to me, that it just becomes a question of who you believe (unless you can find time to personally verify every claim made, which I doubt). Surely, creationism is the less common sentiment, and most Americans have opted for a more secular paradigm. However, "majority opinion" should never be a primary factor in what one believes. History has just proven too many times that the majority of the populous can be grossly deceived. At the end of the day, it seems to me that this whole "creation vs. evolution" debate is really just a palette upon which to study human nature. So often this debate just degenerates to an arguement between to people about who's smarter, and ultimately, neither party seems to have the desire or faculty to set ego aside and sincerely pursue the truth. It's very dissappointing to see how much rubbish is being thrown around here. If anyone would like to discuss this topic seriously, and can refrain from senseless insults in favor of concerted, and perhaps, antogonistic efforts to find the truth of this funny thing we call life, then please email me, at either spiritualwarur23@hotmail.com or ameade1@harding.edu
ReplyDeleteGod Bless
However, "majority opinion" should never be a primary factor in what one believes. History has just proven too many times that the majority of the populous can be grossly deceived.
ReplyDeleteHow very true, and a point that most atheists would bring up in their criticisms of humanity's religious history. But where I think you go astray is in suggesting that, with both "sides" making claims that sound convincing, it's all just down to whom you choose to believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where fact claims are concerned, one set of claims will end up being true, with all contrary claims false, and the way to determine that is to see whose side is verifiable by evidence. What Kent Hovind and his ilk count on is that most people will be too lazy to verify the claims being made, and simply go with what sounds most persuasive to them. By inventing the idea that there is an actual scientific controversy surrounding subjects like biodiversity and the age of the Earth, guys like Hovind, who have the public speaking skills that allow him to convince an uninformed audience that he knows more about the subject than he does, can deceive, not just the idiots, but smart folks too. The fact is, even a cursory study of the evidence of all the relevant scientific fields — biology, paleontology, geology, you name it — will show very clearly that none of it supports the concept of a less-than-10,000-year-old Earth. While science does not know everything about the origins of life yet, we've got enough on hand to put the claims of dishonest charlatans like Hovind to bed.
I was just noticing a lot of people in here implying (and possibly correctly so) that we fundies aren't actually concerned enough with the truth to expose themselves to "dissagreeable" information. However, the truth is never afraid of questions, I say. Anyhow, I don't believe it's right to expect something of someone that is not also expected of one's self. It is in this spirit that I invite someone or anyone here to read the book "The Problem of Pain" by C. S. Lewis. In turn, I will read any book (within reason) that is requested of me. I propose this because I would really like to see some people exposing themselves openly to some antagonistic ideas. And I ask that you REALLY read it. Don't just get the cliffs notes, or read the wiki summary. And if somebody actually does read it, don't just read it with a mind set to find any questionable nugget possible for amminution in a debate, because you miss a beautiful book and a brilliant mind. Anyhow, if anyone decides to take me up on this offer, e-mail me at spiritualwarur23@hotmail.com or ameade1@harding.edu with the book you'd like me to read and I'll get to work on it. We can then, hopefully exchange some ideas.
ReplyDeleteThanks, God bless
Martin,
ReplyDeleteI don't really feel that my statement was invalid. I may not have been very clear. What I mean is that, unless one has both the time and resources to get out into the field and independantly verify every claim, they have only the option to take another's word for it. That "word" may be in the form of a lecture, a book, or an internet blog (;D) but, either way, it is only second-hand information and is not supported by any direct sensory experience of the evidence. Anyhow, Hovind's videos have always been entertaining to me, but do to the lack of any real knowledge of the legitimacy of most of his claims, I have tended to reserve judgement. One thing I've never seen him discuss, however, is the principle of irreducible complexity. This principle, particularly seeing it illustrated in the bacterial flagellal motor, stands as one the greatest intellectual hurdles between me and the theory of macroevolution. Is anyone familiar with this principle?
Anywho, details aside, there are times when both the prospect that God created the universe AND the prospect that it "created" (or whatever'd lol) itself seem equally either equally absurd or equally plausible, so I leave you with this thought. I believe it was Einstein that said "The universe is not only stranger than we imagine; it's stranger than we CAN imagine!" :D Have a great day guys
One thing I've never seen him discuss, however, is the principle of irreducible complexity. This principle, particularly seeing it illustrated in the bacterial flagellal motor, stands as one the greatest intellectual hurdles between me and the theory of macroevolution. Is anyone familiar with this principle?
ReplyDeleteYes, and you should read Ken Miller's new book, Only a Theory, which demolishes the irreducible complexity red herring about as completely as I've seen anyone do. The short version is this. Michael Behe, who came up with the idea, stated it thus: an irreducibly complex system is one in which, if you take away even one element, the whole thing can no longer function, nor do the individual elements on their own have any function. Behe wrote: “An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly ... by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”
Now that's a testable claim. And when we test it, specifically using the "motor" of the bacterial flagellum, we find something very different. You can remove, not just one, but 40 parts from the flagellum, leaving only 10, and you find that those parts, far from having no function, actually comprise what is known as the Type-III Secretory System. So, quite contrary to Behe's claim, that what was left ought to be completely non-functional, we find that what was left actually performed different functions. Which supports the claims of evolution: that systems the ID crowd calls "irreducibly complex" in fact developed gradually, their individual parts originating with different functions.
Miller explains all of this in much better detail, of course. But this example also shores up what I was saying in my original reply to you: you admit that you haven't had the time or resources to get out there and confirm for yourself what you've heard creationists say, and this has unfortunately led you to "take the word" of someone who is in egregious error on the subject, and buy into the concept of "irreducible complexity," allowing it become an "intellectual hurdle" standing between you and a proper understanding of how evolution works. The lesson is simple: don't do the homework, and you'll get misled. Creationists and intelligent design proponents rely on the fact that their audience won't go to legitimate scientific sources to check up on what they claim, or will only read ID sources in an exercise in confirmation bias. It's how they create controversies where none really exist. And in all in the service, not of expanding or knowledge of science (which ID was never about), but of defending cherished religious beliefs from science (which ID, for all its scientific posturing, has always been about).
PS If I read any more Lewis I'll probably start with Mere Christianity, since that's one that seems to impress the most people. I'll evaluate it here on the blog when I do.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteThanks. I will read that article and get back to you. As far as the Lewis stuff goes, they are both good books, but I feel that "The Problem of Pain" deals with certain things that aren't addressed with nearly the same breadth or focus in M.C.. Anyhow, thanks again, and I'll try to get back to you by tomorrow. Cheers!
Why do you devote so much time and energy towards hating the God you do not believe exist? As Berkeley theorized, all reality is merely the individual's perception. From your language and your gleeful attitude about his arrest, it is evident that your reality is nothing more than bitterness and hate. I've been through the jail system here in the facists states of america for cultivation of marijuana, and I would never wish jail upon anyone guilty of a non violent crime. As far as paying taxes, if I could get away with not paying I wouldn't fund another bomb or another bullet. Wake up, this nation is so divided, and because of this division our basic rights are slipping through our fingers. So go ahead and bask in this man's downfall, but unless you find joy in your life, then it will be worthless.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you devote so much time and energy towards hating the God you do not believe exist?
ReplyDeleteNowhere in the above post is God even mentioned, except for within a quote by Kent Hovind. This isn't about a god, it is about a con man.
As Berkeley theorized, all reality is merely the individual's perception.
Berkeley is full of it. Many Christians would be far more likely to side with me than with you, when I say that it's foolish and even dangerous to disregard the fact that there is a reality outside your own mind.
I would never wish jail upon anyone guilty of a non violent crime.
Really? So you believe that burglars and con men should not receive any punishment whatsoever? That's an interesting point of view. Aren't you essentially endorsing such behavior, then?
So go ahead and bask in this man's downfall, but unless you find joy in your life, then it will be worthless.
Thank you for your misplaced concern.
this is just another way to shut up christians.freedom to facism view it on google.if your a christian in america today with a point of view, this is what the government is going to do to you.the phone calls posted online, if that doesnt scare anyone what will.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it's in your interest to entertain those delusions of persecution, Samuel, but let's see how well reality supports this idea that there's a movement afoot to silence Christians.
ReplyDeleteOver 85% of the American population believes in God.
The current Republican candidate for vice president is popular solely because of her intense Christian religiosity, which allows her supporters not to care at all that she has no experience worthy of the name, that she's been lying repeatedly about her own record as governor the whole time she's been on the road, and that the GOP is doing their level best to keep her away from reporters for a reason.
And I've just checked the Austin telephone directory under the listing "Churches." I found 11 pages. That's probably well over 1000 churches, most of them Christian.
So who's out there trying to silence Christians?
Simple. No one.
Hovind is in jail because he broke the tax laws. That's it.
But it's okay. It's not like anyone expects his supporters to have a decent grasp of reality.
You have nothing, that is why you love to hate people who love God.
ReplyDeleteYour only pleasure is derived from hate and evil, please enjoy yourself while you can because your life is a flash in the pan...
I hope God will show mercy even on you who hate so much.
Kent Hovind in many ways is a real hero who only searches to advance and enlighten individuals minds. And stop the lies being propagated in our schools with TAX payers money!
If you had even 1% of the knowledge available in this universe you would be a much brighter person, consider the fact that you don't know everything and that there is much to learn and since your still learning maybe one day you will understand reality
and the veil of darkness will be lifted from your eyes and mind.
Have a nice day.
It is true we don't know everything, but then, that is a perfectly normal state of affairs, and far, far better than not knowing anything.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your encouragement that we "understand reality" better, but it would appear we're way ahead of you there, Salvador, considering that, unlike yourself, reality is a plane we actually inhabit.
PS We don't hate you, but you do have our sympathy.
I've noticed many people on this forum tend to swear profusely, but calling Hovind a "dipshit" or "retard" in no way favors their arguments, it only makes then look like unintelligent fools, who have no opinions of their own, nor mind, and listen to whatever their professors, or school teachers, tell them. So, whether or not Kent Hovind is right or wrong, no one can doubt the fact that he is educated. At least part of his theories have been proven, although I don't agree with his take on tax evasion, but it makes one wonder what people really know themselves when all they can say, for the sake of argument, is that Hovind is deluded and a cretin.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, stop being vague, by simply saying he is deluded, why id he deluded, what is your reasoning behind it, or are you simply saying it for the sake of discrediting the man, and trying to make yourselves sound intelligent?
Kent Hovind does a perfectly fine job discrediting himself without any assistance from us. We're just expressing our disgust at his sleaziness and criminality. While I can certainly understand why certain people may find nasty names to be uncouth and offensive, the simple fact is that Kent Hovind is not in possession of the facts where the biological sciences are concerned, and has made a career enriching himself spreading his own brand of scientific illiteracy to a gullible religious audience who are far more likely to qualify as the unthinking fools you describe in your comment.
ReplyDeleteThis post was about Hovind's tax evasion crimes, not his pseudoscience. So if you want an indication as to why we think he's deluded about his legal situation, all you have to do is listen to the recordings. Even his wife tries to talk sense to him, and in his egomaniacal arrogance he coldly brushes her off. This is not a benevolent man, Benevolence.
As for the falsehoods Hovind promotes in his creationist ministries, they are covered by legitimate scientists here. Also, Hovind's Ph.D. is bogus, and his "dissertation" has been critiqued here.
Maybe you could describe which part of his theories you think have been "proven". Unless you're just trying to sound intelligent.
Am I the only secular (atheist) who is sick of how other people treat someone like Hovind? Just because you don't believe in the Bible or in a God it doesn't mean you should ignore its more noble teachings and I truly feel like modern western society has lost almost all of its values.
ReplyDeleteThere truly is a lack of love in the world, especially here in the west. Listen to everyone here bashing this poor man. I've never heard him say anything overly wrong, (morally) not any more than the average human being and he sounds a lot more calm and sure of himself then most who would be in the same situation.
Why can't you love him? Why can't you care about him? Why can't you see his good side? The west is becoming fascist. Someone has a different point of view from you it automatically gives you justification to hate them? What an angry nation you have become. Why don't we listen to yourselves?
Why can't you say, "Kevin is a good speaker. He's interesting. I like how much he loves Dinosaurs. His ideas while I disagree with them, make him kind of unique."
He does try to convert people, but he hasn't made it any secret, and he doesn't do it through pushy and harmful means, he lectures and sells DVDs.
Not paying your taxes is a bit crummy but as far as crimes go if you are honest with yourself you shouldn't feel too hard against someone for it. He's a preacher not a CEO.
Whose mouth is he depriving of food? Who specifically is he stealing from? Who is he abusing? I'm sure the more angry of you out there will have all sorts of bitter bullshit answers to these questions, but no substantial ones.
What about homeless people? They make deals without paying taxes all the time. Do you tax their pan-handling?
Even if Kevin here is in the wrong, to take away YEARS of his life, over tax money, since when is tax money more valuable than human life? Is he stealing? No. He's basically going to jail for giving, and then withholding from the government - who can easily afford the loss.
When did government become more important to you than your community? Than your fellow citizens? Why don't you care about Kevin instead of shitting on him and siding with a government body and IRS made up of complete strangers. Which is colder, Kevin or the institutions you are speaking on the behalf of (IRS, etc.)... honestly.
Sick, sick, sick. Society is very ill. You'd be better off with the religious nuts than with your own apathetic, uncaring, and cold attitude. They may have the wrong ideas but at least they give a shit about you.
If there is one biblical thing that rings true its the golden rule. By creating a society full of uncaring people with this attitude you become a victim of the very same attitude. You are surrounded by this sick attitude so that when YOU need help, you will get the same treatment as him. You will get the same. No different. You are literally fighting fire with fire. You are fighting fire with fire, and calling your fire water, but its not. Hate is hate, anger and bitterness are your weapons and "they can only beget their own kind." (Yes I know, I made a little parody of Kevin's evolution theory.. lol)
Sorry my brain always wants to say Keven, I'm aware its really Kent. lol
ReplyDeleteI've never heard him say anything overly wrong, (morally) not any more than the average human being and he sounds a lot more calm and sure of himself then most who would be in the same situation.
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't heard Hovind say things that are morally wrong, you haven't been listening. Heck, all these recordings are chock full of the rants of a man who makes excuses for his illegal acts, refuses to take any responsibility for himself, and pathologically blames others for his misfortune, painting himself as the victim all the way. You detect no hubris in this at all? No moral fault? What exactly would it take? A person doesn't have to commit the most obviously egregious of crimes (murder, for example) to be an immoral person.
As for how Hovind sounds calm and sure of himself, big deal. That is not in and of itself a commendable quality. He sounds that way because he's an arrogant, self-absorbed ideologue. Most people like that do sound that way. Go find a white supremacist, neo-Nazi website to read, and you'll hear some people who are very self-satisfied in their appalling wrongness.
Why can't you say, "Kevin is a good speaker. He's interesting. I like how much he loves Dinosaurs. His ideas while I disagree with them, make him kind of unique."
Because that would be dishonest of me to say, as it is not how I feel. Hovind is pathetically, egregiously wrong; he's most emphatically not interesting, except perhaps to a psychoanalyst; his love of dinosaurs is no testament to his character at all (I like puppies, I'm sure many guys in the federal pen like puppies, so what?); he is not especially unique (sadly his breed of scientific ignorance is widespread), and even if he were, "uniqueness" is not a quality that absolves a person of moral responsibility.
Whether you really are a secular atheist or not, you are frankly exhibiting a quality that goes beyond moral "relativism" into the realm of pure amorality. This whole idea you seem to be espousing of "you shouldn't judge anyone ever by the things they do, you should just be nice to everyone at all times" is, frankly, the sentiment of someone who couldn't care less about right or wrong. And I cannot respect that.
As for all your subsequent verbiage about favoring taxes over people and all that crap, well, seriously, if you're that hopelessly clueless over what the issue is all about (paying taxes, like other laws, are laws, and we have to follow them whether we especially like them or not), I really don't see any point in trying to explain it to you. And as you have already as much as admitted to having and outlook on life that is bereft of any moral center whatsoever, I suspect you wouldn't understand the explanation even if it were given.
Finally, if you really believe what you write here: You'd be better off with the religious nuts than with your own apathetic, uncaring, and cold attitude. They may have the wrong ideas but at least they give a shit about you.
...then frankly you're a contemptible fool. Let's see: here we have a religious nut, to use your own words, who is a flagrant lawbreaker and convicted felon; and you have me, who is opposed to his criminal actions and not afraid to give them the moral condemnation they deserve. And you call me the one who's "apathetic, uncaring, and cold"? Screw you. You really are an amoral cretin. You and Hovind deserve each other.
Listen, THERE IS NO EXISITING LAW THAT REQUIRES US TO PAY INCOME TAX. Kent Hovind is no criminal! he just stood up to what he knows is tyranny. If you like licking boots and being bullied, thats you. I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Hovind. he's a good man that never did anything but help people, lead them to the lord and expose the fraudulent religion known as evolution. Such a shame what happened to him and his wife. Obviously you love bashing Christian leaders but leave the guy alone. His life's been destroyed!
ReplyDeleteOk so its easy to say what you want about Kent's phone calls. Yes it does seem a little insensitive but think about this: Your in prison. You've been waiting all day to use the phone. you have nothing but time and your life is on the line so you think all day about what it is you need to tell your family in the measly ten minutes you'll get. So you try to cram an hour of thoughts into that ten minute phone call while your getting the stare down from hardened criminals in line, waiting to use the phone. But its so easy to look at someone else's unfortunate situation and cast judgment . By the way, the original title to Darwins book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". You worship a racist.
ReplyDeleteTHERE IS NO EXISITING LAW THAT REQUIRES US TO PAY INCOME TAX.
ReplyDeleteYou are, of course, completely mistaken. Many others besides you have tried to make that argument, and the courts have never, never, ever sided with them.
Look, I know that it's fashionable to bitch and whine about "activist judges" and such, but the way our legal system is set up by the constitution is extremely clear. Legislators pass laws, and courts have the authority to interpret and apply those laws. If a judge rules that something is legal and constiutional, then it is, more or less by definition.
In the case of tax frauds like Kent Hovind, there is an enormous body of precedent for throwing their ass in jail regardless of their ignorance of how tax laws actually work. The laws requiring you to pay income tax are explained here.
In cases where these tax evaders have gone to court, nearly without exception the judges pointed out that they were not only wrong, but stupidly, laughably, inexcusably wrong. Cases which tax protectors have claimed as "victories" STILL involved the offender being ordered to pay their taxes, with late fees; they are only "victories" in the sense that they were not also sent to jail out of pity for their ignorance.
Kent Hovind is a tax fraud. If you don't want to pay taxes, move to a country where you don't have to. I hear that Liberia is lovely.
With all that is going on in this world today we still refuse to accept what is coming. Many of the ancient races have told us what is coming. The pieces of the puzzle are coming together. You are all confirming what is to happen. Thank you for stengthening my faith in the creator. God must have really disappointed you at one point in your life and you've become bitter. I'll pray for all of the faithless and if one pulls the blanket from his head and observes through clear eyes, I'll have done my part.
ReplyDeleteRob: God does not exist. Therefore he cannot possibly have disappointed us. We will admit to being constantly disappointed in our fellow man, and their continued insistence on embracing ignorance over knowledge, fear over reason, and delusion over reality. (That you seem to think pulling the blanket from one's head and seeing through clear eyes would lead a person towards delusions rather than away from them demonstrates you're an especially sad lost cause in that regard.)
ReplyDeleteIt's very revealing to hear you say your faith in your creator has been strengthened by our willingness to criticize and hold people accountable for criminal behavior. It essentially confirms that the type of faith you practice appeals largely to the intellectually and morally deficient.
You have our sympathies.
Freeor4bucks.com: A) We don't worship Darwin. We leave acts of worship to the terminally stupid, like you and Rob. B) If you were actually to read past the title of Origin, and read — oh, you know — the whole book, you'd understand both the theory, and Darwin's meaning in using the term "favored races." But then, that would require you to be slightly more intelligent than the stuff that comes out of my dog's colon whenever she gets violent diarrhea. So I suspect it would prove too daunting a challenge to you.
And by all means, the next time you decide to engage in tax evasion from these "make money at home" get-rich-quick cons you're peddling on your blogs, be sure to remind the DA who's prosecuting you that there are no laws on the books requiring a person to pay taxes. Then sit back and enjoy getting crushed under the weight of all the case law that will be brought against you. Maybe you and Kent will get to be cellmates, and you can have dialogues with God together, reveling in your shared martyrdom.
The constitution doesn't even allow for what the IRS is doing. The IRS INVENTED 80,000 pages of tax code which includes language that tries to compel individuals to be part of paying federal taxes who have no wish to be part of anything federal. BUT THE RINGER is that the constitution says that ALL taxes of this type *must be equally proportioned* if the do exist. So the taxes with..tax tables..are clearly *not* constitutional. Fundie schmundie. Try reading the constitution before you make accusations.
ReplyDeleteWow.. I bet if creationists did something like this to Richard Dawkins the atheists would be in tears.
ReplyDeleteFact of the matter is that the tax code is too complex and unpredictable to avoid some error. Depending on how much money you've made, you could somehow be classified as much a criminal as a mugger on the street.
Another point: If a prominent Darwinist were taken in for something like this (it's not possible since all these organizations are tax-funded in the first place) everybody would be screaming "The sky is falling! We're going back to the Dark Ages of science!"
There is alot of corruption within our government and a few key organizations get all the benefits in the world. This hasn't changed since Obama rolmao. (WE WANT CHANGE!!) And those who supported McCAin were just as blind.
Right now we neither have a free market or socialist country. Right now we have a corporate and government alliance. It's because of mergers that the government forces or creates that true monopolies are born.
Creationist or not, Kent Hovind was just another blind victim of the IRS. An organization which we do not need. (They're not even productive.)
But just remember boys and girls,
"Don't Steal! The Government Hates Competition!"
Who knows. Maybe he's in jail because he started to become too self-absorbed or took his mind off of spiritual things. Next thing you know, Kent Hovind gets greedy and poof!
ReplyDeleteHe's in jail! My advice to Hovind: Just go with it. Don't try to fight the system. If you want to spread your message as soon as possible just play by the rules.
Kent Hovind has his flaws. He's a human being just like us all. Of course some people would say "Well does he desrve to go to Heaven?" Nope.
Neither would I. Neither would you. That is assuming, of course, that Heaven exists. Which I do every time.
Kent Hovind may very well have been in the wrong here. I currently see it as more than likely (considering our current, flawed laws.... laws nonetheless. However unconstitutional, invasive, counterproductive, or dumb they might be.)
Warning: Assumptions about Heaven and God being real coming ahead.
I thought you might appreciate that warning. God might have put him there so that he could learn some humility.
But, hey. That's the extent of my knowledge. Whatever God could have planned is beyond me :S.
Oh, and Kent Hovind's point all along has been: "Evolution is not science because it cannot be observed beyond changes within certain kinds of animals." It's a good theory and all and very well-thought out. And it can make alot of logical sense.
But it can be very illogical as well. I think Kent Hovind misses some points about evolution, but he does make SOME good cases in favor of creation and a Young Earth.
I believe in the Young Earth myself and I will continue to believe in it until God himself tells me I was wrong.
And, please. I BEG you to set aside your flame-throwers and spare me from major flammage.
Everybody likes to play pin the tail of the creationist lol.
And, please. I BEG you to set aside your flame-throwers and spare me from major flammage.
ReplyDeleteEverybody likes to play pin the tail of the creationist lol."
If you can't run with the big dogs stay out of the pack.
Also we don't HAVE to pin the tail on you...we come prepackaged with one, monkey boy.
The war of what we speak has an outcome of either wrong or right. If the atheists are correct, Christians still have nothing to lose. They (Christians) have led a good life and helped many people along the way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, IF the Christians have hit the nail on the head, then non-believers have EVERYTHING to lose.
Who can argue with a group of people (probably the only group of people) that devote their lives to loving and trying to help those around them? WHO!?
MARTIN WAGNER: Ever stick you're hand in a fire? Maybe you should try it, ya know, "just in case" haha. Seriously though man, if you're wrong...I wouldn't want to be you when you draw the last breath... :,(
The war of what we speak has an outcome of either wrong or right. If the atheists are correct, Christians still have nothing to lose. They (Christians) have led a good life and helped many people along the way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, IF the Christians have hit the nail on the head, then non-believers have EVERYTHING to lose.
Who can argue with a group of people (probably the only group of people) that devote their lives to loving and trying to help those around them? WHO!?
MARTIN WAGNER: Ever stick you're hand in a fire? Maybe you should try it, ya know, "just in case" haha. Seriously though man, if you're wrong...I wouldn't want to be you when you draw the last breath... :,(Pascal's Wager is about as morally bankrupt an argument as they come, please try harder next time.
Big Dogs like all others have fleas. This of course is the reason for your severe case of mange.
ReplyDelete"Andrew" a few up from me is too afraid of having his views attacked... Dude... that's the persecution the bible warns us about... accept it...
ReplyDeletefact is, silly evolutionists, your theories are laughed at more often now then not... you have less evidence then Darwin did when he started. your theories are inadequate, and illogical... your testing is faulty and based on assumptions.
SO believe it... that's fine... belive that elephats have wings if you want... just understand this... YOU BELIVE BY FAITH that your assumptions are correct... and I believe by Faith that God is teh creator... that there is a purpose to us here, that there is more then my ego...
so... believe in your religion... i'll believe in my salvation, and we'll see in the end who is right.
just stop being stupid and stop trying to convince people that you have science to back you up.. the bible has more science then your stupid 1993 textbooks.
grow up, it's all religion... it's just that mine is right...
Kent Hovind has been a vessel that God (Jesus Christ) has used ,to help me see the greatness of his majesty -and just like paul they can put him in jail they can even kill him ,but because of Jesus theres realy nothing to worry about-(to live is Christ and to die is gain) .
ReplyDeletethe real imprisoned people are those who are ignorant of the authority of Jesus Christ-(Truth is Truth wheather or not I believe it or not)
The gospel of Jesus Christ is foolishness to those who are being lost but it is the power of God To those who are saved.
shame i really feel for the lost cause the dont have the joy and love that i have------that why i have given my life just like Kent to being Gods instrument, what ever it be (a public figure or a behind close doors servent)
Jesus Christ is real!!!!!!!!
HE MADE ME ALIVE FOREVER
grace and peace
ANGELO TAUFMANN
-AKA LAW
In William Shakespeare's comedy All's Well That Ends Well, he wrote: "Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none."
ReplyDeleteCivilized society means having respect for all men and women, regardless of your personal opinions. I'm sure you would be offended if I wrote a blog bashing homosexuals or Obama, because you believe they deserve respect.
I would never do such a thing, despite my convictions, because everyone deserves respect. That applies to minorities, majorities, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Barack Obama, George Bush, and -- yes -- even Kent Hovind.
I would like to see you justify your premise that everyone deserves respect. In my opinion, respect something you earn, not an entitlement.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I understand what you're saying. I was drawing on the Random House Dictionary definition 4:
ReplyDeleteRespect -noun. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
My justification is that it is a privilege for all human beings to be treated fairly. Criminals get a fair trial; fools are offered education; those with differing opinions from your own should not be mistreated. Because of this, it's Mr. Hovind's right to not receive verbal abuse; he shouldn't have to earn that.
You are doing wrong to a man who has done no wrong to you. I don't think there's any justification for that. I can't figure out how you could get amusement from treating a man in this unkind way -- a man who is only a flawed human, just like you and me.
Because, seriously guys, what's the point?
You do realize that by not paying taxes he is literally taking money out of your pockets right?
ReplyDelete(Well if your a US citizen)
My justification is that it is a privilege for all human beings to be treated fairly. Criminals get a fair trial; fools are offered education; those with differing opinions from your own should not be mistreated.
ReplyDeleteCriminals get a fair trial, but if they are found guilty then they are punished. Kent Hovind received a fair trial, was found guilty, and went to jail. He also received some ridicule. I fail to see the problem.
Because of this, it's Mr. Hovind's right to not receive verbal abuse; he shouldn't have to earn that.
On the contrary, it is nobody's right to not receive verbal abuse. If that right existed then it would stand in direct contradiction to the right of free speech, which includes the right to verbally abuse people, especially criminals who stole things and then pretended they were entitled to them.
You are doing wrong to a man who has done no wrong to you. I don't think there's any justification for that.
Sure there is. By that logic, there would be no justification in being satisfied when a mass murderer is captured and sentenced. Where do you draw the line? Should there be no justice system whatsoever?
Kent Hovind is a con man who stole money. He got what he deserved. I still don't see the problem.
I can't figure out how you could get amusement from treating a man in this unkind way -- a man who is only a flawed human, just like you and me.
Oh yes, except for the part where Kent Hovind's flaws involve willfully trying to defraud the public of millions of dollars, whereas yours (I assume) do not.
Because, seriously guys, what's the point?
The point is that Kent Hovind is a con man, and one way we deter that sort of thing is to send them to jail and also mock them. Otherwise, how will they learn that this sort of behavior is a no-no?
I suppose my arguments are all based on opinion, then, and you don't agree.
ReplyDeleteIf I see a man being kicked by several dozen people in the middle of the street, I don't care if he stole my grandmother's purse. He should be brought to justice, but not attacked by a mob.
Kent Hovind received a fair trial, was found guilty, and went to jail. He also received some ridicule. I fail to see the problem.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say he should be ridiculed, only that he should be punished. (That's how he'll learn that not paying taxes is a "no-no".)
Sure there is. By that logic, there would be no justification in being satisfied when a mass murderer is captured and sentenced. Where do you draw the line? Should there be no justice system whatsoever?
There is a justice system. It was used, there was a trial, Hovind is in prison. What I don't think you understand is that I am pleased that he is in prison. But your mocking is unnecessary.
Kent Hovind is a con man who stole money. He got what he deserved. I still don't see the problem.
YES. He did. He was. I agree. Yessss. However, he does not deserve to be called vulgar names on a blog.
Oh yes, except for the part where Kent Hovind's flaws involve willfully trying to defraud the public of millions of dollars, whereas yours (I assume) do not.
Let's compare paying taxes to illegally downloading movies off the internet. Not paying taxes may affect more people, but both crimes show an equal lack of character. I am no more perfect than Kent Hovind; if he deserves to be mocked for it, so do the rest of us.
The point is that Kent Hovind is a con man, and one way we deter that sort of thing is to send them to jail and also mock them. Otherwise, how will they learn that this sort of behavior is a no-no?
He did go to prison, rightfully so. I am not defending his crime. But it is inhumane to taunt someone in the ways shown here (no matter what he has done).
I realize that I took this next section out of its place, but I felt that your meaning was not lost, and I should conclude with my response to it:
If that right existed then it would stand in direct contradiction to the right of free speech, which includes the right to verbally abuse people, especially criminals who stole things and then pretended they were entitled to them.
You are correct, we do have free speech, and that right can be abused, as I believe it has been. Ah, "...the right to verbally abuse people, especially criminals." We're especially allowed to abuse criminals. I must have have missed that part in History class.
Somehow I misheard, and was under the impression that all men were created equal.
Adam, yes, I'm an American citizen, and I do realize this. To reinstate what I said above, I think it's right that he was found guilty, and went to jail.
ReplyDeleteI suppose my arguments are all based on opinion, then, and you don't agree.
ReplyDeleteCorrect on both counts!
If I see a man being kicked by several dozen people in the middle of the street, I don't care if he stole my grandmother's purse. He should be brought to justice, but not attacked by a mob.
Now you're just being melodramatic. No physical harm is being done to Mr. Hovind by a gang of ruffians. I remember an old saying about "sticks and stones" that might apply here.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say he should be ridiculed, only that he should be punished. (That's how he'll learn that not paying taxes is a "no-no".)
Neither does the Constitution say anything about protecting people from ridicule, whether or not they are as deserving of it at Mr. Hovind. Indeed, numerous Supreme Court cases have upheld the notion that mockery is protected speech.
Of course, this discussion about what is constitutional or not is kind of moot, since you must realize that I am right. What you are saying is that the mockery is for some reason wrong, and I have not yet been persuaded of that by you.
There is a justice system. It was used, there was a trial, Hovind is in prison. What I don't think you understand is that I am pleased that he is in prison. But your mocking is unnecessary.
Of course it's unnecessary, but it's also fun and constructive! You should try it some time.
YES. He did. He was. I agree. Yessss. However, he does not deserve to be called vulgar names on a blog.
Why not? You think he deserves to go to jail. Is being called names somehow worse than going to jail? Personally, if you offered me the choice, I'd take being called names every time.
Let's compare paying taxes to illegally downloading movies off the internet. Not paying taxes may affect more people, but both crimes show an equal lack of character.
I heartily disagree. That makes no sense unless you truly believe that all crimes are equal, in which case I would love to start a discussion about why you feel that jaywalking and first degree murder deserve the same punishment.
I am no more perfect than Kent Hovind; if he deserves to be mocked for it, so do the rest of us.
If that is how you feel about yourself then I am sorry for your lack of self-esteem, but I respect your wishes. I am mocking you now. Mock, mock, mock.
He did go to prison, rightfully so. I am not defending his crime. But it is inhumane to taunt someone in the ways shown here (no matter what he has done).
Taunting is inhumane, but jail is justified? Again I call this bullshit. You may call me all the names you want. Go ahead, it might make you feel better. I will bravely accept your mockery, and say that I not only prefer it to jail, but prefer it a LOT. I suggest that you are demonstrating a fairly weird lack of sense of proportion.
You are correct, we do have free speech, and that right can be abused, as I believe it has been.
Here I will simply refer back to your own comment that this is a matter of opinion, and I disagree with your opinion. The law has nothing to say about my mockery as abuse of free speech, and I disagree with your melodrama, so we seem to be at an impasse unless one of us persuades the other that we are right.
Ah, "...the right to verbally abuse people, especially criminals." We're especially allowed to abuse criminals. I must have have missed that part in History class.
It's right there in article 12. Stay awake next time.
(Close captioned for the humor impaired: THAT WAS A JOKE.)
Somehow I misheard, and was under the impression that all men were created equal.
They most certainly are. And thusly, all men who act like assholes are equally subject to ridicule.
You are correct, we do have free speech, and that right can be abused, as I believe it has been.
ReplyDeleteWell, golly gee. I guess we better stop newspapers from printing editorial cartoons, and columnists from writing witty editorials. And while we're at it, we better tell Jay Leno and David Letterman and Conan O'Brien and Bill Maher to just pack up their shit and go home, because, well, you just can't abuse your free speech by making fun of people — oh, excuse me — abusing people even if they happen to be dishonest criminals and hypocrites and liars and fools. Because, well, making fun of people is just mean!
Allie, grow the fuck up and get off your self-righteous high horse. This is the real world, where people who do ridiculous things find themselves, amazingly enough, ridiculed. If you don't like hearing ridiculous people ridiculed, then don't read our blog. Or anyone else's blog. Or any newspapers. Or magazines. And for crying out loud don't watch any television.
Your opinion is noted. There. Now, unless you have something else, don't let the door hit you in the ass.
I post comments on blogs to share an opinion, and to listen -- I really do listen, I listened to you, Kazim -- to others. You can disagree with me, and you do. Of course, I'd rather not be insulted because, y'know, we've already talked about how much that sort of thing gets on my nerves.
ReplyDeleteI suppose talking about moral issues on The Atheist Experience will always be a bad idea. I'm not here to proclaim that "Jesus loves us and you should love everybody too!". Nah, I hate posts like that; it proves nothing. I'm just discussing common courtesy for our fellow man, which perhaps you can relate to.
"Because, well, making fun of people is just mean!"
It's kind of amusing that you should tease me for this; that's what we were taught in second grade, and, well, call me immature, but I think it should still apply in "real life."
And now, if you would like to, you can have the last word.
I suppose talking about moral issues on The Atheist Experience will always be a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteWow, what an remarkably obnoxious thing to say. How do you live with yourself, you rude person?
And now, if you would like to, you can have the last word.
Done and done.
Sorry, that wasn't quite the last word. I also wanted to point out that in your huffiness about how badly you've been treated, you neatly managed to avoid addressing ANYTHING I said about the relative harshness of going to jail vs. being called names. Your inability to put those two things in perspective makes it really hard to take you seriously.
ReplyDeleteThat is all.
I lack self-discipline. Out of my pride, I'm going back on what I said, and adding more.
ReplyDeleteNow you're just being melodramatic. No physical harm is being done to Mr. Hovind by a gang of ruffians. I remember an old saying about "sticks and stones" that might apply here.
Physical abuse is not much worse than verbal abuse. I mean, true grind-this-person-to-the-ground-and-make-them-feel-like-trash verbal abuse is pretty bad. I'm not being melodramatic.
Neither does the Constitution say anything about protecting people from ridicule, whether or not they are as deserving of it at Mr. Hovind. Indeed, numerous Supreme Court cases have upheld the notion that mockery is protected speech.
It's not against the law to mock someone. It's not legally wrong, I believe it is morally wrong.
Of course it's unnecessary, but it's also fun and constructive! You should try it some time.
I already told you that I can't understand how it can be fun. I also don't understand how it can be constructive. Unless your intent is to do what I mentioned above, making someone feel ashamed and miserable. I can guess that this is your intent, and to me that doesn't seem constructive, but rather destructive.
I heartily disagree. That makes no sense unless you truly believe that all crimes are equal, in which case I would love to start a discussion about why you feel that jaywalking and first degree murder deserve the same punishment.
I'm not talking about punishment, I'm talking about people. Hovind deserved the punishment he got. But I hold to my idea that we're all capable of crime, because we're all equally flawed humans.
Taunting is inhumane, but jail is justified? Again I call this bullshit. You may call me all the names you want. Go ahead, it might make you feel better. I will bravely accept your mockery, and say that I not only prefer it to jail, but prefer it a LOT. I suggest that you are demonstrating a fairly weird lack of sense of proportion.
You're not making sense; you already said that taunting is unnecessary, and I know you think prison is justified. I don't mean to insult you, so I shouldn't have used the word inhumane. But no matter what I call it, mockery isn't "better" than jail; they don't compare. The mockery shouldn't be there, and the jail should. Justice is necessary, but mockery isn't included in the justice system.
And thusly, all men who act like assholes are equally subject to ridicule.
Yeah, everyone's equally subject to ridicule. But it's unnecessary, and that's why I left a comment in the first place.
(No sarcasm here:) I am sorry for saying that that talking about moral issues here is a bad idea. I only mean that my views being the way they are, it's unlikely that I'm going to change anyone's mind. But it did come across as rude.
Look, we can go back and forth with this. I'm sure you enjoy and probably do this often. But I'd rather not.
This is it, whether I'm in the right place or not, these are my thoughts on morality: I try to love everyone, even if they wronged me. Everyone deserves the respect I outlined. We have a justice system that, run by imperfect humans, is as perfect as it could be.
I'm not upset when our legal justice system is used appropriately, like it has been with Hovind. I'm upset when unnecessary harm is done for personal enjoyment.
I listen, really listen, to you -- so please return the favor.
- Aliie
"I would like to take you on in a debate with half my brain tied behind my back, just to be fair." -Kent Hovind
ReplyDeleteI belief Hovind could do fine doing just that with some of you guys posting here. (Ahem). Excuse for entering like this but it didn't seem too offish one bit given how this forum has been going. I had to really laugh out loud at some reasoning here. At the same time there have been some petulant rebuttals that will not get us to reach a consensus anytime soon. There has also been much ridiculing which is definitely not meant to encourage decent dialogue. But if that is how you like it……I’ll reply with a hint of your own therapy in my own humble opinion.
So according to evolution theory this is a sure sign of natural selection at work. this quarrelsome give and take is more then two sided and only one of us is right. (that is not implying I’m it) the looser will be left behind to fend for his own and will most likely become just history. I hope this lights a bulb for some of you. because someone is the weaker sibling here. and the so called evolutionist laws actually say two things what happens with the weakest sibling. Depends where your source is from. However having said this much. I want to also say that the idea of natural selection is a total sham as the evolutionists perceive it. Since we are a species that have always looked after the weakest among us, with obviously more success then any other species. It must be mentioned that this is credited to our intelligence above any other species. Now if it’s possible that humans evolved from a mere ape. {to make us really look tasteful up from a bland rock) Why the distinguished intelligence in us?... compared to any other species? We are definitely unique among any other species. Well duh! Or just suppose some of us only look as if they were intelligent, but have only learned how to simply appear so from those that are really intelligent. Suppose that this is true. It would describe why some individuals think their grandpappy was an ape. While others won’t. I don’t think I come from an ape…..I sure don’t. If you think you evolved from an ape. Well, have it your way maybe you did evolve from an ape. I didn’t! so stop playing smart with us humans and go play in the trees. Isn’t that grotesque reasoning? It sure is. So how does an intelligent species fall for a similar hoax. Maybe you are half ape. I mean something makes you and me think different. Ok. And I sure don’t feel or think I’m an ape man. I might be strong and powerful looking like Tarzan. (Ahem) But no, I and most people I know did not descend from an ape. Much less a rock.
I'll say this..…to introduce myself somewhat; I could be likened to a fundamentalist that actually believe in creation in 6 days by a divine Creator as illustrated in Genesis. (Creation is the foundation of Christianity. Only if you believe in Creation are you a Christian). Although I have the imagination to see the evolution theory and understand their case fully, It’s not that hard to see their perspective. but unlike them we can think outside of the box on both sides. while they are trying to tell us what we think and believe. I find it odd how evolutionist can't fathom the Christians view if they were so smart and are really the able think tanks who can contemplate many differing viewpoint that change rapidly over the years. as many of their theories have and will continue to do so. So while we being human. like they, can see their point. meanwhile obviously distinguishing much distortion in their overconfident rational that’s changing persistently. It’s beneficial for us that we study the oldest most credible book in the world known as the bible. while they don't. which in some instances clears up how and why someone won't accept it's content. But then it’s hard to make an argument with someone who has never read this great book. And if they have, they have only done so partially and with a contemptuous preprogrammed mindset. They will say the same is true for us and true enough. The difference is we have a highly admired book to back us up while they only have a theory what they refer to as science. Only their science has proven little on their part. You see, science is smarter then that. It just doesn’t make things up no matter how often the evolution idea is categorized under science.
ReplyDeleteNow I know some of you claim to have been Christians. and read the bible. been there, read that. And I must say it shines through because of your hesitant way of expressing yourself. it does shine through!... some individuals can’t hide the facts that they have been predisposed to the bible. But at any rate it’s not a surprise that some Christians become total evolutionist considering the church they were a member of.
While I can relate to many of Hovind’s ideas. I am very meticulous and take even his opinions with a grain of salt. Like the Hovind Theory depicting the so called ice age for instance. Also as much the theory of the evolutionists who have only harvested their ideas from sources that are skeptical of their own conclusions. The evolutionists also have this infinite habit of shifting the burden of proof on to the creationists if only to appear smart thus allowing us to explain and communicate real time tested evidence from the worlds greatest book. So as much as evolutionists will try shifting the burden of proof. they demonstrate in any case a lack of solid science on their part. Since most of what they perceive is only a theory and is their own imagination. A religion as much as they try to refute this fact… their mere speculations are not science at all. Evolutionist make science look like it’s their own personal instrument that nobody else really understands. Well…..tough. they have it wrong.
I do have some pretty good friends who are evolutionist and they are great people and unlike some of those guys posting on this blog they are open to sensible dialogue. It’s also unique how we creationist can take many ideas the evolutionist think they have discovered and squeeze them from billions of years into 6000 years presto. Thanks guys….maybe our research tax dollars are not all squandered by your prewired field biologist. The evolutionists lack of credible sources and real evidence really makes my book (Bible) shine. That is….your helping by brushing away the dust while others only have to observe the work… your work is instrumental in slowly and steadily revealing truths that weren’t so clear before. (Ahem… Besides according to the evolutionist theory we are ever becoming smarter and enlightened where our origin is in question…). And you know…. that there is one of the many neat coincidences between us and them…. A world that is getting more enlightened. (The Bible tells us that in the end of time our sons and daughters will be filled with wisdom. due to Gods allowance of such a period. Funny how the evolutionists have no iota of a clue how accurate Gods word foretells such times often. ONLY that man (in this case evolutionist) in his acquired education accumulated over many years. (that in all reality can be totally misleading and watered down). Which in turn makes man feeling superior towards older truer values that are often better knowledge and science? Thus many have become haughty. thinking themselves smarter then Dad with their newer over rated education. They exclude and discriminate an old worn out book… (The Bible. among other books). They reject that what is an Almighty Gods word. His incontrovertible and all powerful never expiring word. THAT which of course is reckless, arrogant and makes them look stupid and will lead to their definite downfall. And their destruction is inevitable according to my Book (Bible)
ReplyDeleteIn this discussion the evolutionists have been apologetic towards the Creationists like; “sorry I had to reveal this to you”. when in fact they have revealed their own ignorance unaware of their surroundings. To quote them; “you have my sympathy”. Like who needs condolence here. Their state is pathetic. It could be too late for some of them. But on the top side. They are still alive… if they haven’t turned into rocks yet. but if they have. Well, at least one of their theories would be true only in reverse order which again makes them look, ummm not too bright. The evolutionists in this discussion have also stated it’s upsetting and they can’t grasp why Creationists can’t make a distinction between REALITY and FANTASY. Well. Excuse me. Try and think outside the box once… ok. Could it be that we are equally perplexed with the evolutionists way of thinking? YES we are. You will say. Well they don’t get it. And… we will say You don’t get it. Both have widely different views so that’s reasonable and not a point to argue.
Ok, to the Evolutionist…. I want to say. Try to read the bible without feeling full of yourself and smarter then Dad. Or if Dad is like you. try reading it without feeling smug regardless. You have probably heard many statements directed at you like; “you need Jesus” or “you need to pray”. Your reaction is to scoff at them. Right. I understand…… I really do. well as impractical as they may sound to your frame of mind. They carry a lot of weight. Of course it’s not that simple as these statements. You have to understand what they mean. And to understand is to search and find out. Don’t dismiss them because they are said by someone you appose or have discriminated as a psychopath. Now my request for you to read the bible may sound just as lame as the two above. And I’m sure to you they can very possibly be really of the wall. But at least for the sake of human kind….. and peace on this earth. where we just like you would love to live in peace together and just enjoy life together with all it’s beauties. (it has many) We enjoy beauties too just like you. The flowers. Music, a babies smile, a juicy steak, A goblet of wine. Friends, Our family and loved one’s, the beautiful heavens with it’s constellations, a drive in the countryside, many many other beauties and pleasures. We just see it all differently and I’d like to make you just a little covetous and say with more gratitude! However I don’t know how much gratitude you perceive it all with. Only I ask that you don’t argue with no creationists again with out giving them a chance and read the bible or listen to some of their senior speakers. Even if you say you have done so. Do it again…. to it for me, for your neighbor, your fellow man. Find someone who will clear things up for you where there are questions. You may laugh at us, it’s ok. But consider this carefully. We have but one life to live on this earth. you want to make the best of it. So do I. we don’t hate you. we just have this misunderstanding that could potentially separate us forever....
ReplyDelete....This request shouldn’t be too hard, some of you seem to be intelligent enough to read a bible quickly in a short time. But take you time and read it carefully. I’d recommend a plain old King James Version. They are the most original copy from the original. Now there are several revised KJV’s so be careful. You may be cynical of this. But some bibles have been twisted around by man and are no good. Take it for what it’s worth. It could mean Forever………… you know that’s a long time………. Often man being intelligent will wonder what heaven will be like. People have imagined and have decided it will be so and so. You probably know the muslins version which Christians belief is really… well revealing their lust. But in a reality we have little or no idea what it is like. The bible gives us hints. but mostly it’s not possible for ordinary man to know. the bibles states that it cannot come into the heart of man that God has prepared for us. but it’s written that it must be good like “you’ll like it!!!” His promises are known to be true and correctly come about. Now see how I have painted God and heaven as nice. Well they are nice. But I realize that you are not blind to the fact that God can be unkind. Ok why won’t he be if you disrespect him. God takes it ill to have his word doubted. God is God and you don’t mess with him. If he says “do it”, DO IT!!!! Like really. His word is clear enough for simple men to comprehend. so do it. His word warns us of consequences if we don’t. it’s very clear about that. As is written. “hast thou known that I’m a tough ruler, why hast thou not done as I bid”. Look, God means business. And you don’t have to be scared of him if you do what he bids. You just have to know that he will require respect, obedience and reverence from you. he clearly asks you to love Him, well how do you love a God. yes it is different then loving a human. The bible says that “to love God is to obey his commands”. It’s that simple although not that easy. However it’s possible and very rewarding. You have Gods word for it!!! and God has never failed his promise! I am not a preacher or whatever in that line. I just came upon this blog and after reading I decided to write just a little. Believe me I have much more on my mind. Thanks for reading my post. It took me some time to write this and don’t expect me back soon. I’d love to answer some questions for you and maybe I’ll find time again later. All the Best. May God Bless You All.
ReplyDeleteAllie,
ReplyDeletePhysical abuse is not much worse than verbal abuse. I mean, true grind-this-person-to-the-ground-and-make-them-feel-like-trash verbal abuse is pretty bad. I'm not being melodramatic.
You keep repeating this, but you haven't made a case for it, and repeating it doesn't add to its credibility. In the first place, if you think that THIS post calling out Kent Hovind for crimes he committed is that level of abuse, you must be fairly sheltered. In the second place, if this kind of mockery is as bad as you say, then every single person who has ever set virtual feet on a message board or newsgroup the internet ought to be as mentally traumatized as someone who has spent years in prison or in military combat. To say nothing of people in politics, who on both sides of the aisle are exposed to much worse criticism on a daily basis.
Don't get me wrong, I think it takes a tough person to run for public office. And yet I don't think there is ANYBODY who would rather serve a prison term than campaign for president if given the chance, and hence I repeat my statement that you are, indeed, being extremely melodramatic.
It's not against the law to mock someone. It's not legally wrong, I believe it is morally wrong.
Still a matter of opinion with which I disagree.
I already told you that I can't understand how it can be fun.
Then you are free not to participate. Some people find bungie jumping fun. I am not interested in doing so, so I don't do it. But I also don't bitch about other people bungie jumping.
I also don't understand how it can be constructive. Unless your intent is to do what I mentioned above, making someone feel ashamed and miserable. I can guess that this is your intent, and to me that doesn't seem constructive, but rather destructive.
Just read this thread to see why ridicule is sometimes necessary. You may believe that Kent Hovind deserved his jail sentence, but thousands of people everywhere are too obtuse to recognize that he even did anything wrong. They don't even understand the nature of his crime and like to pretend that the court only sentenced him because they hate his Christianity. I submit that that attitude really is wrong, and encourages more people to commit similar crimes.
Sometimes jail isn't sufficient to serve as a deterrent, and some good old fashioned humor can do more to contribute to public awareness. Hence, I claim that it is constructive.
I'm not talking about punishment, I'm talking about people. Hovind deserved the punishment he got. But I hold to my idea that we're all capable of crime, because we're all equally flawed humans.
I agree that we're all capable of crime, and yet some people do it while others don't. So what do you want to say about criminals once they're in jail? Praise them for their humility? Or simply censor everyone who would like to discuss the nature of their crimes?
(Continued...)
You're not making sense; you already said that taunting is unnecessary, and I know you think prison is justified. I don't mean to insult you, so I shouldn't have used the word inhumane. But no matter what I call it, mockery isn't "better" than jail; they don't compare. The mockery shouldn't be there, and the jail should. Justice is necessary, but mockery isn't included in the justice system.
ReplyDeleteTrue indeed. Mockery is simply a bonus, legally protective speech which is a fun and constructive which anyone can engage in. Not required, but heartily endorsed by me as well as political satirists everywhere. Hooray for mockery!
Look, we can go back and forth with this. I'm sure you enjoy and probably do this often. But I'd rather not.
This is it, whether I'm in the right place or not, these are my thoughts on morality: I try to love everyone, even if they wronged me. Everyone deserves the respect I outlined. We have a justice system that, run by imperfect humans, is as perfect as it could be.
I'm not upset when our legal justice system is used appropriately, like it has been with Hovind. I'm upset when unnecessary harm is done for personal enjoyment.
I listen, really listen, to you -- so please return the favor.
I did listen to you. I disagree with you, but that's okay. I am free to mock, and you are free to refrain from mocking. I am happy with that state of affairs.
As I see it, I think that one can conclude that Hovind is a deeply disturbed human being. A delusional sociopath with a distorted view of reality. I feel nothing but pity for sick people.
ReplyDeleteI'm really quite saddened to hear the pain and doubt that his wife is trying to suppress (but failing). It's pretty clear that she recognizes that he is in the wrong, she is doubting their convictions in this matter, but knows no conceivable way to approach this without setting him off.
ReplyDeleteI feel for her. She's being dragged along for the ride, and I am sure at this point she's probably wondering where the next stop is....
This blog started with Kent Hovind tax charges and ended up with the important question, Do I believe or not? Kent Hovind my not have anticipated that this amount of dialog on the creation would ever take place.
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the inputs, but it is still for each one to decide, do I believe or don't I believe.
Thanks
If you realised who you pay when you pay the IRS, you might decide that Mr Hovind had the right idea.
ReplyDeletePeace and love, my atheist chums - I'll put a good word in for you when I next speak to our Creator.
From a new (British) Christian
Nothing mysterious about it: we're paying the United States government for expenditures such as social programs, national defense, infrastructure projects, and scientific research. Same thing you're doing when you pay taxes to HM Revenue & Customs.
ReplyDeleteWhen you're talking to your imaginary friend, please check to make sure he's not suggesting anything illegal. Thanks!
You guys are pretty scummy. My guess is, that when Hovind gets out, the only ones who'll hate him are those who always hated him, and those who love him will still love him, and he'll continue to make atheists look silly in all the debates. So, you better take your potshots now while you can... right?
ReplyDeleteYou guys are pretty scummy.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, But at least we're law abiding citizens who don't commit felony tax fraud.
My guess is, that when Hovind gets out, the only ones who'll hate him are those who always hated him, and those who love him will still love him
You're probably right, mainly because those of us who disdain lawbreakers and liars will continue to disdain them, while Hovind's supporters will continue to be as unintelligent, morally bankrupt and delusional as he is.
and he'll continue to make atheists look silly in all the debates
Case in point.
So, you better take your potshots now while you can... right?
Actually, this post is now more than three years old. And ever since Hovind has been doing time for his crimes, we've pretty much ignored him. He's really of no consequence whatsoever. You should reconsider your policy of backing the losing horse in life. It'll never end well for you.
@ acf11, name ONE argument that Hovind has made which made us look ''silly.''
ReplyDeleteI know this is an old story and some long ago comments but I just have to say one thing.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else catch what he'd rather be doing than fighting the "good" fight?
He said he'd rather be fighting evolution.
The IRS is keeping the really nutty nuts busy with IRS stuff. Good on them. My tax dollars at work for ME for a change.
All I can say is "wow". I took a while and read through this entire entry. There were more christians chiming in than all other posts combined (although it sure seemed as though some were less than unique). All I can say is Martin deserves some extra stars next to his name. He withstood a full court press by the rationally inept and was nonplussed and... well, don't know how to say it, he was just a lot more right than the whole lot of them.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it about Hovind that inspires anyone? I really don't think I'd trust him even if he wasn't so obviously nonsensical. I mean when he says things funnier than I could possibly make up it's easy. But if he was saying something that seemed logical or was truly debated I don't think I'd trust him either. Is it just because I know he's a delusional scamming lunatic that he seems like one, or does he comes across that way in general? Haggard has the same crazy monomaniacal goofy aura to him. Maybe I'm not susceptible to that flavor of nutphoria.
I am a creationist and think that Hovind is wrong
ReplyDelete[comment]One wonders, how does someone this dishonest and deluded get this way in the first place?[/comment]
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I believe this is one of the MAJOR dangers of religion in the first place, and why I actively engage people about religion. When someone patterns their brain to not only ignore logic, but to actively ignore any evidence to the contrary of what you want to believe, I think that translates to every part of your worldview. Religion patterns peoples brains this way. It is extremely scary...
It's more than obvious that Hovind's work is religious ministry. CSE has always published that it's material is 100% free, which means not-for-profit. Hovind's church existed entirely on donations. U.S. Code Title 26 Section 508 gives churchs like Hovind's ministry tax exception. Politicians such as Charles Rangel and Timothy Giethner who were charged and convicted with the same exact "crime", never had such protections. I'm curious why those types are not in jail today?
ReplyDeleteThis is a clear fraud and misuse of power by the IRS. It's not the first nor only time. The fact no other CSE employees were charged with tax evasion for their own lack of tax reporting speaks volumes of this undeniably gross fraud by the government. The fact Mrs. Hovind wasn't charged until only after she was able to successfully begin a public campaign to expose this government fraud, further reinforces these facts.
I believe it is only a matter of time until all of those who are proud of this crime prepetrated by the government will be revealed as the true criminal types. Hovind's case has been a clear example of where the government decided to disagree with a religious institution's intent, and attempted to close it through violating it's own tax law. Hitler would be proud of all those who are proud Hovind is in jail for preaching.
Thankfully, Hovind's ministry is still alive and well, with his son continuing his father's endeavors today. Perhaps there is still some margin of hope for this world.
Aw. Too bad. Godwin's Law = you fail.
ReplyDeleteHovind is not in jail for preaching. He is in jail for failing to collect and pay employment withholding taxes, obstructing tax laws, and structuring financial transactions to avoid reporting laws. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his conviction.
By all means continue to construct the deluded alternate reality you've got there if it makes you feel better, though. That's already par for the course for you creationist types anyway.
Churches don't pay taxes in America. However, the debate on which churches should be allowed to be except for which causes has been a loud debate for centuries. For at least a few examples you can read this LA Times opinion article: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-lynn-stanley25-2008sep25,0,2620493.story
ReplyDeleteIf Kent Hovind Creation Science Evangelism Ministries is a church, or religious organization, than Kent Hovind committed no crime as protected per the tax-exemption laws. From what I've read in the IRS's brief, Hovind made every attempt to secure his church's properties with other corporate tax-exempt entities. It appears the IRS tried for over 17 years to find a loophole to finally describe Hovind's church as non-exempt, and prosecute him for tax evasion after being in the same ministry for over 20 years. Why the IRS didn't add years of tax filings prior to 2001 (Hovind started his ministry in 1989, presumably not paying taxes since) helps reveal they're either hiding something at the very least, or intentionally trying to commit fraud to silence a point of view at worst. It has been done before by the IRS, and the IRS has been found to commit such fraud in the past, normally on political grounds. Federal Appeals Courts often contradict themselves across every topic, especially this one; proving the US Court System is not perfect. A few examples where the IRS purposefully has tried to subvert the law and Tax Courts, sometimes winning, sometimes losing:
http://www.usobserver.com/archive/oct-09/irs-minns-win.htm
http://www.irstaxtrouble.com/court-says-no-fraud-so-irs-finds-friendlier-court/
There is a reason why the general citizen does not trust the IRS. They are not the stalwarts of public interest as anti-creationists would like to believe in Hovind's case. They allow certain high-profile politicians (as mentioned in previous post) to go unharrassed and even continue to run for high office, while they'll viciously harrass religious groups for over a decade. I would love to see a Supreme Court ruling on Hovind's and other church minister's similar cases.
HI THERE! WHY DON'T YOU POST MY COMMENT. PLEASE LET ME KNOW. MR. HOVIND REPLY IMMEDIATLY. ARE YOU AFRAID OR WHAT.
ReplyDeleteKENT HOVIND IS A WORKER FOR GOD. HAVE MADE A SOME BODY BELIEVE LATELY. KENT DID.
REMEMBER GOD IS WATCHING US!!!!!
GREATINGS
JASSIE VISSER
SOUTH-ARRICA
CAPE TOWN
HI! SORRY FOR MY POOR ENGLISH BUT WE DO NOT REALLY SPEAK THE LANGUAGE.
ReplyDeleteTHE PEOPLE WHO SAYS THAT DR HOVIND IS MAD OR INSANE, IS IN BIG TROUBEL.
WE ALL WIL PRAY FOR YOU AND SAVE YOUR SEL WHILE YOU HAVE THE CHANCE.
GOOD LUCK. JESUS LOVES YOU!!!
JASSIE
WHO IS THIS MARTIN BLOKE. I HAVE READ A FEW OF YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING DR HOVIND AND OTHER. YOU HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM MAN. THEY CALL IT STUPID ON PURPUS OR JUST PLAIN STUPID.
ReplyDeleteTHIS EARTH WAS MADE BY GOD AND HE OWNS IT WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. GOD IS WATCHING YOU!!!
KAZIM, JUST LOOKING AT YOUR NAME I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN,T BE VERY BRITE. SORRY!! JUST KEEP IT TO YOUR SELF.
JASSIE
Hovind is right. For one, the tax code says, in plain English, that compliance in voluntary. There really is a great analogy between the mob and the gov. The fed gov steals your money against it own laws and then uses that money to murder people all over the world IN OUR NAMES! Look up the video collateral murder. It show US military shooting Reuters news people and then the rescue van when it shows up.
ReplyDelete"Voluntary compliance" does not mean you don't have to file tax returns if you don't feel like it. It means that citizens are free to arrange their financial affairs in such a way to take advantage of any tax benefits, of which there are many. It means that you can minimize your taxes by taking advantage of various deductions and tax credits. Of course, you have to tell the IRS what your tax liability is and what deductions and benefits you intend to take advantage of, and the way you do that is by filing your return.
ReplyDeleteWhile wars are repellent (especially the Iraq War), your tax money pays for many other services besides the military. If you want to be so stupid as to think all taxation is "stealing," go right ahead. Just be sure to put your money where your mouth is — by not taking any mail, not driving your car on any paved roads, and not calling 911 to avail yourself of police, firefighters, or other emergency services should you end up in trouble.
Whats the point, All i can see someday all will know and all will bow down to Him, Jesus as Lord. You guys are just not seeing the point in the first place. That's the reason, if you don't make Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you'll be easily deceived. Good Luck to you all
ReplyDeletebignards (snicker): There's a reason we don't do any of those things. We aren't delusional, gullible, ill-educated morons.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, dude, if you want to embrace such a bizarre collection of irrational, dehumanizing, cultish beliefs, go right ahead. But please leave those of us who have a healthy relationship with reality out of it. Thanks.
JASSIE: I am truly overwhelmed by the brilliance and erudition of your arguments. The complexity and depth of your thinking has no peer. The caps lock really drives your central philosophical points home, too. Astonishing!
Its funny how much trouble an atheist will go through just so he could continue believing he came from a rock.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's not actually what we believe, but as we've seen, creationists find ignorance easier and more preferable to learning.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm confused. Even if this were true, don't Christians believe that man was molded from mud and woman came from a rib? So how is that any more sensible?
Seriously now, Daniel. A college education might not have been such a bad idea after all, hmm?
Oh, don't worry about that... calling out a convicted tax evader for being a leech on society is actually no trouble at all.
ReplyDeleteHI MARTIN! WHEN IS YOUR NEXT BIRTHDAY? I HOPE YOU WILL BE 10 THEN BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU SOUNDS LIKE.
ReplyDeleteSTOP PLAYING WITH YOUR COMPUTER AND START READING YOUR BIBLE.
YOU NEED IT BIG TIME ROCK MAN!!!!
CHEERS
JASSIE
I'm curious, where are all the hilarious people on this thread coming from? We get a steady trickle of one every couple of months. Is there a link from an apologist site somewhere? If so, we ought to thank them.
ReplyDeleteI think they ones who have a healthy dose of anything here is the ones headed straight for hell... Ok, so Hovind didn't pay his taxes.... DO YOU!! LOL
ReplyDeleteALL OF THEM!!! NO CHEATING!! HMMMM ok, soooo then, he goes to prison for 10 years... and maybe his wife does too!! Sad, not good.... but.... YOU will go to HELL FOREVER!!! I'd rather be in his shoes!!
Take some time to figure it out....
instead of pointing fingers trying to sound smart... because the smartest of men.... DID not have college educations!!
:)
lol... If you're an atheist, then be an atheist. If you're a religious person, then be a religious person. To all the religious people, let the atheist be an atheist. To all the atheists, let the religious be religious.
ReplyDeleteAll you Christians that forces all the atheists to become religious, are hypocrits. In the Bible, God gave you free choice, and also in the Bible God told you not to judge. It's only your duty to show them what you believe is the right answer and let them have their choice.
All you atheists that believes that you are more supreme than theists... empty cans makes the loudest noise. I have more respect for an atheist that has his reasons for his belief and respect other's beliefs, even if its wrong to him, and that do something worthwhile instead of saying how bad theists are and how awesome he is.
Martin vs. the world. Sheesh.
ReplyDelete@Richard
All you atheists that believes that you are more supreme than theists
Says who? I only hear such claims from theists, oddly. We believe we've selected a better set of tools for determining reality, mostly because it's demonstrably effective.
At most, I hear atheists denouncing people who really are idiots, whether they are theists or not. But the important point there is that it's not because they're theists, but because they're morons... which just happens to coincide with theism more often than not.
I have more respect for an atheist that has his reasons for his belief and respect other's beliefs,
You mean, like everyone? Which belief are you talking about? The reason I don't believe in a god is because the claim is embarrassingly unsupported, and hasn't met its burden of proof. All I see is previously-refuted-a-thousand-times claims, intermixed with threats that I'd better convert or be digested forever by the supreme immortal invisible Tyrannosaurus Rex from the 8th layer of the Fire Dimension.
even if its wrong to him, and that do something worthwhile instead of saying how bad theists are and how awesome he is.
That is worthwhile.
Repelling the destruction of the educational system is worthwhile.
Defending the rights of non-christians from christian fascists is worthwhile.
The advancement and promotion of skepticism and critical thinking is worthwhile.
I'm sorry that as someone who's part of the problem in the nonstop degradation of civilization, you might have to endure a bit of a verbal shakedown every once in awhile. The rest of us are a bit busy fighting for our very lives and freedom in a society that's becoming more and more hell bent on establishing a Dictatorship of Instanity.
Even if you're not directly doing anything to contribute to this trend, you're helping create a sympathetic environment for it... like a warm damp basement is a sympathetic environment for the growth of mold.
2 Peter 3:2-4
ReplyDelete2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
Matthew 7:6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Matthew 10:12 And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
Philippians 2:9-11
King James Version (KJV)
9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
*** Prayer ***
Lord, help us today, your people -- help us lead the lost and undone to Christ. Lord help us, to live a life worthy of being called Christians, and help us to not enter into foolish arguments. Your word stands for itself, and I'm thankful for it. I pray for each and everyone on these posts-- the saved and unsaved alike. I love you Lord-- and appreciate you. Thank you for what you have done for me -- AMEN
Creation itself screams of an intelligent designer. It's hard for me to understand how anyone could not see that. But I know many who don't see it that way. I appreciate the solidity that God has brought into my life. It's not a matter of just a belief, I have experienced God in my life - I know he's real. Once the "the Variable" that is God was plugged into my life, I began to see and understand many things that I had not before. Things which made no sense began to.
With that being said, it like trying to explain to someone what pizza taste like, that has never tasted it. You can't just remove God from the equation without, changing everything altogether.
So many are living life, choosing to plug something else into the variable.
The best that I can do as a believer, is to tell you what I have found to be true-- in LOVE. If an unbeliever accepts, then praise the Lord. If not, I move on in prayer-- but we can't spend all of our time in the same "house". There is a time to knock the dust off your sandals.
I'm not going to poke fun, or scoff at the unbeliever, but do the only thing that I can. Your traveling a road, that has a bridge out ahead, God has commanded us to wave signs, warning you of the impending danger. I will do just that, out of love for God, and love for my fellow man. If you choose to move past the warnings, not believing that there is danger, nor believing the remedy for it-- it's up to you.
So when we pass by in life, just remember this, and respect it if you can--we give the warnings that we are commanded to give, and our sense of urgency, comes from the Variable that we believe to be God-- I know that he loves me, and he loves you as well.
Would you do the same for me-- if you thought I was headed for an impending doom?
May God help us all --
Dear Mr. Paul,
ReplyDeleteStar Trek Rule.
mrpaul: Creation itself screams of an intelligent designer. It's hard for me to understand how anyone could not see that.
ReplyDeleteThat's because you have rejected a sound education in modern science in favor of a collection of myths compiled during antiquity by people living in a primitive and cruel culture, in which such fields of study as biology, paleontology and genetics did not exist. Consequently, you have found it helpful to project a human face upon the universe in order to understand it, much in the same way that primitive peoples explained storms and floods by appealing to an angry weather god, or believed that the sun was a different god riding a flaming chariot across the sky. In short, we do understand why people like you think the way you do. We would just prefer people advance. It is, after all, the 21st century, not the 1st anymore.
If you choose to move past the warnings, not believing that there is danger, nor believing the remedy for it-- it's up to you.
Protip: Providing evidence for the existence of these supposed "dangers" in the first place would be a big help in convincing us to believe in them and be wary of them.
Otherwise, if we've threatened you so much that you have to shield yourself behind a firewall of Bible quotes, frankly, that says more about you than it does about us. Please accept our sympathies.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteI'm unaware of your education, as you are unaware of mine. I have chose to believe God, because of my experience with him. I can no more show you proof of that beginning, than you can one from a stand point in opposition.
Prove to me that I just cease to exist upon death. You can no more prove that to me than I can prove to you that heaven or hell are real.
I am well read in our modern teaching in science. But Martin honestly, even before I became a believer, I just could not come to terms with the astronomical chance that it would have taken for there to be life without a designer behind it. There is no science that proves this. Science comes closer to disproving the possibility of us being here by chance. But the truth is-- it neither proves or disproves.
I admit, I can't prove the existence of God. No one proved him to me, when I began to believe. My experience, caused me to stop questioning his existence.
I'm not going to assume that you have not studied the bible, before you came to your conclusions. Myself, after careful study, I believe the bible proves itself time and time again.
I don't knock science. I love science honestly, but I do feel that the scientific community -- (and this is general, because there are scientist that feel and believe the same as I do) but the scientific community has explained some things away stating theories, that are impossible to prove. Some of theories are made by assumptions about the consistency of constants -- which you know as well as I do, is a failed way of looking at things.
So there is no real "argument" to be had. It's what we will put our faith in. And my faith is in God, and I believe it to be God that has given you the option to believe as you choose. But just as I believe in God, by faith, you must believe as you do in faith as well. God, has proven his existence to me by his presence in my life. So I choose to believe. It's not a belief out of ignorance, nor one because of a primitive idea-- or some need to put a human face on things. I was not brought up in a religious home. I was not brainwashed into believing something. I came to a critical crossroad in my life, and God was there. I realized at that point, hey there is a God, and I could no longer live without acknowledging him. It was then, that I began to study in depth, and the more I studied, the greater my faith became. I don't have all the answers, and I don't believe it was meant for us to.
Truth is you don't have all the answers either, nor does our even our brightest of the bright. There are huge gaps in our understanding, and we are continuously revising claims along the way -- We're learning, but we have not arrived.
No sympathy needed, I don't feel threatened. Who's teaching do you stand behind, or beneath? Would you quote those you respect, or believe to be esteemed in the area of discussion? Absolutely you would, as do I.
I guess this is the place I knock the dust off my sandals.
God loves you-- and offers a life of abundance. Christ died, to bridge the gap that separated you from him because of your sin. And you're not alone, we all have sinned, and fall short. If you desire forgiveness, he freely forgives. He simply asks you to turn away from the sin that separated, and follow him. His yoke is indeed easy and his burden is indeed light. You have the choice to use the gift of free will that he has given you, and choose not to believe, and continue on the way that you have, or you can choose to believe and God will call you one of his own. Without him, there is a real hell (that I can't prove to you), without Christ- and the sacrifice that was given for your sins, there is no hope.
ReplyDeleteGod is a gentlemen, and he will not force himself into your life. But he will speak to you along the way, trying to lead you to safety. I don't know you, but I do hope you get saved. I won't pop shots at you, and I don't think I'm better than you. The only difference between you and I- is a risen savior, that I've accepted and you haven't. With this, I'm praying for you.
The funny thing is all of the so called "Atheist's" out there are still $250,000 poorer because they can't dis-prove the creationist belief. You can bash creationism all you want but the fact remains that the evidence is overwhelming.
ReplyDelete