Raise a toast to Kent Hovind, whose appeal has been denied.
By the way, another of his dialogs with God has been posted…he wrote it in August, so there seems to be a rather substantial lag in putting them on the web. That’s a shame, since God has such a strong personal interest in Kent.
How Christian of him to lie and cheat the government like that.
Ha! Denied, beeotch! Sorry, a bit drunk preparing for the new year…
Woot! What a way to bring in the New Year!
Gosh, God was polite enough to say “Good Morning” and Kent just blathered on with his whining. There’s no accounting for some people. But…HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Gee, that’s a sh HAHAHAHAHAHA AAHHAHAHAHAHA etc.
Behind bars…fantastic place for him to spend his New Years, hahaha!
cooling his heels for a longer time ? ..good
From the crackpot’s email,
Subject:
GodThe US Legal System Is In ControlFixed.
Well, that’s embarassing. del doesn’t seem to work for strikethrough here…
Profitable. From the document:
awwww *smallest violin playing*
and I bet he’ll consider it more persecution by evil secularists. because being punished for crimes you’ve committed is persecution *rolleyes*
Oh no, don’t you all realize this is just god testing him. He did nothing wrong. He even had a conversation with god about it. How could someone who talks to god do wrong? When god tells me to go smack cute waitresses on the behind, I do so. Its god’s will and his will shall be done!
One thing I’ve noticed is that Hovind related posts attract the
bestmost insane creationists. I can’t wait.Ryan F. Stello: Try [s], [/s].
those “knee-mails”, if they were addressed to anyone other than the Christian god, would be evidence for insanity. I hate how being insane in the christian way is somehow ok :-/
He seems to fancy himself the white trash Boethius.
Does this mean I shouldn’t expect a summer vacation at Dinosaur Adventure Land?
And if <s> and </s> don’t work, try <strike> and </strike>
Many thanks, Tresmal!
My HTML is…how you say…not so many good?
Comparing himself to Joseph (he of the Technicolor Dreamcoat)? Ie. Hovind is claiming he’s been unjustly imprisoned, just as Joseph was. I still can’t decide whether it’s all an act to keep his suckers on the hook, or he’s really delusional enough to believe the stories he makes up about himself.
A dialog with god or dog
Is oftenest a monologue
Call me old school, but, I don’t like the idea of toasting the well-deserved misfortune of a genuine asshole like Kent Hovind. It’s super tacky in a nasty sort of way, like toasting marshmallows over the burning carcass of what used to be your annoying neighbor’s annoying dog, and is bound to attract very bad karma.
God really comes off as a simpleton in that dialogue.
Kent says:
I always wonder what mental gymnastics they have to perform to believe this while working so hard to remove freedom of choice (abortion, gay marriage, etc…)
Remind me, who was it that reportedly said “Give to God what is God’s. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”? Kent apparently thinks he knows better… ;)
Given that God took him to chat with Bubba in the last dialog, the slammer seems a most appropriate place to be spending the New Year…
Kel@22: when people make up dialogs with imaginary friends, they usually cast the imaginary friend as a reflection of themselves; ergo Kent portrays God as a simpleton.
I see that one of the commenters on his blog has listed his prison address to send letters or books (shipped from the retailer) etc… no staples, no hacksaws, no shivs. Oh, and the books have to be paperback. Perhaps someone ought send him a few very basic science books?
Little by little the evil atheist conspiracy is stripping the “fun” from “fundamentalism”.
It’s almost enough to make one think that the Constitution has somehow been contaminated by humanistic ideas, banish the thought.
Happy New Year, Kent! In this year of 2009, may you experience personally more of the misery you visited on other people!
And, hey, I hear Sarah Palin may be looking for a running mate in 2012!
Good. Good. and Good.
I am so f’ing sick of these loonies getting a shred of attention from our courts (and thereby burning through my tax dollars in one form or another). Considering the recent holiday, I’ve a mind to sue the US gov’t to prove the Santa Claus does or does not exists and should thus receive (or not receive) tax-exempt status.
Maybe God talks to Kent Hovind in a way Kent Hovind can understand, that his infinite wisdom has been funnelled down to a level where even a moron can get the point… either that or Kent Hovind is making it all up.
In the instructions to sending mail to Kent:
hah
Do you think he wrote George W. Bush to ask for a presidential pardon? It’s his only chance now.
#21
I don’t know – I think these folks deserve the derision that is visited upon them. I used to think PZ was a little harsh, but I that was due to a residual ingrained ‘respect’ for god fearn’ folk. That meme is so pervasive that it affected me even when I totally disagreed with it.
What I’ve taken away from this blog is that these people are truly, in the real sense of the word, either certifiably delusional and insane or just grade A1 assholes. Either way, they are a danger to us all, and their undoing is a cause for celebration, or at at least relief.
And Mr. Hovind seems to be more of the Grade A1 variety.
Your concern is noted.
Best news I’ve had all year…
As a long time lurker i’m always pleased to be reminded Mr Hovind that fundies tend to give up on ‘thou shalt not steal’ if it means you get say a sports car at the expense of say inner city schools
Happy Monkey, Kent Hovind!
This news…
Nothing like heralding the coming of 2009 new year with a tall, invigorating glass of Schadenfreude!
When will people learn that the system simply doesn’t work!!! Oh wait!…..It did work. :)
Happy Monkey.
#39
Pardon, that should be “…heralding 2009 with a cool, invigorating glass of Schadenfreude!”
Half-asleep at the keyboard :(
@ Jason A. #23:
None whatsoever. They don’t really think at all. They merely say whatever suits them at any given moment. Hence they don’t even notice inconsistencies in their burblings, let alone then feel obliged to try and work out why it doesn’t make sense and rectify their evidently incorrect personal worldview.
The few thinkers are generally the ones who leave the religion – because they do notice the inconsistencies and errors and (the honest subset of those thinkers) care about that enough to reject the religious web of lies.
Meanwhile, the dishonest semi-thinkers are the ones trying to weave more complicated (related rather than non sequitur) lies to pacify the majority of the marks within their con. The more deliberate conmen can be distinguished from the merely simple-minded by the convolutedness of any attempted justifications.
Heh, any time I feel like the bad people get away with it or that there’s no justice in the world, I just remember certain people. Hovind is one of them. May God love and preserve your cornhole, Ken.
Off topic, but if you haven’t heard “Storm” yet, you have to:
The bit at the end of the court’s formal judgement:
just has to be read out in a sonorous Voice of Doom. Rather like the opening sequence of the Superman film where the bad guys are sentenced to be turned into a video-enabled communion wafer.
Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.
That “knee mail” was sidesplittingly hilarious. That it was nakedly obvious, self-serving drivel only made it more so.
Well, Kent Hovind’s in good company – wasn’t it tax evasion that Al Capone was sent down for, while his more serious crimes went unpunished?
I can at least express the genuine hope that Hovind’s punishment does not extend beyond that ordered by the court – which I understand it all too frequently does in American prisons.
You heard wrong.
If you were sentenced to 10 years, you won’t serve a day over 10 years. Unless you’re a fucking moron and do something illegal while in jail. Yes, that can happen. One prisoner decided to draw a stamp onto a letter he sent out. It was done very well. So well that we had to run the “stamp” through some tests we postal workers have to verify authenticity of stamps. A coworker of mine reported it to the postal inspectors, and that guy got 5 years for mail fraud tacked onto his sentence.
Otherwise, he would have gotten out on or before his sentence expired.
Often, many prisoners don’t serve their entire time. It’s not that we’re so compassionate, but that, unless you’re an idiot or a totally vicious and/or deranged psychopath, our prisons are so damned overcrowded that you’ll get an early release for even halfway decent behavior.
Ha HAAAA! SUCK IT Hovind, you disingenuous bastard, you ten-cent fraud, you intellectual well-poisoner (to snatch a zinger from Thunderfoot). Too clever by half, weren’t you? Do you also have advanced degrees in Religious Accounting and Christian Tax Law?
Exactly what my day needed: a heaping helping of schadenfreude! Happy New Year, everybody!
The Word of God
John Chapter 3
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Aquaria,
I wasn’t referring to him being kept in too long, but to violence, including rape, from other prisoners and sometimes prison guards. It hasn’t happened on this one, but on a number of threads discussing people who have been imprisoned for particularly nasty crimes, some commenters have gloated over the likelihood of them being raped.
Ron Judge,
Piss off.
Given the prison populace’s reputation for gaggles of conservative Xtians and Muslims, Ken will probably find an eager congregation for his inane preaching. I wish his delusional defects qualified him for solitary confinement rather than encouraging their already schizoid faith. (It’s OK to hate the fags, the blacks/whites/Hispanics/fags, steal, lie, kill those I don’t like, but i wuvs Jebus.)
If my prayers are answered there will be a 300 lb. inmate with a fetish for the pasty white doc..*kack..*kack.. Sorry, I just choke when I try to refer to Hovind as doctor.
Color me unsurprised…..
Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving bloke!
Pity they don’t provide dungeons anymore.
Oh, I’d take my chances, and that karma bit ain’t all what it’s hyped up to be anyway, – just another bit of woo.
‘Lord, …since You can turn the heart of kings (Psalm 22:28; Ezekial 38:4;) and can turn captivity around (Psalm 126:4; Lamentations 2:14; Zephaniah 3:20), I need You to intervene for me and reverse this case, please. I know that You know, and You know that I don’t know, but I trust You to do right. Please step in’
Looks like he did..stepped right on in there and did what was right…your prayers were answered and your god did what gods usually do…cos you know he knew and he knew you did not…and you still don’t know what everyone with half a brain knows..and that is you are a spiv a shyster and a snake oil salesman that got caught with your grubby little greedy grasping fingers in the till and you is busted!… it is your gods will apparently!
Oh and by the way Hovind you are insane to build a lie and fleece folks by lying about it… misleading and confusing them…only the gullible and ignorant accept such lies and wishful thinking as any sort of truth…which are you?…add to that your conceit concerning your ‘doctorate’ only indicates that you are in fact running a shill scam and con game…only you lost!
Your rather mawkish and whining discourse with an imaginary deity kindda proves the point…you are barking…simple and easy like so!…only with criminal intent!
Could be a problem for RJ while he has his head rammed up his ass, – especially that far.
Ron Judge, you have quoted an incorrect part of the bible. John 3:16 falsely assumes that the biblcal Jesus character is the “only begotten son” of the Hebrew war god Yahweh. It should read: “second begotten son”. Careful examination of the bible shows that the first begotten son of the Hebrew war god is David, thus:
Psalms 2:7 “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”
The Psalms cames first, therefore David is Yahweh’s first begotten son. That is, if you believe in that sort of crap in the first place.
The “knee-mail” is a pretty good piece of unintentional Christian comedy. Apparently, Kent Hovind had a vision where he met Joseph in Egypt and some guy named “Bubba,” presumably a friend from jail.
I suspect Kent needs to brush up on which metaphors to use while conversing with bronze age fictional characters.
“JOE: I tried to be a good son to my dad (Genesis 37), but my half brothers sold me into slavery. Why would God allow that? I didn’t ask to come to Egypt or prison.
KH: Did God cause it or allow it?
JOE: Hmmm…that’s a good question. My brothers caused it, but God allowed it. He could have stopped it though.
KH: But God gave man freedom to choose (Genesis 3). Without that freedom, we would be mindless robots.
JOE: What’s a robot?”
Aquaria@48,
Re my #51 – see #53. *Sigh*. Why is it some people can’t see that rape is evil whoever the victim is? And wishing it on others is contemptible.
@#62
Your pious concern and lack of humor is noted. Thanks
I have to agree with Stanton at #21
It’s always satisfying to see shysters exposed but there comes a point when taking glee at someone else’s misfortune is just downright tacky and makes us look like the same small minded morons we spend so much time speaking out against.
And as for wishing rape upon someone?
When did that become acceptable?
I don’t think anyone actually wishes rape on him. Just as (i hope) no one means it when they tell someone “drop dead” to their face. Is it in bad taste, sure.
To paraphrase Charlie Tuna: I don’t want a man with good taste. I want a man that tastes good. SLURP
“Dialogues with God”… Maybe Hovind’s lawyers should have tried the “innocent on account of severe schizophrenia”-plea. “Your Honour, I was just about to sent all my papers to the IRS when God came by and told me not to. He ordered me to buy Him a Hooters Gold Member card instead” :)
Aquaria@48,
Re my #51 – see #53. *Sigh*. Why is it some people can’t see that rape is evil whoever the victim is? And wishing it on others is contemptible.
Uh… Why are you directing that at me? I was merely pointing out that your word usage was confusing, not that i condoned prison rape. I don’t need a primer in the abuses that go on in our (in)justice system here in America. I’m well aware that it is a disgrace.
Re: #44
Thanks for the link, Beel! Can you believe I only heard of Tim Minchin about two weeks ago because the local cable tv suddenly unlocked BBC America for me and I happened to catch him on Graham Norton’s show singing “Inflatable You.”
And, saaaay… Minchin isn’t posting here under the netonym of “Cuttlefish,” is he?
‘It’s always satisfying to see shysters exposed but there comes a point when taking glee at someone else’s misfortune is just downright tacky’
Hmm..not in Hovind’s case…
This paragon of humanity led a ministry dedicated to the wholesale lying cheating and teaching of false and ridiculous nonsense behind the guise of religion.
His ministry is also actively seeking the demise of Evolutionary theory, actually preaching it as a false premise.
He adopted…did not EARN…a doctorate to fool the gullible that he was a learned jeebus trooper, and he lied to them, and is still LYING to them!
He does not repent his sins against the IRS and he does not recognise the authorities as lawful under the American Constitution…he believes he is being Persecuted…not prosecuted.
With kids and Adults alike he led them away from rationality and even further from reason.
In 2009 a.c.e. folks are still being taught that men walked with and rode dinosaurs…that all species apparent descended out of the ark and that Atheists are evil and best sidelined in society.
The money they exhort from very many ignorant and gullible folk is used to enhance lifestyle of the self appointed guru’s of ignorance..and to continue the lies and distortions….
And there are far to many out there willing to foist this mental and financial criminality on the vulnerable…
For every Hovind there are 10 wannabees…they like the cash…every fundamentalist does…
HAM scored it lucky when Dino went under…cornered the market in banality, but the premise is the same, steal money through lies and ignorance simply preaching inanity to the naive and ignorant.
It is not tacky it is a reflection of the loathing this little christian engenders!
Let him rot…there are now bigger pips to squeeze and fatter fish to fry!
Aquaria@67,
Sorry, I wasn’t directing it at you. My #51 explained what I was referring to @47 as you had (quite understandably) misunderstood me, and since an example came up so shortly after, I drew your attention to it.
C.R.S@63,
No, I didn’t find your expressed wish that Hovind be raped funny. What an appalling lack of humour on my part. Maybe it’s because I’ve seen the same wish (for other proposed victims) made, and quite clearly seriously intended, many times on this blog and elsewhere?
But Ann Coulter doesnt count Mister Goats…..
first Darwin Award nominee of 2009
(blogwhore)
So after the court told the Hovinds they would seize their real estate and bank account in the amount of the back-taxes, the Hovinds moved the assets in a scummy way to cheat the government AGAIN:
“The government attached to the motion an affidavit from Special Agent Charles Evans of the Internal Revenue Service. The affidavit stated that the agency could not find the $430,400 because the Hovinds had transferred the assets
to a third party, expended the assets on business-related expenses, and removed the assets from the jurisdiction of the district court.
The district court found that the Hovinds had disposed of the assets subject to forfeiture and granted the motion of the government to substitute property.”
So they transferred their property (probably to relatives) and spent all the cash in the bank to keep the IRS from getting it. Now the IRS is just going to get it from somewhere else, and on top of that they are MAD at them. If the IRS is after you, screwing around with them is NOT going to win you any favors. Idiots.
Hovind has a new flock to fleece. If history is any judge, he’ll do his time, get out in 6 or 7 years, and go right back to doing what he knows.
And he’ll put smile all the way to the bank.
Anybody doubts it, just tune in ex-con Jim Bakker on your local superstition and myth channel.
The one truth in this world – There IS a sucker born every minute, and he/she probably donates to a fundie preacher.
With people being damned to hell for eternity on a regular basis, I’m sorry if I do not feel guilty for making a rude comment. (A believe I said “fetish for” not “rape”.) Insensitive comments are bread and butter here. If someone’s wittle feewings get hurt or they are offended, how is this suddenly taboo here? Why are you immune?
I recall someone joking about touching children recently. That shocked me and I felt it was way over the top, but I don’t recall repeated moral outrage. Take a xanax. I will continue to reserve my right to make comments in bad taste. Sorry, that’s the way I roll.
Eammon Knight (#19 above) said:
“I still can’t decide whether it’s all an act to keep his suckers on the hook, or he’s really delusional enough to believe the stories he makes up about himself.”
I wonder about this frequently, at least with certain people. I suspect, but am by no means certain, that with Hovind it’s the latter. As one of the characters says in Candide (the musical/operetta version; I don’t think it’s one of Voltaire’s lines), “I see they really believe what they are screaming.” I try not to read too much into expressions and body language, but something about Hovind’s eyes make me think he really is that nuts.
On the other hand, Benny Hinn… every so often the camera catches an expression on his face that just screams, “I can’t these idiots buy this crap.” He looks like the cat that ate the canary.
CRS,
Of course you have a right to express your wish for people to be raped (and don’t try to pretend it was anything else you were implying, that’s just pathetic as well as dishonest). And I’ve a right to say it was contemptible. Which I do. Again.
Does anyone know the sentence?
*sigh*
And I continue not to care. Wouldn’t your time be put to better use, say polishing your halo? Let it go already. Your righteous indignation is noted. Christ on a stick!
Re Aquaria
I think what AM had in mind was that prisoners in US slammers are subject to sexual abuse at the hands of some of their fellow inmates. That’s a polite way of saying that Mr. Hovind may get his asshole reamed out on a regular basis.
CRS –
Being condemned to hell is a non-event. Being raped is quite real. Trivializing a response to your actions with baby talk in no way makes you right.
My question to you would be – why does he deserve rape? Looking back at your first post #53, that appears to be your sincere wish. Fundies are infuriating in many respects but what earns this near ultimate in degradation?
Does anyone know the sentence?
120 months and every third Thursday afternoon in the barrel.
The prison doctors should really think about putting some Loxapine in Hovind’s fruit punch.
Joseph: “What’s a robot?” LMAO!!! I think Hovind is really nuts to come up with this one.
And a Happy New Monkey to all.
“It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents, except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness.”
@81
1) It was a crude joke. I see such implied behavior in many films, on TV, etc. Tell me you have not seen a big Bubba approaching a man just put into a cell — all for a laugh. What was he wanting to do, offering to give him a back rub? Did you write letters in protest?
I do not condone physical abuse of anyone. Nowhere did I call on a person actually to do this. IT WAS A JOKE. Again, in bad taste. So?
Its’ none of your business, but when I was 23, I was held down and not only raped, but given quite a beating. For what crime? For choosing to go to the home of a predator and his buddy. So please save me your concern trolling for Hovind. I think he will be ok no matter what I say about him
No one here has tried to get this man raped. Saying that I seriously advocate rape is making a character judgment that is simply not true.
Please revisit the comment about touching innocent children made by someone else in another post. It was gross, rude and socially unacceptable, but I do not feel the man meant it literally, yet I found it inappropriate. He was not accused of advocating child molestation, and he was not continually given grief over one comment.
If that one post caused you so much mental anguish that you cannot drop it, please ask yourself why. If I can get over being beaten and raped till I bled profusely, surely you can get over one comment in bad taste.
And no, I am not fishing for sympathy, I’m trying to put things into perspective. No harm, no foul. Can we please just move on?
Its’ none of your business, but when I was 23, I was held down and not only raped, but given quite a beating.
Well I’m sorry to hear that, I’m glad you’ve got over it, but it’s not relevant. None of our business, as you say, but you told us anyway, in a (failed) attempt to justify yourself. It’s utterly dishonest to pretend that anyone here is complaining because they feel traumatised, or their feelings are hurt, or whatever. If you’d made a crude racist remark and been called on it, would you have had the gall to suggest that? Not unless you were a racist you wouldn’t.
You have to admire Hovind’s optimism. You know what they say about death and taxes; he thinks he can cheat both.
I had contact with a guy who helps CSE now when Mr Hovind is in jail and was actually on my way to Visit him but have not had time.
Anyway, apparently, our friend Kent has spent a large portion of his incarceration in solitary confinement because of various outbursts and prone to violence.
Slightly ironic I think, and I suspect this is the reason for the inconsistency in the deranged letters to god (if, which I doubt, he even written them himself).
crs
Most certainly not concern trolling – just pointing out that you screwed up. As for traumatized – like Knock, I’m not hurtin’ in the least. However, given your experience, I’m surprised that you’d ever make that remark in the first place.
CRS
“If my prayers are answered there will be a 300 lb. inmate with a fetish for the pasty white doc..*kack..*kack.. Sorry, I just choke when I try to refer to Hovind as doctor.”
Funny
“Wouldn’t your time be put to better use, say polishing your halo?”
Funnier
On occasion, the pc silliness here can get on my nerves.
Knock Goats, aka, concern troll:
This is the last time I will respond because grinding your ax seems to be a never-ending task. And when all else fails, bring up race. (WTF?) I did not attack a population of society (of course, that NEVER happens here toward theists, does it). I made a prison joke. Oh my!!! I assume there will be a Nazi comparison eventually.
Had I personally attacked someone, I would be inclined to apologize to that person. Your sensibilities were offended. Great. That never happens on this blog, does it? You have made your point, I have admitted it was in bad taste, and you want desperately to believe I condone abuse.
If you spent half this much space moralizing to every person that said something scandalous, each thread would be eternal. I have tried repeatedly to express I DO NOT condone rape and being singled out as some sort of monster does personally offend me. What more should i do for an off-hand comment? Would flagellation be enough. Sheesh.
I really enjoy the heavy-handed comments that are part of this blog. So many are wrong in so many ways and are allowed to slide. I have admitted it was offensive and crude. But I do not feel I owe you an apology because you were offended. DOG knows no one has ever been offended on this blog. Again, can we please drop it? I do not condone rape.
CRS
I support you pal.
There are a handful of people stumbling around these posts that I can’t figure out.
It seems like they go into a thread looking for something to be offended by.
It’s a story about a prisoner that references the name Bubba!! That is the generic name given in every prison joke about a big cell mate taking a liking to you. It’s been the case for the last 40 or so years.
I immediately had prison rape jokes pop into my head.
What are you guys, a bunch of Gallagher fans?
You like your humor in the realm of knock knock jokes?
Here is what it says at the bottom of the page. We can actually send Kent a postcard! I think I’ll stop at the natural history museum and pick up a few to send the poor lad. Note it says “Do not put “Dr.” on his name, or it may be discarded by the guards” HAHAHAHA
Here is the full text:
“Dr.(sic) Kent E. Hovind is currently at the Edgefield Federal Correctional Institution in South Carolina.
Please send postcards and letters to:
Kent E. Hovind #06452-017
FPC Edgefield D-2
P.O. BOX 725
Edgefield, SC. 29824 USA
Feel free to send Dr.(sic) Hovind a letter or postcard. Please understand he is not able to answer every letter he receives, but he certainly appreciates any support and encouragement. He can also receive new books, but only directly from bookstores. And no hardcover books are allowed. No DVDs, CDs, or anything hard or sharp such as staples, etc (no tracts with staples in them). Do not send more than one tract at a time, as all gifts containing more than one tract will not be allowed. Do not put “Dr.” on his name, or it may be discarded by the guards. They do not always return postal items that are not delivered to inmates, so you may want to save a copy before mailing, so that you might try again in the event that he was recently moved for example.”
@ Ron #50:
Is there anyone who doesn’t believe that the name Jesus (or David for that matter!) exists? Believing in names isn’t much of a problem. There’s trivial evidence for the existence of things as abstract as names, since those only need to be mentioned to exist. So pretty much everyone who has heard of anyone (real or imaginary) with those names is already saved from your evil fictional god. ;-)
Warning
This clip contains comedy.
Many people accused Mr. Connolly of racism after viewing this bit. Personally, I found it hillarious.
This will go in the “get over your bullshit and yourselves” section.
For anyone interested, here is the web address for the decision in writing:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200710090.pdf
Another clip for the purpose of offending the pc crowd.
This is a little tasteless…and brilliant!
That’s all.
Comedy often dwells between tasteless and offensive.
It also tends to be more honest that most forum posters.
That concludes my presentation. Now get out there and get offended by someone. It’s fun!! Everyone’s doing it!!
When did pc become a pejorative term exactly?
I’m pc, or at least I try to be, oh noes now I’m the object of ridicule and scorn!
It’s nice of people to post those funny clips above but know what’s really funny?
They’re here defending the right to be offensive (a right I wholeheartedly support by the way) but they haven’t the balls to post some genuinely offensive clips.
How about some clips of people telling some n**ger jokes or calling gay women rug munchers?
Why haven’t you posted something where can laugh at “spastics”?
What’s that you say, the Ricky Gervais clip does that?
Uh, no it doesn’t, no more than Chris Rock tells racist jokes. See we know when we’re laughing about racism just as we know when we’re laughing at our own uncomforability around people with disabilities.
Like I said, I’m pc and happy to be so but so are the people here complaining about pc, else they’d have chosen different examples.
Go on, give us some really un pc links that you honestly find hilarious, let’s see how committed you are to your point of view.
CRS said: “Your sensibilities were offended”
What is far more offensive is the rape of young minds by Hovind’s evil, arrogant and ignorant proselytising. As he recites in his current schizophrenic and imaginary duolog+One: “I need You to intervene for me and reverse this case, please. I know that You know, and You know that I don’t know, but I trust You to do right. Please step in, Acts 12:5–24 style.”
Well, God seems to have done right by allying himself with the U.S.Appeal Court and publicly branding Hovind a compulsive liar and crook. But will Kent take notice of God’s judgement? Of course not. Hovind believes that God is just testing his faith – or cognitive dissonance as we now call it. Meanwhile, as a direct result of his arrogance, his wife shortly will be busy packing a small case and taking herself off to meet the Sheriff for a year and a day in the slammer. Thank heavens 2009 is not a leap year.
“Can we please just move on?”
You can always just drop it, of course. It won’t mean that you’ve lost the argument.
Cruinthe
Thank you for illustrating my point, but I thought I had already done that with my clips.
“If my prayers are answered there will be a 300 lb. inmate with a fetish for the pasty white doc..*kack..*kack.. Sorry, I just choke when I try to refer to Hovind as doctor.”
This is the joke that a few here felt deserved their scorn. The clips I chose were more extreme than that comment.
I know that you’d like to think that I’m a racist or sexist or some such nonsense. Good luck with your narrow little mind and your judgmental bullshit.
Go ahead and set up your strawman. I promise to watch and laugh.
Damn CRS, good thing you didn’t make a joke about a cracker! Of course, Hovind eating the body of Jesus can be a double entendre if you go with the Hispanic pronunciation.
Actually, given his beliefs, he’ll probably make Aryan Nation Chaplain in no time!
I know that you’d like to think that I’m a racist or sexist or some such nonsense.
I’d honestly like to think that you were no such thing, and I’ve seen nothing from your posts to suggest that you might be.
Good luck with your narrow little mind and your judgmental bullshit.
Go ahead and set up your strawman. I promise to watch and laugh.
Hmmm.
Far from being narrow minded I happen to think most issues are much more complex than a simple right or wrong label. I also like to think that it would be nice if we were able to express differing opinion without us feeling personally attacked. unfortunately I get the distinct impression that you feel exactly that.
I can’t be responsible for how you interpret my posts other than to say sorry you’re mistaken when you accuse me of judging you.
I am on this blog because I have the utmost respect and admiration (bordering on manlove if the truth be known) for PZ Myers.
It just so happens that I think he has gotten it wrong with this specific blog, just as I think a lot of people who have posted here have gotten it wrong. I think as a whole we come across as small minded and mean spirited in taking pleasure at another’s pain and misery.
But guess what?
You don’t have to agree,go on, tell me I’m wrong, I’m a big boy, I can take it without feeling it’s a personal slight against me. I just come here to express my opinion, not to demand everyone agree with it.
On a final note, I think you missed my point entirely concerning political correctness.
Peace out.
Cruithe
Perhaps you’re right and I missed the point.
In hindsite, I should have been clearer on the pc thing.
I think we’re all pc to a degree, I just think that some take it too far sometimes.
It actually mirrors what christians think when we lump them together for scorn. We sometimes use the word christian, when we’re really talking about fundamentalists. Sometimes.
My apologies if I was placing thoughts in your head. I was a little riled up in defending what I felt was a harmless joke.
#50
That’s not the word of god. That’s just the words of my deluded tribesmen making shit up.
Cruithe
Something else we don’t agree on.
” I think as a whole we come across as small minded and mean spirited in taking pleasure at another’s pain and misery.”
Actually, I’m using this line as an excuse to post this clip because I think it’s hillarious.
Yawn, another day, another whiny defence of “edgy” humour from the privilege brigade. Yeah, rape is awfully funny when you don’t have to live constantly with the threat of it. Also, anybody who uses “PC” that way is actually saying, “I demand the right to be an asshole and not have anybody call me on my behaviour.” Speaking as someone who’s survived a rape attempt: rape jokes are really not funny, and fuck you for stating that anyone who doesn’t share your privilege-warped perspective just lacks a sense of humour. There’s nothing wrong with my sense of humour, but there’s a hell of a lot wrong with your vantage point.
Ggab.
No problems and no need for apologies, wires sometimes get crossed, that’s all.
Funny link but I still think he’s wrong…
I didn’t know Kent and God were still on speaking terms.
Raise your hands if you have ever suffered trauma, especially violence because we want to cover all our bases and not offend or hurt anyone.
I’m reminded of the episode of Family Guy were Peter and baby Stewie are in a pool and Peter (always the dolt)says “Wahh, wahhh, I have postpartum depression” as he starts dunking Stewie’s head under the water. Stewie sputters and shouts “Don’t even joke about that!” My sister who had suffered postpartum horribly was watching also and I was very embarrassed and resisted the desire to laugh.
She looked at my face and said something like “It’s ok, he’s being ridiculously and stupid.” OMG, she got it and I love her for it! As I recall there was a major uproar from concerned citizens that the episode was insensitive. Of course it was. And I admit i love Family Guy.
No need to “justify” crude jokes or judge them right or wrong. Can’t go through life worrying about every friggin word said. It’s a big bad world out there. Boo “f@ckin hoo.
Interrobang
For “god”s sake!
Read the joke that he made and the attacks that followed.
Do you think he deserved to be jumped on for that joke?
I do not.
That is my point. Twist it into what you like.
I explained what I meant by pc. It wasn’t the best description of those I was addressing, so I tried to clear that up.
What exactly do you mean by privilege?
I think that I understand the “fuck you” part.
Pretty offensive if you ask me, but you’re entitled.
I have had many horrible experiences in my life, regardless of the assumptions you prefer to make of me, but see no point in sharing them on this post.
I am sorry for your experience, but that has no bearing on whether I feel that his joke earned him the attacks.
If you’d like to try to take all this and give it a broad brush sweep of…endorsing rape jokes??… you go right ahead.
Someone made a silly off hand crack about Kent Hovind that was obviously a reference to him getting unwanted attention from a cellmate. From the reaction, you’d think that he condoned child slavery. I felt that it was a gross overreaction. That’s it.
That was always one of the chief logical fallacies that I had to work through during my formative years. Just what exactly is god telling one person when he could just rise up and tell all of us at once?
Never made sense. Until you realized there was no god.
CRS
Doesn’t this just blow your mind?
These people are so desperate to demonize us, it’s like we stumbled on a religious forum.
I’ll raise a glass to whoever it was that realized that Kent Hovind needs to stay in jail. And I’ll not worry about kicking old Kent while he’s down. He’s just the guy to do it unto.
While in college, I attended one of Dr. Dino’s talks, at a nearby church, mostly out of morbid curiosity. I can still remember him explaining that gasoline is refined from the remains of people who drowned in the biblical flood. He then mimed putting gasoline into a car, and hollered into the tank, “So long, Grandpa! You should have listened to Noah!” The audience laughed happily. I had to check the notes that I was taking to confirm that yes, just ten minutes before that, he’d been demonizing evolutionists for their callous belief that people, when they die, become nothing but “worm dirt”.
That was the point when I summed up the whole evening’s notes by writing the word “EVIL” in all-caps, bold, underlined three times, and followed by exclamation marks. Then I went home and took a shower.
I fervently hope that, in his next prison shower, Kent Hovind drops the soap.
“I fervently hope that, in his next prison shower, Kent Hovind drops the soap.”
I also endorse this joke.
LET THE JUDGING BEGIN!!
In 3…2…1…
Menyambal
Gooble gobble one of us.
I hope you get that joke because it’s a cracker. Uh oh…is anyone offended by the word cracker? I didn’t mean it in that sense.
Hovind committed crimes, was caught and convicted, and is now serving his sentence. He does not deserve any further punishment than that legally imposed. Besides being a convicted felon, Hovind is an odious man for wanting to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us in lieu of science. For that he deserves disdain and ridicule. He does not deserve being assaulted, sexually or otherwise. Jokes that imply that he should be raped are in extremely poor taste.
Okay, concern trolling is over. We now return to our previously scheduled schadenfreude over Hovind’s continued incarceration.
GOD: Oh, Son, you are confusing “knowing” with “controlling.” You need to talk with Joe and then meet Bubba. Let’s go for a walk…
WTF?
And why does he capitalise the divine references to himself as “Son”? Delusions of grandeur methinks…
I immediately had prison rape jokes pop into my head. – ggab
Interestingly, my impression, (could be wrong) is that these are a specifically US phenomenon – probably because prison rape, while by no means unknown elsewhere, appears to be routine in at least some American prisons, and implicitly or even explicitly regarded by many Americans as a justified part of the punishment of being imprisoned. It’s this attitude I find revolting, and which I saw, rightly or wrongly, in CRS’s original comment. As I’ve already said, this is by no means the first time this issue has come up on this blog. I accept that CRS does not condone rape – but such jokes are part of what makes it acceptable for nothing to be done to prevent prison rape. I couldn’t give a shit about being accused of being “PC” – indeed, whenever someone starts whining about “PC”, I conclude that their opinion isn’t worth taking seriously, since “political correctness” was never much more than a (very successful) piece of right-wing propaganda.
” From the reaction, you’d think that he condoned child slavery”
Which, of course, is exactly what he does. Tell an uneducated kid often enough he is going to hell if he doesn’t believe your particular brand of superstitious idiocy then the chances are that you have him for the rest of his life – provided he isn’t later rescued by a good grounding in science, something poor old Eric never got nor ever could get from his lunatic father.
How sad.
Uh, there are plenty of theists with a good grounding in the sciences who see no conflict between their faith and science.
Samphire@120,
I think you’ve got your wires crossed: ggab’s comment referred to CRS, who made a prison rape joke I objected to. I see another idiot has now made one, and ggab cannot contain its glee. However, the frequency with which these “jokes” are made, and the fervour with which they are defended rather support my point. They have a very definite function, whether or not those making them are aware of it: they serve to normalise the idea of rape as a punishment. Most obviously, they do so in the prison context, making it acceptable that no action is taken to stop prison rape in America. But where else do we find this idea? Among religious extremists and other misogynists, who use rape as a punishment for “immoral” and “disobedient” women; and among homophobes who, weirdly enough, sometimes rape gays as punishment for their “deviance”. I’m not saying idiots like CSR, ggab or Menyambal condone rape. I am saying their “jokes” make it harder to combat it.
Yes, and as soon as we find a way to harness the energy generated by the cognitive dissonance we’re not going to need fossil fuels anymore…
Uh, there are plenty of theists with a good grounding in the sciences who see no conflict between their faith and science. – gabriel
Theists have to be rather good at not seeing the obvious – how otherwise could they believe that a good god is responsible for a world containing such horrors as the rabies virus, the guinea worm, and Huntingdon’s disease?
I don’t see how anyone can tell if that’s a joke or a sincere wish. Laughing about someone getting raped in real life is pretty bad. I don’t mind if it’s on a tv show or something.
That was me. If you felt it was unacceptable I’d prefer if you told me. It was obvious I didn’t mean it literally, as no one is stupid enough to potentially incriminate themselves like that, and in the same post I asked if I went too far (which was an honest question by the way).
The important distinction I felt is that I was not laughing at the idea of children getting touched, whereas these rape jokes seem to enjoy the idea of someone getting raped.
Knock Goats
I’m afraid that it’s pretty prevalent in the american prison system. Frankly, I’m hoping for a complete overhaul of the system being part of the change that’s coming. Fingers crossed. Good news here hpoefully.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/cheering_james_webb.php#more
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “such jokes are part of what makes it acceptable for nothing to be done to prevent prison rape.”. I guess a case can be made for the desensitizing effect.
I’ll assume that’s your point, and I understand,may even agree to a point.
I also assume that when you talk about pc being rightwing propaganda, that you mean pc as a derogatory term.
My first experiences with political correctness being bandied about were at the hands of my coworkers at Greenpeace. There were certainly no rightwingers there.
True, the rightwingers have taken up that call to arms. I certainly don’t go along with them, but I do feel that it sometimes goes too far.
Now…
This is how it works in my world.
We get through the toughest times with laughter.
Homelessness, prison sentenses, hunger, abuse, you name it. My family has been through the ringer in ways that you haven’t dreamed of. I said that I wasn’t going to get into any detail on these threads but you feel the need to make judgement about my character.
Do you want to hear about the time that I almost lost the use of my right hand? You see, the neighborhood thugs happened to catch me painting a picture. In their minds that meant that I was a “fag” and they should make sure that I’m unable to paint anymore. They beat me to the ground and stomped on my hand until several bones were broken.
How about the fact that my mother used to cry herself to sleep every night because my father was in prison and she just couldn’t make enough money to keep food on the table?
Or the story about my little brother, who hung out with the “wrong croud” just so that he wouldn’t be a victim of their abuse like his older brother had been. He ended up serving five years in prison himself. I tried to take some of the blame for what he had been involved in, but the courts knew that I wasn’t involved.
Would you like to hear about the sexual abuse? My other family members that were in prison, murdered, raped?
Here is the key. Jokes. We laugh at everything. It helps us cope. It is the cure for everything that ailes you.
When we’re all together, it’s like a brilliant night of stand up comedy. Of course it comes from a place of pain, but it helps us deal with the pain.
I’ve got a hell of a life now.
I own a successful business (as long as the economy holds up), I have a beautiful wife. I do charity work. I got a couple of friends off the street and got them working.
I just gave my mother a rather large sum of money (by our standards) for christmas and I feel fantastic about that. It doesn’t even scratch the surface of what I owe her for what she’s done for me. She’s a wonderful woman.
Anyway, if you want to decide that I’m a jerk, based on my defending someones right to make an off color joke, I’ve got one thing to say.
“I’ve got chunks of guys like you in my stoole.”
Okay, that was a line from a classic snl sketch.
What I really wanted to say is FUCK OFF.
I’ve been through it and come out the other side a stronger person. You haven’t earned the right to judge me.
Poor guy! He walked so closely with god and Bubba :-( Well, it appears that god’s will has indeed prevailed.
I’m sure that god won’t have to protect Kent’s corn hole though, as the bible never mentioned anything about Joseph getting raped. I’m sure he knows that if it’s not in the bible, well it could not have happened. I’m sure the warden will start having nightmares and Kent will be there to save the day and interpret them, and soon Kent will be the warden. He should be looking forward to prison.
What a Retard
Jokes about prison rape make it harder to combat? Oh, please. Besides, I wasn’t joking.
Kent can stay in prison for the rest of his life, getting buggered morning, noon and night, and still not have done unto him as he wishes done unto others. Let me give you a hypothetical . . .
Suppose ol’ Kent gets a job in the prison shop, and finds himself backed into a corner by some big, hairy brute with a blowtorch. Bruto offers Kent a choice–bend over a workbench, or take the blowtorch flame to his face. Play the scenario as your fancy fancies, but most folks would define rape as the lesser of the two evils.
But Kent, as he squeals like a piggy, knows in his soul that Bruto is going to spend eternity with demonic blowtorches playing over every inch of his skin. And, there in Hell, though the kind doctor might not phrase it this way, Bruto would look forward to a buggery break as to a day at the beach.
Which is to say that whatever punishment the earthly authorities can mete out to Brother Kent, and whatever twisted sickness the dregs of humanity can inflict on him, pales to complete insignificance in comparison with what he thinks that his enemies deserve. No, what he believes his enemies will get. What he thinks his oh-so-loving god will inflict on his own creations. What he thinks is not only fair, just and loving, but is indeed the very basis of a moral system.
Rape is wrong. Prison rape is a corruption that must be stamped out. But Kent Hovind is the most evil person that I have ever met.
Hovind believes in doing unto others as he would have them do unto him. I would not, even if I could, subject him to an eternity in fire, as he wishes done to me. I would not, even, hold Bruto’s hat and egg him on.
But I wish I could do something to make Brother Kent realize the depth of his own evil. Would it be wrong of me to start believing in God just so I could pray for damnation for Kent Hovind?
On second thought, does Kent even have a coat of many colors? Maybe someone should send him one. As a recovered christian, I know that Kent will need it in order to interpret the dreams.
Marc Abian
Let me get this straight.
On another thread, you made a crack about touching children and you think that Menyambal using the old “drop the soap” line goes too far?
I gotta tell you pal. If you and I were on the same side of an arguement, I’d assume that I must be wrong. Your judgement seems a little off.
The important similarity being that both comments were said in a dry manner, but meant to be tongue-in-cheek comments on serious subjects. I (wrongly) assumed my entire post, including the *ack *ack and the solitary confinement statements would be seen as smart-ass shenanigans.
Your comment was a bit disturbing, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t snicker at the obvious absurdity of it. I knew it was a joke. You obviously thought it was in bad taste or you wouldn’t have questioned it in the first place. Given the number of readers on the blog I’m certain more than a few are victims of child molestation and did not find it funny. Bad taste, sure; malicious intent, not at all. I just brought it up to show that “inappropriate” comments do not mean serious intent and cherry picking which is permissible and which is not is touchy business.
“Just a little joke. F@ck ’em if they can’t take a joke” — Bette Midler
Well, Menyambal,
Are you really stupid enough not to see that, for example, racist jokes make it harder to combat racism? Jokes about raping women, with the rape presented as something acceptable and enjoyable – make it harder to combat the rape of women? Well, if you are, you are.
However, even if you deny that jokes about prison rape make it harder to combat, you can hardly deny that those like you who actually endorse it – and despite the later part of your post, if you weren’t joking, then clearly you do actually want Hovind raped – most certainly do.
How do you like your ally, ggab? CRS?
Yes. Menyambal was laughing at the idea of someone getting raped, I was NOT laughing at the idea of children getting touched. For it to be the same, I’d have to be laughing at the idea of a kid getting touched because he was bully.
As it turns out, Menyambal was serious, which I think is disgusting.
If you were just tongue-in-cheek I don’t really have a problem.
I thought it was fine, I was just worried since it’s a touchy subject whether other people would be upset. I’m new to this blog and not sure where the line is, and I genuinely wouldn’t want to ruin the blog for other readers.
Ally? Are we at war?
This entire discussion is reaching hysterical proportions. When is a storm not a storm? When its a tempest in a friggin teapot.
Yours truly,
Chris
Voted most likely to bugger Kent Hovind by Inches magazine
P.S: It’s a joke, only a joke. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Knock Goats @ 122
I don’t have my wires crossed. I was making the point that there is more than one form of rape. I may be wrong but I don’t think that Kent is in much danger of male rape in the sort of facility in which he is presently housed. My point relates to the intellectual “rape” of the young he has engaged in over the past 35 years of his “ministry”.
I have also made the point that Kent professes to be happy to accept whatever tribulations his god tests him with – Job is his constant exemplar. Well, his god who we are told remains in control seems to agree with the decision of the Appeal Court in the same way he seems to agree with all aspects of Kent’s life and, indeed, mine and yours. Quel surprise! It’s almost as though he wasn’t there. In fact, it’s exactly as though he wasn’t there.
Ally? Are we at war? – CRS
Don’t. Be. Silly. “Ally” simply means one on the same side as you in any conflictual or competitive context – a war, a game, an argument, a political struggle.
Samphire@135,
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
Ah..Hovind. The Plato of um, well, Hovind’s mind. Is it my imagination, or does it look like he just hires a first grader to be his ghost writer?
At my grandfather’s funeral, I announced to the family that there was a sign on the cemetary gate that read
Please don’t pee on our grass.
We don’t put dead guys in your toilet.
My grandfather had blown his brains out with a shotgun and I felt that my family could use a laugh.
It worked beautifully. In fact, it was voted best joke of the day. That’s a hell of an honor considering the quality material that was being thrown around that day.
Yeah, everybody deals with anger or fear or depair differently.
Menyambal obviously has a lot of anger on this topic.
I wish him/her luck in finding an outlet.
I understand anger. I’ve had a bit of a problem with it myself. I would prefer that he/she use humor, but it’s not up to me.
I see a lot of perceived need for self-justification in this thread (and I admit I’ve been guilty of it myself).
What I don’t see is any systematic pattern of odiousness, by anyone.
I think OctoberMermaid summed up the intent and consensus @43:
My 2¢’s worth
ggab,
I don’t think I’ve made any judgement of your character, I’ve been arguing with your endorsement of prison rape jokes. I’m sorry you’ve had such a hard life, but that doesn’t make any difference to my judgement of that endorsement. Nor does it mean I think your opinions are worth paying any attention to, nor that I do or should give a shit what you think of me.
Sorry, I keep forgetting the dangers of being sarcastic in text. Or, even worse, attempting to be clever.
My first comment, about Kent Hovind dropping the soap, was only intended to say that I hope the cruel bastard lives in fear. He drops the soap, and is, for a moment, aware of how it feels to be frightened and helpless. As frightened and helpless as children watching the ark float away on the rising waters. I really did not say that I hope that he actually gets buggered. But this is the guy who teaches that a billion (his own number) people drowned in the flood, and who ridicules their lives and their deaths–Hitler was a piker by comparison. What would you have me wish on him?
In my second comment, I pointed out that IF Hovind-rape were to happen, it would still be far less than he prays happens to everyone else, not just to delusional child-drowners. I didn’t say he really should be buggered, but I tried to make clear that by his own twisted standards, it would be what he expects, and a picnic by comparison to what he dishes out.
That’s what I’m trying to get across–the sheer cruelty of Kent and the Christians. Rape is WRONG, but Kent is wronger.
I would not bugger him, nor would I allow anyone to do so, nor would I joke about rape. What you imagine happening to him is between you and your imagination. But it is as nothing compared to even a day in Hell. Which he prays that you get to spend an eternity in.
Oh, bugger this.
Knock Goats
I thought that I remembered you refering to me as a jerk, but I just scrolled back a bit and saw that you called me an idiot.
That’s not really a judgement on my character, but I’m sure that you can guess whether or not that makes me feel I owe you an apology. Maybe I should scroll back a little further.
I find that your isult hampers our ability to combat idiocy.
I can’t believe that you are that insensitive toward idiots.
Menyambal, don’t you mean “consensually bugger this”?
Damn, I meant : “Consensually bugger this”? :)
Now, seriously, WTF is this “comment submission error” for too many posts? I try to correct a post quickly and now I can’t comment? WTF?
ggab,
In fact, from the context, it’s not even clear I’m including you among the idiots, and I can’t recall whether I intended to or not. However, I’ll remedy the uncertainty here and now: ggab, you’re an idiot. Happy now?
Good.
Hovind deserves to stay in jail.
I just hoped that his son was involved enough as well.
Knock Goats
That’s my favorite post from you all day.
Thank you
Badger3k,
Relax. This feature is intended to foil robot spammers, and also protects us from mindless, reflexive postings.
Menyambal@142,
Fair enough – I’m sorry I misunderstood you, and withdraw the charge of idiocy and any others I made as a result.
“This feature is intended to foil robot spammers, and also protects us from mindless, reflexive postings.”
It’s obviously not working, as all of my mindless, reflexive posts have gone through.
I think that would be multiple mindless, reflexive postings in quick succession – otherwise where’s the fun?
Perhaps ScienceBlogs should add an Audio Preview feature to the comments like YouTube did, inspired by this xkcd stip. Maybe we would have fewer trolls.
Oh, I seriously doubt it. Most of them go to church and don’t think twice about the inanities broadcast there; why would they be any more insightful regarding their own words?
Though it might help with the grammar, which’d be nice – poor sentences make baby E.B. White cry.
Feynmaniac @153: FTW!
ggab @151, it’s nice to be able to override safety cutouts…
I know that when I get that message, I realise I should pause and think. (A bit like when one gets dogpiled on by regulars, really)
Wow. Kent Hovind is nuts.
The point I made the other evening was that some atheists tend to think like YECs. These quotes appear to be evidence for that assertion, no?
The cognitive dissonance thing only flies if you accept a view of theology very much like what YECs hold to.
Suffering, the problem of evil, and theodicy are very involved and important topics, yes. But, how do you suppose God (or, if you prefer, a god or gods) could create a seamless creation that lacked these supposed evils? You might as well curse God for the evils of gravity – it kills people every day.
Again, the logic here strikes me as very simplistic and YEC-like. Jus’ sayin’.
With all that time he’ll be spending behind bars maybe he’ll read “Origin” and come to see his true maker.
The point I made the other evening was that some atheists tend to think like YECs. These quotes appear to be evidence for that assertion, no? – gabriel
No.
how do you suppose God (or, if you prefer, a god or gods) could create a seamless creation that lacked these supposed evils?
Very easily. After all, it’s supposed to be omnipotent, so it can do anything that is not logically impossible. Why not create a heaven (which it is supposed to be able to do) in which all beings experience eternal bliss, without any of the suffering involved in our universe? That’s clearly what a good god would have done.
And what do you mean “supposed evils”? What sort of moral monster would deny that the things I listed were real evils, if this were not done in the service of theism?
gabriel,
No. You are as wrong now as you were then.
How exactly is it that atheists can think like YECs? Where is the book that atheists hold to be correct in the face of scientific evidence that says otherwise? You do realise that’s the problem we have with YECs, don’t you?
If you can find an example of somewhere that atheists refuse to accept their adhered-to belief system (after, of course, you show that atheists have a belief system; good luck with that) is made redundant by evidence of a scientific nature, then perhaps you’ll be able to make that point.
Oh, and I wrote the ‘harnessing the energy of cognitive dissonance’ comment because we’re on a thread discussing Kent Hovind, not Kenneth Miller. He is a YEC, after all.
Context is important.
…Of course “theodicy and the problem of evil” are not “very involved”. On the contrary, they are a simple refutation of most versions of theism. However, the contortions believers, and especially theologians, go through in their vain attempts to avoid this simple refutation are indeed involved – maybe that’s what you meant?
Gabriel:
Well, perhaps by being omniscient and omnipotent. Are you saying such a being could not do so?
Knock,
Actually, onmipotence should include the impossible, too. Else it boils down to being able to do what’s able to be done, but no more, and is thus not unlimited.
After all, in the theist creationist view, God created everything, including the “laws of logic” and thus the any limits on what is possible.
John Morales,
I think you’re wrong about the theistic view that an omnipotent being should be able to do the impossible: the way I’ve seen it expressed is that a “requirement” to do something logically impossible is not actually a requirement to do anything, because what is required has not been specified. However, the point is irrelevant here, since a universe without suffering clearly is logically possible.
Cue wriggling and obfuscation from gabriel…
Gabriel,
According to the propaganda, god is a loving god. However, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of love coming from it. The concept of hell, eternal punishment for sins or even honest doubt about god, doesn’t seem very loving to me. But then I’m one of these sexually conservative types who isn’t into S&M, god seems much more inclined that way.
Yes, I do know that certain goddists claim that hell is an afterlife with the absence of god. That’s not what the Bible says:
Unfortunately, some of us have read the Bible. And notice I’m not quoting from the Old Testament (where god appears to have the maturity of a grade school bully) but from the New Testament.
The Word of God
John 8
1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
You’ve either got to brush up on your logic, work out why YECs believe what they believe, or stop writing inane things like this.
no.
actually, the philosophical debates on those topics are a prime example of intelligent people with cognitive dissonance. the average YEC doesn’t have enough cognition for cognitive dissonance
by being omnipotent and omniscient. d’uh
i sure might. a smart designer would have made buffers, so that objects would fall slower the longer they fall, so that no injury would result, and no catastrophic asteroid impacts happened, etc. so what if it’s against the laws of physics. maybe he should have made more humane laws of physics then?
we’re talking about an all-powerful being. nothing is impossible for an all-powerful being. making up complicated arguments to convince yourself otherwise is the aforementioned symptom of cognitive dissonance
see? ron here is a prime example. you can’t have cognitive dissonance if you never use your brain for anything except rote repetition. it’s the smart people who concoct those complicated arguments, basically to make them so convoluted that even they no longer understand them, and letting them sink back into those arguments the way the unthinking creotroll sinks into bible verses
Obviously I’m not saying that atheists and YECs are identical. I merely see some similarities. I’ll try sketch them out. Try these statements on for size: YEC or atheist?
Natural explanations, in that they show a process can occur without divine help, remove God from the picture and eliminate reasons for belief.
Evolution and the bible are contradictory accounts of how the world came to be. If evolution is proved to be true, that proves God was not involved.
A just and loving God would create a world where there is no suffering or death. Creation, if God was involved, was perfect in every way we can imagine.
Persons who try to accept both evolution and Christian faith are ignorant and deluded.
It is easy to understand the Christian view of God through a straightforward, “common-sense” reading of the Bible.
The creation narrative in Genesis is intended to provide a chronological and literal account of how God made the world.
Your thoughts?
sorry: that last statement should also be in italics:
The creation narrative in Genesis is intended to provide a chronological and literal account of how God made the world.
back later- “An Inconvenient Truth” is on the tele.
gabe
my thoughts: in the case of most YEC’s i’ve known, the above quoted is the extend of their reasoning. in the case of most atheists I’ve known, the above is a bare-bones summary of a thought. i can spot the caveats in those quotes, and every thinking person would too. a YEC generally does not.
gabriel,
I don’t understand. You’re giving us false dichotomies to show how YECs and atheists are alike?
I’ll say one: anyone who thinks that an allegorical explanation somehow makes the tale of genesis any more plausible is deluded. The mythology contained in the bible is quite clearly a product of man, and no matter how the glaring errors are rationalised away the end product is the same – a socially-constructed human-edited volume that is repeatedly looked to for divine insight that just isn’t there.
As you’ve mentioned on several occasions – though you haven’t included any compelling arguments for doing so. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with something folks around here like to call Blake’s Law.
Knock @163, I’m more literal than you seem to be.
For mine, omnipotence (no limits on what can be done) means that if it can be conceptualised (say, a square circle), it can be instanciated (even if it requires undoing all of “creation”, changing the underlying reality, and redoing it).
Omni means all; there are no exclusions, even of impossible things.
BTW, what is the commonsense definition of a miracle, if not that of an impossible occurrence? :)
Id est: if God is limited to that which is possible, its potence has limits, and is not worthy of the literal prefix “omni”.
No, I was asking if you thought those statements could reliably be identified as YEC or atheist. Did you want to take a run at it? If it can be done, my point is lost. If it can’t be done, what do you conclude? In all honesty, I’d be interested in your response.
I’m glad you see them as false dichotomies. I do as well, obviously.
Thanks for the link to Blake’s Law. I hadn’t seen that before. I’m not calling anyone a fundamentalist atheist – merely discussing what I see as similarities.
Kel, I understand your view, and it’s a common one. You’re also making my case for me in some ways.
Or, to put it another way, I could ask you for the evidence for the above assertion – and I’d be surprised if your response didn’t run afoul of some of the other statements in my list. That’s fine if it does, but one should be aware that it does.
My statement was so you could understand where some atheists are coming from. A non-literal interpretation doesn’t make Genesis any better, and to say that is not the equal of believing in a talking snake. Just because two extremes are presented, the middle ground is preferable when one is such an obvious falsehood.
It’s like when the subject of evolution comes up, just because many of us will defend the theory with the same conviction as a young earth creationist will defend genesis, it doesn’t mean there is similarities between the two positions. When something is manifestly false, what’s the point of pussyfooting around saying so?
As a working scientist, I would not say evolution is correct, then god doesn’t exist. Just that creationism is wrong. Science ignores god, and has nothing to say on the subject.
The rest of your arguments have similar flaws.
I agree that the YEC interpretation of Genesis is manifestly false – no argument there. I too take every opportunity to debunk the YEC approach with whomever will listen.
gabriel wrote:
Did you want to take a run at it?
No, because you’re misrepresenting the issue. All you want is for someone to say ‘yes, that’s true’ to one of your questions so you can reply with, ‘hah – fooled you! That’s not the god I worship! Take that, atheists!’
The point you’re trying to make is that you don’t believe in the same god as the YECs, and therefore you shouldn’t be subjected to the same scrutiny as they are.
It’s not going to fly. That your oh-so-slightly different god is only modified for the specific purpose of avoiding the problems YECs face when the science shows a literal interpretation of the bible to be a dead-end isn’t any sort of achievement; that you can pick-and-choose to leave out the parts that don’t mesh with reality undermines just as much.
Do you believe in the resurrection? If so then you’re as divorced from reality as those who think T-Rex ate coconuts.
NOR, if this was directed at my list, please understand that I am not presenting these as my arguments – merely as phrases I see as being as easily said by an atheist as by a YEC.
I agree with your assessment.
Likewise. What field are you in?
Chemistry, 30+ years.
Hi Wowbagger. How am I misrepresenting the issue? I said I saw some similarities between how some atheists think on certain issues and put together a short list of statements I thought expressed my thoughts on the issue. I think those statements are as easily at home in the mind of some atheists and most YECs. If you disagree that’s fine.
I’m not interested in the “take that, atheists!” approach, sorry. I’m sure others will wander in eventually who do, alas.
Uh, the fossil record doesn’t have much to say about the resurrection of an ancient Jew, but it says plenty about T-Rex and coconuts. Call me stupid, but I see a difference here.
gabriel,
Nice obfuscation.
I get two simultaneous subtexts:
Your point is relevant (draw conclusions therefrom).
Your point is irrelevant (conclusions need not be drawn therefrom).
Feel free to clarify.
Congrats. I’m just getting started (Molecular/Cell/Developmental Biology, 5 years).
gabriel wrote:
gabriel, that YECs appear agree with atheists – from opposing positions – on the result of God not existing says nothing whatsoever about how those conclusions are reached, or what the bigger-picture ramifications of those conclusions are.
For example: two different political parties are discussing federal spending. One side says we should give more money to social security while the other side disagrees and says we shouldn’t. However, both sides agree that putting more money into social security would mean paying more taxes.
Does agreeing on that one aspect mean that both sides are ‘saying the same thing’?
I’m not trying to drive the point as deeply as that. Yes, I think some atheists sound like YECs, but that was obvious from the get-go. I think it’s a point worth mentioning and considering, yes. I think some atheists think that if they’ve outwitted a YEC they have good reason to feel they’ve debunked Christianity as a whole.
John, what do you make of the list? YEC or atheist? Or too close to call?
No, but I’ve listed what I think are similarities in basic assumptions – even if they are arrived at from different sides.
The Word of Ennis
Preacher 13
4Jesse: You can tell a lot about a person by which of the two they like, got me? Fella likes Stan an’ Ollie, he likes a good plot and good characters, doesn’t like the story getting lost in the style. He’s probably a stand-up guy. A fella prefers Chaplin…
5Cassidy: He probably rapes sheep. Yeh know, I think yeh might have somethin’ there…
Jesse: No denyin’ it. I tell you, Cass:
6A man who doesn’t like Laurel an’ Hardy just ain’t worth a damn.
That’s just silly. Young Earth Creationism is but one form of absurdity that is Christianity, debunking creationism is just shooting fish in a barrel.
A better analogy for what they’ve done is kick a goal. Which is why what you – and the other cafeteria Christians who have taken a pick-and-choose approach to the bible – do is called shifting the goalposts.
Neat, isn’t it?
Re: theodicy, I have an argument that I’ve presented to various theists, which I’ve not seen any substantive rebuttal to. Not that I’ve seen any substantive rebuttal to Epicurus, either…
Regardless of whether it is within God’s power to remove all evil from the universe, all the monotheistic religions agree that it is in God’s power to communicate directly when he so wishes. However, all religions disagree on what God said, and how important various of the alleged communications from God were, this disagreement leading to violent disputes, in turn leading to death, wars, destruction of property and lives.
Given that the consequences of God’s refusal to clarify his alleged words are indisputably evil, we can only conclude that one or more of the basic premises about God must be false: Either God does not desire to prevent evil that he could easily prevent, or God is not able to act to prevent evil, or God does not know about the evil.
Of course, given that God does not speak to us all, at all, and to those he does allegedly speak to disagree and do not appear to know anything that could not be known without God, the most parsimonious conclusion is that God… is not.
Which is why what you – and the other cafeteria Christians who have taken a pick-and-choose approach to the bible – do is called shifting the goalposts.
I know full well what “shifting the goalposts” is – and I try to avoid it, stick to a topic, and admit when I’ve changed the terms of the discussion. If you feel I’ve shifted them in this thread, please let me know where and how.
I resent the “cafeteria” label – and accusing me of a “pick and choose” approach is exactly what several YECs have accused me of personally, so you’re helping build the case in my mind. Chalk up another similarity.
I don’t pick and choose – I am interested in understanding the original context and genre of each portion of the bible, and then making a thoughtful application to the present day, using the general themes as a guide. Of course, one can argue over what the themes are, but that’s probably a discussion more of interest to the in-group.
I just like to ask theists what they’d do if God told them to kill me.
To date not one of them has given me a straight answer.
I just like to ask theists what they’d do if God told them to kill me.
To date not one of them has given me a straight answer.
I’ll assume this was directed at me, unless some others in this thread are theists that I do not know about…
I would seek medical attention, immediately. Is that answer straight enough?
gabriel @187,
I’ll venture to reply, with the understanding when I say “atheist” I mean myself, not necessarily other unbelievers. Thanks for keeping the list down to 6 items; I would not venture to respond to a Gish gallop! ;)
1. Natural explanations, in that they show a process can occur without divine help, remove God from the picture and eliminate reasons for belief.
1. I think both YECs and atheists agree on this; the issue is what is a “natural” explanation – YECs consider God is a “natural” explanation, atheists don’t.
2. [1] Evolution and the bible are contradictory accounts of how the world came to be. [2] If evolution is proved to be true, that proves God was not involved.
2.1 Agreed, both YECs and atheists agree on this.
2.2 Disagreed, YECs I think say it would, atheists say it’s not relevant; it proves nothing.
3. A just and loving God would create a world where there is no suffering or death. Creation, if God was involved, was perfect in every way we can imagine.
3. Agreed. Both can agree on this.
That said, the evidence counterindicates this conclusion, thus YECs are in denial.
You’re using sophistry; both (technically) agree with the proposition as phrased, but whereast atheists contend it doesn’t hold, YECs contend it does (theodicy).
4. Persons who try to accept both evolution and Christian faith are ignorant and deluded.
4. Agree, so long as you (by definition) agree that theistic evolutionists cannot be a member of the set of YECs, inasmuch as they acknowledge deep time.
5. It is easy to understand the Christian view of God through a straightforward, “common-sense” reading of the Bible.
5. I can’t answer that one. Certainly, the proliferation of Xian sects is empirical evidence against this claim.
(unless by “easy to understand” you mean “childishly simplistic and open to disputation”).
6. The creation narrative in Genesis is intended to provide a chronological and literal account of how God made the world.
6. YECs may say this, but I know of no atheist that does.
I definitely disagree with this claim.
I’m sorry, but the second half of that sentence — the part after the dash — looks exactly like picking and choosing. Thoughtfully, carefully, with an awareness of context et cetera… yet still picking and still choosing.
I mean, how is it not picking and choosing?
Hell, I feel free to pick and choose from the bible; since I don’t believe any of it is actually coming from God, I can gladly say “This is nice poetry” or “That phrase sounds like good and useful advice”, and so on. Just as with any other work by human beings…
John, thanks for your willingness to engage the statements. I appreciate it.
Well, at times one’s analysis of genre and context leads to the conclusion that a certain section does not apply in any direct way to the present day. So, in that sense, one is choosing what sections are applicable, but it is not an arbitrary process driven by personal preference , which is what I took “picking and choosing” or, “cafeteria Christian” to mean.
Does that help explain?
I would seek medical attention, immediately. Is that answer straight enough?
No, it’s not straight at all since you’re avoiding the question and changing it to mean what would you do if you started hearing voices which you thought were god but actually weren’t.
My question is not what would you do if you were mentally ill, it is what would you do if the God you claim to belive exists manifested hismelf and gave you instructions to kill me?
Your answer either supposes you aren’t really a theist or that you don’t want to answer honestly.
I definitely don’t wish for Hovind to get anally raped in prison.
I’d just get a big kick out of it if he did.
Seriously, though, people. It’s rare enough that scumbags get what they deserve. If you’re not going to enjoy it, you’re missing out. That’s your call, but you shouldn’t ask the rest of us to be sticks in the mud, too.
Resent away. It doesn’t change the fact that you’re conveniently discarding the bits of the bible that you find embarrassing and indefensible. If nothing else at least the YECs have the courage of their convictions. Your response is like that of the person who, if out with their friends and one gets drunk and starts a fight cries, ‘Oh, no – I’m not with him.’
Indeed, the only place it exists is ‘in your mind’ – since this whole ‘Atheists are just like YECs nonsense’ you keep going on about is just you attempting to make a point that has no relevance. Atheists are bipedal, carbon-based life forms; so are YECs. Are you going to ‘chalk that up’ as another similarity? Because it means as much as the ‘similarities’ you listed so far.
gabriel @199,
Do you refer to exegesis or to hermeneutics? ;)
Well, I might say that regardless of how the narrative was intended (did we not get into a big argument about the intent of Genesis just a while back?), if the narrative is interpreted as being “a chronological and literal account of how God made the world”, it contains self-contradiction, and the parts that are not self-contradictory contain falsifiable and falsified claims.
Pray tell how would I know the difference between what you are asking and mental illness? I would default to the assumption that I was delusional.
If I was wrong, I would be willing to suffer the consequences of my disobedience.
Satisfied?
Sheesh. And I get accused of shifting goalposts…
Do you refer to exegesis or to hermeneutics? ;)
Both, naturally. :)
Pray tell how would I know the difference between what you are asking and mental illness? I would default to the assumption that I was delusional.
To which I am bound to ask why call yourself a theist in the first place with that option?
If I was wrong, I would be willing to suffer the consequences of my disobedience.
Really, you belive in an omniscient higher power but are happy to disobey the same?
nope, what you’re saying there is a variation on the mentall illness response, it shows you still don’t accept that the deity you claim to believe in could actually exist or demand such a thing.
Sorry, I’m not convinced you’re a theist at all.
There’s only two honest answers to the question.
I’d obey a direct command from God and kill you.
I’d disobey a direct command from God.
Qualifying the disobedience is a cop out.
Not really.
How can your own interpretation of genre and applicability be anything other than an “arbitrary process driven by personal preference”?
Hi Wowbagger,
Indeed, the only place it exists is ‘in your mind’ – since this whole ‘Atheists are just like YECs nonsense’ you keep going on about is just you attempting to make a point that has no relevance. Atheists are bipedal, carbon-based life forms; so are YECs. Are you going to ‘chalk that up’ as another similarity? Because it means as much as the ‘similarities’ you listed so far.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Why does the comparison, on these limited issues, threaten you so?
Why not just go through my list, as John has kindly done, and tell me what you think of each statement? I’m offering you the means to falsify my (much more restricted than you are making it out to be) claim. I promise not to throw your answers, or anyone else’s, for that matter, back at you now or in the future.
All Christians, 150 years ago: ‘All of the bible is literally true. All of it – how else do explain the diversity of life on this planet?’
Darwin & Wallace: ‘Er, actually…’
[much wailing and gnashing of teeth ensues; time passes]
YEC Christians, present day: ‘Screw you, scientists. It’s all still true. Darwin was wrong.’
Cafeteria Christians, present day: ‘The bible isn’t literally true. Except the bits that are – but we won’t talk about which bits those are, just in case. What we want to focus on is the spirit.’
How, exactly, is that not shifting the goalposts?
Sheesh. And I get accused of shifting goalposts…
Perhaps that’s because I asked a straight question and you immediately shifted the goalposts?
I asked a hypothetical question about God and you changed it to a hypothetical question about mental illness and delusions of God.
I said upthread that I get the same twisting and turning everytime I ask the question, you have not disappointed.
Not much to choose between them: exegesis is masturbation; hermeneutics tells you whether to massage the shaft or fondle the testicles.
You’re quite correct that merely personal criteria would amount to picking and choosing. I don’t derive my own criteria ex nihilo, of course, since I am not an expert in Biblical studies or textual criticism (although a background in molecular evolution helps here, ironically – basically it’s just the study of textual indels and other “mutations”).
As with the sciences, when I am out of my element I defer to experts. Now, of course there are choices about to whom one chooses to listen, so I guess you could argue it boils down to a form of personal choice in the end. I try to read widely and with theologians I agree with and disagree with, so hopefully it’s an informed choice. It is certainly much more interesting that the strawman version of Christianity that wanders through here regularly.
All Christians, 150 years ago: ‘All of the bible is literally true.
Uh, I’m surprised you think that’s true. I call bovine fecal matter on that one.
You can find Christians in the third century who would disagree with that (say, Augustine, for example). There is no evidence that Christians were not sensitive to genre and context right from the start. Even 1st century Palestinian Judaism (of which Christianity was a sect) was not nearly so rigid as your stereotype suggests.
Christianity begins and ends with the idea of Christ being the saviour, the rest is all peripheral to requirements. Where the argument lies is that the bible is meant to be a historical account of the life and death of Jesus, so by casting doubt on one section you cast doubt on the validity of the entire book.
Though it doesn’t change that Christianity is an absurdity to begin with. God coming down to earth to impregnate a virgin so she could give birth to him, go around the countryside performing magic tricks, then get killed so he can resurrect and redeem mankind for a fall that is now considered not to literally have happened…
I guess that too seems odd about the non-literalist view of the bible. What is Jesus redeeming mankind for if there was no garden of eden and fall from God? Not saying having an answer makes it any better or worse, but the entire story seems geared towards Jesus being a redeemer for Adam’s sin.
Because ducking and weaving, shucking and jiving, obfuscation and sophistry irritate me – as they should do all intellectually honest participants in a discussion. Or is ‘bearing false witness’ another part of the bible you’ve conveniently
ignoredinterpreted to suit your needs?I, in case you haven’t noticed, am not John. Do you believe there’s an atheist handbook that we all follow, and therefore will all respond in the same way? I imagine my answers would be somewhat similar to his – but it matters not; I have already explained the irrelevance of your comparison on more than one occasion, so I don’t see that there’s any point of jumping through your hoops. That YECs and atheists may agree on one point or a thousand points is irrelevant, just like it’s irrelevant that both groups consist of carbon-based, bipedal life forms.
Emmet @212, LOL.
gabriel,
Your background in ME probably gives you an understanding of critical thinking.
The question you elude by this statement, however, is how is it God purportedly inspired men to write (what is, after the fact) ambiguous scripture. The ambiguitity is attested to by the proliferation of schisms within Christianity since the day dot.
Wowbagger,
If my point is irrelevant to you, then feel free to not respond to it. No one needs to respond to every comment, especially if they think it inane.
Because ducking and weaving, shucking and jiving, obfuscation and sophistry irritate me – as they should do all intellectually honest participants in a discussion. Or is ‘bearing false witness’ another part of the bible you’ve conveniently ignored interpreted to suit your needs?
You’ve accused me of other things tonight that I’ve asked you to point out, but did not. Where do you think I’ve done these things? “Bearing false witness” by the way, involves the issue of ancient Jewish judiciary where individuals could be killed for certain infractions based on the Torah legal code – and where a false witness could sway the decision. I’ve hardly done that.
If I understand you to mean “lying”, which is a common generalization, and I would argue, a correct modern application of that portion of Scripture, (see? we agree!) where have I done that? It certainly hasn’t been my intent, but if you’ve seen an error on my part, by all means, point it out with specifics.
Your background in ME probably gives you an understanding of critical thinking.
The question you elude by this statement, however, is how is it God purportedly inspired men to write (what is, after the fact) ambiguous scripture. The ambiguitity is attested to by the proliferation of schisms within Christianity since the day dot.
Well, the further one gets from the original audience, the more ambiguous it can become. Schisms are everywhere, yes. If you add in (a) distance from the original audience and thus more confusion about the original intent, plus (b) people are involved, with their pride, self-righteousness and/or political interests, then viola, schisms everywhere.
Seriously, though – some of those schisms are over theological points so fine even theologians have trouble sorting them out.
As an aside, you see the same sort of factions in science. The advantage in science, of course, is that there is a corrective mechanism which can hold a field to the right course (generally) over time. There are corrective mechanisms within Christianity, but they are not as effective and, even when they work, they act over much longer timescales.
gabriel,
What I’m saying is that I consider your repeated conflation of atheists’ and YECs’ shared tendency of pointing out the undermining effect of liberal Christianity’s shedding (or ‘taking a non-literal interpretation’) of the indefensible sections of the bible to be in any way relevant to a discussion somewhat disingenuous, if not a deliberate smokescreen.
If that isn’t what you’re doing then I apologise – but it’s difficult to tell.
You don’t see this kind of thing in science though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7807124.stm
I agree with Gabriel on one point: literalism is quite new to Christianity. In partial evidence for this, recall that the bible was not even translated into the common languages of the people until the middle of last millennium. Most worshippers not only didn’t take it literally, they had no clue what it said at all. As I understand it, modern biblical inerrancy only dates from about the mid 19th century.
The history of religion & the bible is a lot more complex than the fundies will acknowledge. Note: I’m not saying that the earlier versions of Christianity were better, just different. For quite some time, translating the bible into the language of the people could actually get you set on fire by those delightful theologically sophisticated church thinkers.
somewhat disingenuous, if not a deliberate smokescreen.
Disingenuous? Smokescreen? eh? I think I’ve been pretty up-front about where I’m coming from.
I am under the impression that Pharyngula is a rough-and-tumble, free-for-all forum, where one can air one’s views on the topics under discussion. As a theist, I have no illusions that my thoughts will be accepted uncritically here. But, I enjoy the give and take and honesty that characterizes this community, hence my desire to participate.
I am not conflating atheism and YECism. I discuss these issues a lot with theists of many stripes and atheists. I thought I noticed some similarities. Had I posted these thoughts in a “liberal” Christian forum, likely the would have been received uncritically and I would not know their true worth. So, what better place to float these thoughts on a forum where some real atheists might comment? I don’t think it’s wise to restrict your range of respondents to sycophants.
* looks at clock *
Well, goodnight all. As always, it’s been fun.
gabriel, the problem I with the concept of their needing to be a corrective mechanism in Christianity is that, if it hasn’t kicked in for you then the timescale involved is an eternity – of suffering. And I have a huge problem with the concept of a being who would provide an unreliable guide to avoiding that – let alone allow it to happen at all.
On that, I’ve got to go – sorry if I’m doing a hit-and-run but I’m going to see a couple of bands (Epicure and Gomez) and I’ve got people waiting for me.
’til next time.
That’s because Christianity is a flight of fancy. The “corrective mechanism” of science is empirical evidence. No theology has any such grounding in reality — there is no experiment to determine how many angels “really” fit on the head of a pin.
gabriel,
Indeed.
But God is supposed to be all-knowing, better than humans.
Why is this deity subject to the same limitations? Cannot it inspire writings able to withstand the test of time (of progress!) and the avoidance of the “chinese whispers” effect?
Why could not its inspired Scripture be above the limitations of humankind? It clearly, evidentially, is not.
As usual, when it gets down to brass tacks, the Biblical god is judged against the standard of evolved apes, and it is seen as no better than what humans write.
PS Goodnight, gabriel.
I cannot but be honest with you, yet I wish I could indulge you. You are brave.
just * one * more * comment….
gabriel, the problem I with the concept of their needing to be a corrective mechanism in Christianity is that, if it hasn’t kicked in for you then the timescale involved is an eternity – of suffering. And I have a huge problem with the concept of a being who would provide an unreliable guide to avoiding that – let alone allow it to happen at all.
Agreed, but your concern would only be valid if the errors blocked salvation. Do you remember those adds for that game where the tagline was “only a moment to learn, but a lifetime to master?” That pretty much sums up Christianity – simple enough that Joe Hick can understand it, but complex enough that you can spend lifetimes studying it.
I don’t think most of the schisms have been able to mutate the core doctrines beyond hope – indeed, there seems to be quite a robustness to their simplicity, even 2000 years on.
‘nite all.
gabe
Gabe @ 219:
Excellent point.
I’ve often pondered the pinheads dancing on the heads of angels. How many was that again?
Liar (in the second part).
You’ve already repeatedly said (in various ways in various posts) that you can recognise the godliness and modern applicability of the Bible (enough to be the cafeteria Christian you objected to being called). How could it possibly not be easier to recognise a god turning up in reality to give you instructions?
Yet your default assumption, in calling yourself a theist at all, on the basis of what you can divine from a mere book, is that you are not delusional. Which flatly contradicts your assertion that you would regard yourself as delusional for seeing evidence of a god.
The only interesting question now is whether you are: intelligent and honest enough to suffer from cognitive dissonance; or too stupid to see the contradiction in yourself or dishonest enough to ignore it.
I don’t think I’ve ever come across a list like that of gabriel@169 produced with honest intent: there’s always been a planned “gotcha!”. I note that the whole “some atheists are like YEC’s” spiel served gabriel as a useful distraction from the problems of evil, and of incompatibility between science and religious faith – such distractions are of course the very fabric of theodicy. The statements on which the claim was based were made by Wowbagger and myself, so if the two of us would not accept the statements listed, that would in itself be significant. So I’ll not only give my conclusions about whether any atheists would accept the statements made, but explain my own stance with respect to each of them. I have numbered them for convenience.
1) Natural explanations, in that they show a process can occur without divine help, remove God from the picture and eliminate reasons for belief.
Atheist: I’d be surprised if any YEC would say this. They would not use the term “Natural explanations”. I would agree with the statement, as would most if most if not all contemporary atheists. It is, after all, simply a brief summary of the effect of Darwin’s work making the production of adaptation and biodiversity by wholly natural processes plausible.
2)Evolution and the bible are contradictory accounts of how the world came to be. If evolution is proved to be true, that proves God was not involved.
This is probably YEC. The first sentence is true. An unsophisticated atheist might agree with the second, but it is clearly false, if we interpret “God” widely enough: a sufficiently powerful creator could use any means it chose to produce the world as it is. If we interpret “God” to mean “an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being” then the problem of evil shows there is no such being, hence we already know “God” was not involved with anything. Moreover, most atheists are aware of the pitfalls of talking about “proof” in the context of science.
3) A just and loving God would create a world where there is no suffering or death. Creation, if God was involved, was perfect in every way we can imagine.
This is YEC. Atheists (including me) might say it if “if God had been involved, would have been perfect…” were substituted into the second sentence: since the world is not perfect in every way we can imagine, clearly it was not created by a just and loving (and omnipotent) God.
4) Persons who try to accept both evolution and Christian faith are ignorant and deluded.
This could be either a YEC, or an atheist, but I’d say the latter, since “ignorant and deluded” are epithets more often used by atheists than YECs. However, it’s false: clearly Ken Miller (for example) is not ignorant – though he is deluded.
5) It is easy to understand the Christian view of God through a straightforward, “common-sense” reading of the Bible.
YEC. Even the most unsophisticated atheist knows the Bible is rife with contradictions.
6) The creation narrative in Genesis is intended to provide a chronological and literal account of how God made the world.
Could be either YEC or unsophisticated atheist. I would ask “intended by whom?”. The creation narrative in Genesis is not the product of a single person or group. The intentions of those involved are probably irrecoverable, given the likely complexity of the processes by which the existeng text was arrived at, and the limitations of literary criticism as applied to ancient texts.
Now, I’ve answered your stupid quiz. How about a proper reply to the question of why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god would create a world in which suffering exists, rather than a heaven if which all beings enjoy eternal bliss? Of course, it is open to you to drop either the omnipotence (which I use in a sense that does not include the ability to do logically impossible things) or the omnibenevolence. As I said, the problem of evil is a simple refutation of most forms of theism – in the sense that very few theists are willing to drop either omnipotence or omnibenevolence.
The Wod of God
Psalm 14
1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Ron, Quoting scripture proves nothing more than your ability to read, type and possible turn on a computer. It’s a lame cop out of a non-argument.
possibly
Hmm… Since god doesn’t exist, highly unlikely. The bible was written by men. If it was written by god prove it. I’ll eagerly await your third party evidence, as the bible cannot be used to confirm itself. That is false circular reasoning.
Maybe he meant the Wad of god?
That might make more sense.
“Wod” is Old English for “insane, mad, wild”. So I think he’s telling us God’s a nutter. Thanks, Ron, we already know that if he existed, he’s have to be.
Ahhh yes. How very Nice of Ronnie to provide us a glimpse into his thoughts on the sanity of the character God.
Sef at 229.
Isn’t it interesting how such a simple question can throw any theist?
Gabriel has decided to pretend that the question hs just disappeared from the thread.
I’m back from the gig. Gomez can still rock, if anyone wondered.
gabriel’s gone now, but I’ll need to address his postscript anyway. He wrote:
The problem with this is that eternal damnation for displeasing God is equally valid interpretation of the bible, and one adopted by many of the sects of christianity. That yours doesn’t happen to be among them isn’t a compelling argument for why you’re right and they’re wrong.
Funny, this sounds exactly like the spiel from a huckster selling snake oil. ‘Line up folks, my magical elixir can cure baldness, impotence, gout, blindness, canker sores, blisters, tennis elbow, the grippe, the DTs, deafness and scrofula, amongst other things. Take it orally, nasally, anally; rub it into your skin or add it to your tea – it doesn’t matter because it’ll cure your ills wherever it ends up!’
Whenever someone tells me the exact same result can be achieved with as much or as little effort as I’m prepared to put in then I’m going to be suspicious. Even more so when the only way I’m going to find out if I’ve been the victim of a scam (or possibly scamola) is when I’m dead.
Indeed, it started simple – most things do. But then people started asking difficult questions, and answers had to be found. Theology rose to meet the demands of more sophisticated inquiry, to tell inquisitive folk how they’d misinterpreted what they’d heard; how those weren’t contradictions at all, and what God & Jr. and the hangers-on really meant was something else entirely. But they couldn’t stop there – theologists have families to feed, too. So it went on and on.
2000 years on and the tiny nugget of core beliefs is buried under an astonishing, tottering edifice of ‘interpretation’ and ‘clarification’ – and more smoke and mirrors than at a Criss Angel show.
If the bible were the word of god, divinely inspired or otherwise, none of this would be needed. That such effort is required to create something anyone with half an ounce of common sense could swallow is indicative that it’s nothing of the sort.
Well put.
Gdfgdgjdlhjdlt! I missed gabriel again!
A) He still doesn’t get that the disbelief of atheists (at least those I’ve encountered, here and elsewhere) in a deity does not rest on a rejection of a literalist interpretation of one cult’s text. I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of any deity. Will gabriel accept this as the basis of my atheism and stop suggesting without evidence that I or other atheists here think that we’ve countered Christianity if we show up the ridiculous claims of YECs and are ignorant of other forms of his religion? Is gabriel going to provide some eidence of a deity, or even a response to some of the problems with theism raised above?
B) Has gabriel listened to the “Inerrant the Wind” interview I recommended earlier? What is his response?
C) As I stated above, the rejection of one creation myth, with its internal contradictions and lack of correspondence with known reality, is not the basis of my atheism. However, I do believe that the history and nature of the universe and of the earth and its life specifically – the age of the cosmos relative to that of our solar system, the vast segments of the cosmos that don’t allow for any life as we know it and our planet’s puniness, the billions of years that preceded the appearance of life here and then the recentness of humans (who may not be long for this world, if we continue on our current path), the element of chance in the emergence of species* – poses problems for arguments for any creator god. The number and seriousness of these problems increases as we move toward a more personal, human-focused, and interventionist deity – from a vague, deistic god to a loosely-interpreted Christian creator to a creator seen in a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Bible more generally.
I’m aware that some theists have, in their minds, managed to rationalize our existing and growing scientific knowledge with their own (idiosyncratic?) image of a creator god. But I honestly don’t see how this can be done without contortions of thought and targeted ignorance. Can anyone summarize what Ken Miller’s argument is – how he defines his beliefs and tries to square them with what is known scientifically?
I know there’s something very comforting in the idea that it’s about us in some way, but I don’t want false comfort – I want real knowledge and understanding.
*I know Knock Goats took issue with my statement to this effect a few weeks ago. I didn’t respond then, but I’m still not buyin’ it.
I doubt it would cause all theists to become unstuck – just the ones who don’t want to be seen for the scum they are. However, you are probably less likely to be in even remotely reasonable discussion with the ones who don’t realise there’s a trap there and who answer it murderously.
Gabriel may not be up and unbusy and with functional internet access again yet. I don’t know the normal posting windows of that person.
However, you are probably less likely to be in even remotely reasonable discussion with the ones who don’t realise there’s a trap there and who answer it murderously.
I’ve yet to see a single theist answer the question at all, they invariably change it or give reasons as to why they wont answer it.
Gabriel seemingly answered it in the negative but he really said that he would say no because it wouldn’t be God asking the question. I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of them would carry out orders to kill if they thought God told them to do it. If God appeared to me and I bacame convinced of his existence, I wouldn’t think twice about doing what he told me to do.
The questions is, why do theists avoid this question?
They avoid it because they’re intrinsically dishonest about their whole religion – and they’re all at least partly aware of that fact (depending a bit on their intelligence, since an extremely stupid person might be draggable to church without understanding anything of what they were supposed to be doing).
And that is contemptible, whatever the origin – ignorance or personal trauma – of this glee.
Sticks in the mud, for not being amused at the thought of another being violently assaulted. People like you frighten me, quite frankly.
I know Knock Goats took issue with my statement to this effect [the element of chance in the emergence of species] a few weeks ago. I didn’t respond then, but I’m still not buyin’ it. – SC, OM
I did? IIRC, I suggested there was a “drift” in the direction of a technologically capable species emerging. The evolution of any given species, or larger taxonomic group, is surely a matter of chance. The “drift” certainly wouldn’t guarantee such emergence – after all, were probably at least 3/4 of the way through the period of Earth’s suitability to support life and as far as we know, we (or our near ancestors) are the first.
I can’t remember the thread, and didn’t really want to find or link to it as you’ve changed your…nick, and I don’t want to interfere with that. But IIRC your comment was in response to one of mine about how both cosmic and evolutionary history pose problems for theism, and you said or implied that while cosmic history did evolutionary history didn’t so much. I don’t see a broad drift in the direction of some technologically-capable organisms, occurring as it did, as rendering evolutionary history significantly less of a problem for theism. (Of course, it’s entirely possible that I’ve misundersood you.)
Is this something Miller discusses, by the way? Perhaps it’s a matter of whether this is seen as significant or not. To me, it seems like even if this drift (not necessarily toward us, it should be noted) exists, it’s such a long way from this to a creator that any marginal support it might give them is countered by a recognition of the arbitrariness of these developments. You could probably extend that argument to the cosmos, after all – it would just be even weaker.
Just to be clear, my original comments included the time aspect – “after all, were probably at least 3/4 of the way through the period of Earth’s suitability to support life and as far as we know, we (or our near ancestors) are the first” – as well (in addition to the time aspect in terms of the earth’s suitability to support life as a fraction of its term of existence). It wasn’t only the chance element I was pointing to at the time.
So, I suppose that makes the question of the timing of the beginning of life on earth key. Of course, it’s not relevant to whether or not evolutionary theory is supported; it is, though, I think, relevant to the question of the existence of a creator god. So not evolution, per se, but the timing of its starting point is the issue.
I don’t see a broad drift in the direction of some technologically-capable organisms, occurring as it did, as rendering evolutionary history significantly less of a problem for theism.
Not sure – we’ll have to ask a theistic evolutionist, if there are any back at work after the holiday ;-) But IIRC, they’re pretty vague on God’s motivation for doing things the hard way, rather than just pinging willing worshippers into existence, so I think they can accommodate pretty much anything. And after all, there could be quintillions of life-supporting planets out there, so it may be it could be pretty certain of getting at least one lot of techno-savvy organisms with knees and tongues, if that’s what it wanted…
Of course, chances are we’re living in a discarded beta-version universe it’s given the first-year undergrads to practice on, and they’re just mucking about – hence the rabies, guinea worm and Huntingdon’s disease.
If he would have been let out early, these documented sorta prayers to god would have been bright feathers in his evangelical hat. These ‘proofs’ of (yes) answered prayers from he whose name shall not be spoken, would have really jumpstarted Hovind’s return to the ministry of the credulous. Hell, if he gets out one hour earlier than the full 10 years it’s a win for the “Return of Dr. Dino” campaign. “See! God is on our side afterall! Send Money!”
getting back to the REAL topic:
i hope it’s consensual, that Hovind gets flowers, a nice meal, and a phone call the next day
What worries me about this lengthy discussion about the humour, or lack of it, in the potential for Hovind to be buggered in jail, is that Aquaria, who kicked the whole thing off around post 50 something with his inane misunderstanding, went on to tell the tale of how his co-postal worker (with, seemingly, Aquaria’s approval)got a guy an extra 5 years in jail for forging a stamp – and nobody said a word about it!
What a bastard! If you ask me, the wrong person is in jail.
Wow. Ball-bustingly insane like the last one. A couple comments:
– Joe is Jewish, apparently, and presumably he knows the name that the Torah gives to the Messiah. Why didn’t he protest when Hovind gave the Messiah’s name as Jesus rather than Emanuel?
– “let’s just say you can’t walk on water yet.” That little thing about rendering unto Caesar the thing that is Caesar’s (in this case, taxes).
gabriel @#227:
So… are you advocating apokatastasis? Or some other sort of universalism?
I don’t understand this analogy at all.
Um.
If the “core doctrines” are so simple and robust, could you be so kind as to lay them out here? Or point to a site that you think lays them in the way that you understand them?
Just to make sure that we’re all on the same page, as it were.
Cruithne @#244:
Um.
I have to admit, I would think a lot more than twice, and would probably not obey.
“So… you can do anything, right? So if you need for this guy to be dead, you can just make him be dead, right? So you don’t actually need me to perform this hit, right? So you’re really just fucking with me, right?”
Good one, Owlmirror.
Often, when the old testament says to have faith in God, it isn’t telling folks to believe that God exists, but is instead encouraging people to trust him, with his existence as an accepted obviousness. Literally, a living god was saying “Trust me.” It’s hard for folks to remember that, now that having faith in Jesus’s existence has taken priority in the minds of the faithful.
Which is to say that even the bible doesn’t equate the existence of God with the goodness of God. Proof that God exists is *not* proof that he is good.
If God shows himself to you, don’t automatically obey him. Start asking questions while you look for a rock.
Best news I’ve heard all year.
Owlmirror I’m assuming that the God would be the God spoken of in the bible, whose appearance made one too terrified to speak, or even look directly at him.
Sure if he were a little more laid back, smoking a cheroot and wearing slacks I might be more inclined to open up the discourse a little.
The point I was making was taking theists at their word and seeing how far they are willing to go along with what they say they believe.
God in the bible is depicted in vastly inconsistent ways, from a “still, small voice” to thunder and lightning on Sinai, to what certainly looks like a small boy throwing a tantrum, depending on who was telling the stories and what they wanted to do. Don’t forget that Abraham bargained with God for Sodom and Gomorrah without being terrified, as one interesting counterexample.
I kinda suspect that the story of “God as holy terror” arose as a response to people asking why God didn’t show himself and/or speak directly as he had done in (some of) the stories about Adam, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc.
The Word of God
Romans 10
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Yeah but isn’t it the case that God the father when viewed in person was always terrible to behold?
My understanding is that whenever God appeared as a man that this was in fact the Jesus part of the Godhead (yes, even as far back as the garden of eden)
Anway, it’s all angels on pinheads stuff, I could go on but I don’t want you to think I believe this shit (I just know it)
Hey Ron, how about engaging in some substantive conversation. The continued quoting of scripture proves nothing is frankly pretty boring. Your buddy Hovind is a criminal and he deserves to be in jail.
Ron Judge @262,
Is “confess” a euphemism for “fellate”?
Yeah, yeah, Ron, but what about the Wod of God? That really got our attention.
I love how Ron keeps quote fiction. After all, his god doesn’t exist, so that makes the bible a work of fiction. All it describes is how to keep the priest class in burnt offerings, while every body else is vegetarian. Not a book I would to take anywhere other than to the trash.
FWIW, I have attempted to make several non-loaded comments on Hovind’s official blog which links to the court appeal summary PDF (mentioned above). My invitation was merely to ask Hovind’s supporters to critique the document and tell me why it was wrong.
You should know that the comments were promptly removed from the site by the moderator. Cowards.
I don’t think so… see the essay I linked to @#261 above.
In some (most?) of the scenes I alluded to, God being terrible simply isn’t mentioned.
Well, it certainly was not the original writers’ intent that that was the interpretation. They had no idea whatsoever of Jesus, but of course did have varying ideas about Yahweh/Elohim.