Kent Hovind is scheduled to be released from federal prison in August of 2015, an event I’m sure we all eagerly anticipate. Or is he? I just heard that he’s been indicted on new charges of mail fraud by a federal grand jury. I have no details other than what wikipedia says — Indictment, Oct. 21, 2014, United States v. Hovind, case no. 3:14-cr-00091-MCR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Div.). — and the completely uninformative wailing of a great many creationists.
I’m sure there are great milling hordes of people out there with more legal expertise than I’ve got, who can look this up and give us the details in plain English. It seems rather strange to suddenly go after him with new charges as he’s approaching the end of his current sentence…unless he’s been engaging in mail fraud from his prison cell.
Keep in mind, his new indictment might be over something relatively minor. The courts will drop the hammer on him for even the tiniest slight, and here’s why: he has shown no remorse at all for his crimes. Even the most vile and heinous criminals will at least pretend remorse because they know courts look for it. Hovind has shown no remorse, and indeed has shown the opposite, loudly insisting that he committed no crime and that the laws he broke are illegitmate.
So all the judges and prosecutors around him have been watching his behavior with lynx-eyed scrutiny, and maybe he committed some minor technical offense. If so, they will throw the book at him.
Looks like they are filing charges against him and his buddy and “Soverign Citizen” Paul J Hansen:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=559486810852659&id=339508739517135
And here’s audio of Paul J Hansen in court:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11885450/814-mj-00277_10242014-20311-PM.mp3
Poor persecuted Kent Hovind. One of the few martyrs actually getting real punishments for white collar crimes. If only Kent Hovind was richer he would have been fine.
Here’s more details on “USA v Kent Hovind and Paul Hansen Indictment” yesterday:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/USA_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Paul_Hansen_Indictment
I think this will be worth watching if you read the entire complaint above against Hovind and especially Hansen.
It sounds about like I expected: shady maneuvering and squabbling over the Dinosaur Adventure Land property.
Interesting comment at that facebook link:
Here was me thinking that praying is doing stuff that helps. If grabbing the ear of He Who Controls Everything doesn’t get the chappy freed, I have to believe that that’s because the Good Lord doesn’t want him freed.
Paul John Hansen has a blog, where he incoherently babbles about his legal position.
Yeah, he and Hovind…birds of a feather. It sounds like the two of them were playing games to prevent the forfeiture of the property he lost in Hovind’s court judgment, and in that case, yes, throw the book at him. Maybe he won’t be out in 2015 after all.
It is odd to read what his fans write. The first time that I heard of him, was at a church where he was speaking against evolution. About halfway through his talk, I wrote in the notes that I was taking, the word “evil” in all caps, bolded, and underlined three times.
I don’t wish harm to Kent, but I do want him kept away from people. I don’t think these new charges are trumped up, but if I found that they were false, I might have some dilemming to do.
Articles of Confederation?
At best that document ceased to be enforceable when Rhode Island ratified the new Constitution in 1790. And was probably obsolete when New Hampshire ratified in 1788.
Hansen’s nonsense about the court’s lack of jurisdiction seems to be a common theme in the “liberty movement.” They seem to believe they have stumbled across a magic formula based on a some twisted interpretation of Constitutional law that greatly limits the government’s jurisdictional powers to interfere in people’s lives.
Even the definition of “The United States of America” is called into question, if it suits their purpose:
Another more limited, but popular version of this is the claim that traffic laws only apply to people who are using their vehicles for commerce, so if you’re driving 100mph down a city street on the way home from a football game, the police have no right to detain you.
Of course, if any of these legal theories gains traction in the courts, the government will simply change the law accordingly, but these people are so far down the rabbit hole, they don’t seem to realize that.
They always have something to sell, don’t they?
Paul John Hansen:
I’m not a lawyer, but doesn’t that roughly translate to “I’m a slumlord”?
@LykeX – Boom. Yup, and a really bad one at that. It’s pretty unusual to the point of actually arresting slumlords.
Arrested an estimated 8 times? Has it become so frequent that he’s losing count?
Looks like we’re in for another 20 years of knee-mails
Translation: I am not prepared to prove that I have been judged capable of controlling a vehicle, I am not interested in making sure that the means to pay any damages, should I be at fault in an accident, are available, and I’ve made sure that my vehicles are untraceable to me should such an accident occur. In short, I am an anti-social, irresponsible scum-bag.
And in spite of this he feels he has the right to use the State’s roads whenever he wishes.
More on Hansen:
http://www.kvnonews.com/2011/10/anti-government-groups-raise-flags-for-law-enforcement/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966772/posts (cites an Omaha World Herald article)
Verdict: Slum lord gibbertarian asshole. Ayn Rand would be proud.
From the link provided by myleslawrence at #4, it looks like they are continuing to attempt to “cloud” the title of property that was seized as a result of Kent’s shenanigans. A lis pendens is what you file to state you have a claim on property or are otherwise contesting the title of a property. It looks like they tried this multiple times. Clouded titles on properties can tie things up in litigation for years (even if they are patently false), so that might be why the grand jury/prosecutor said enough was enough.
Sorry, I disagree. I perfectly accept his “I am not a U.S. Citizen” but a citizen of the lord. Okay. Fine, I accept. Now, I think that this is the only acceptable time to say this:
Get the flying fuck out of my Country!
You are not a Citizen. You do not pay taxes for the upkeep of local, state and Federal infrastructure. You do not accept the laws of the U.S. Constituion, the Supreme Court and all other Courts, and the laws passed by Congress, Signed by the President, and enforced by the various local, State and Federal agencies?
Report your deadbeat ass to your local immigration center. State that you are not a U.S. citizen in front of the appropriate authorities, and state your intended Country that is in the habitable World (not epherial) and leave. Done. Simple. Stop being a deadbeat, fucker….
“An estimated 8 times?” Eight is not a huge number. You’d think he’d know exactly how many times he has been arrested.
@Donnie (#21) – Yeah, these people who don’t acknowledge our government really ought to get three choices:
1. Leave for Somalia or some other failed state with no effective government immediately.
2. Go to jail for repeatedly failing to respond to legal requirements, with all property seized and liquidated to pay their debts. And if this happens again, they stay in jail.
3. Get mental health treatment, if the source of their issues is determined to be psychological in nature. And I’m not able to make a of diagnosis, but it’s hard for me to imagine the author of that screed isn’t suffering from some sort of delusional disorder.
To be fair this part:
Hmm, blockquote fail. Let’s try this again.
To be fair this part:
is also true of myself. Of course, I also do not own or operate any automobiles. I suspect this is not true of Hansen.
This blew me away. People this hypocritical actually exist?
Not being a citizen of the US or a particular state does not exempt you from following the laws.
The “sovereign citizens” like Hansen think they have a literally god-given right to squat in our country, sucking at the governmental teat for things like infrastructure and fire protection, and not pay for any of the stuff they freeload from the rest of us. Judges take a dim view of sovereign citizens and tend to give them heavy sentences upon conviction. The reason Hovind is doing 10 years is that he tried the sovereign citizen act during his tax evasion trial. The judge was not amused.
Now it appears that Hovind and Hansen are playing games with the court-ordered forfeiture of Hovind’s real estate. The judge will be even less amused.
Interesting side note that I found out over a week ago, the creator of the FreeHovind site, Aubrey Falconer, abandoned the site long ago. He now considers himself with the rationalist / humanist / atheist camp.
Fixed It For Him. Like two others have pointed out: “estimated” is a totally odd phrasing, given how exact all his other numbers are.
I gotta add-on: If he so firmly believes he not a citizen of this faux-government of the USA, why is he still here? He needs to go find one of those uninhabited islands where he can establish his very own kingdom, etc, etc. I too *appreciate* how all the rental properties he owns, do NOT meet building codes, and he refuses to fix them accordingly.
If he’s not a citizen of the US, can we deport him? How do you deport someone to a place that doesn’t exist?
Sovereign Citizens:
An attempt to frustrate or disrupt the legal system with a “baffle them with bullshit” strategy. Also known as: Detaxers; Freemen or Freemen-on-the-Land; Sovereign Men; Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International (CERI); Moorish Law; OPCA litigants; and other labels.
If they’re religious*, you just execute them.
*Warning: Deeply tasteless joke ahead.
I know someone who tried the sovereign citizen thing. It’s not mental illness, it’s just motivated reasoning: he had $600k in earnings he felt like not paying tax on, so he read about this weird little loophole that would totally let him keep it all! Then he defended himself in court.
For his trouble, he got free room and board for two years, and a divorce.
Seems to be doing better now. He’s still a libertarian, but he doesn’t deny that the US is still a thing.
Sovereign Citizen Libertarianism seems incredibly childish. Very childish, as in toddlerhood or pre-K. It involves the fervent belief that you don’t need to do what mommy says if you just pout long enough or say that she isn’t your REAL mommy or just keep asking “why” over and over until she gives up. It involves breaking every rule that you don’t like, refusing to do things that might help mommy, gleefully taking whatever is given to you by mommy but throwing a fit every time she wants something back from you. She gives out lots of toys, which the Sovereign Citizen gleefully accepts, but when mommy wants to take a toy away because it is bedtime, or because she wants you to share, or because you have been bad, or any other reason, that cannot be tolerated. No take backsies. Mine. Mine! MINE!!!
The property worshiping brand of libertarian are myopic, whiny brats, violently defending their little hoard from the scourge of Mommy, while living under mommy’s roof and eating mommy’s food at no cost.
I noticed that a lot of Hovind supporters are blaming “our corrupt government” for persecuting this supposedly innocent and godly man.
There are so many things wrong with that … don’t even know where to begin.
mikehuben @32
For some reason I can’t get to the main page of the wiki you linked to.
What I’d love to know is, where did all this asshole’s money come from? I’m working a decent, skilled-labour job, I very rarely spend money, *and* I’m mooching living expenses off my parents… and it’ll still be most of a decade before I can pay off a single house. And he’s got dozens?
Those must be some crazy impressive PowerPoint presentations. They probably have animations and everything.
Oh, so are these the evil “illegals” who are living off everyone’s hard work and ruining the country the conservatives are always going on about?
@Al Dente (#37)
That is the main page for “Sovereign Citizens” on the “Critiques Of Libertarianism” site http://critiques.us/
There is a link in the left sidebar “Search for page title -> In Wikipedia” that leads to the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
Thank you, johnmarley.
Paul John Hansen strikes me as, above all, a miser. All this “sovereign citizen” crap is just rationalization and self-justification.
We should fix that for them: Critiques Of Libertarianism Propertarianism.
Oops: Critiques Of
LibertarianismPropertarianism.Here’s my IANAL understanding of the indictment:
1. As part of the sentence, Hovind is ordered to pay a large fine, and (with the approval of the U.S. District Court) some of his property is seized in order to pay that fine.
2. Hovind and Hansen keep filing claims to that property.
3. The court asks the U.S. District Court to confirm that the case is over, that the property no longer belongs to Hovind or Hansen, and that they should be ordered to stop filing bullshit property claims.
4. The U.S. District Court agrees, and sends notices to Hovind and Hansen that the case is over and they must stop filing bullshit property claims.
5. Hovind and Hansen keep filing bullshit property claims.
6. They are indicted for A) attempting to defraud the government through false claims and B) wasting the government’s time by filing these claims after they were legally instructed not to.
Now IA(still)NAL, but something seems wrong here. I can understand indictment B), but A) not so much. Is filing a bad claim, even an indefensible claim, really “fraud”? That seems like quite a stretch. Fraud usually means either claiming something as fact which isn’t fact (“my perpetual motion machine works, and can be yours for $999.95”) or telling an ignorant party that the law says something which it doesn’t (“because of the Articles of Confederation and Salic Law, you don’t have to pay taxes”). But when you file a claim to the government, all you are doing is attempting persuasion: “the law should be read this way.” And even if your claim is complete bullshit (as I suppose it certainly is, in this case), how is that “fraud”?
Maybe to clarify a bit: I would guess that the perpetual motion claim and the Salic Law claim count as fraud because it’s assumed that an innocent party might well believe that the bullshit science was real science and the bullshit law was real law, and thus pay for the privilege of getting the machine or the advice. But we don’t make the assumption that the state itself (which is receiving the bullshit petitions from Hovind and Hansen) might well believe that the crazy legal ‘reasoning’ was real legal reasoning, and thus might well surrender property which belonged to it. So it’s hard to see how fraud or attempted fraud is going on here.
Okay, so… from what I gathered, these people want to disassociate from the USA, from their citizenship, from their rights and responsibilities (including taxes) that come with that. I guess that’s fine. I don’t see why a citizen of a country should be forced to remain so.
However, what I don’t get is why they think they can do that while continuing to live within the sovereign borders of said country, benefit from the infrastructure, police, fire etc. services while disavowing their responsibilities towards that country.
Even if they get their way and become free of the USA citizenship and are then independent or “under church jurisdiction”, whatever that means, why would they get to squat on land that is a part of the USA?
To oversimplify: If you renounce your citizenship, its rights and responsibilities, its taxes etc., why are you still within the borders of the country?
Why would a foreigner get to squat on that country’s land without paying the associated property taxes and so on? It doesn’t work like that for citizens of foreign countries who own property within the USA, why would they think it would work for citizens of their “church jurisidiction” owning property within the USA then?
Even if “church jurisdiction” was its own thing, it’s not like basically being a foreigner at that point would remove the obligations towards the country you own property in.
Why are you being obtuse? The conviction for tax fraud caused the land to be ceded to the government as part of the punishment. Hovind and Hansen have no legal claim, by law, to the land after the judgment, short of overturning Hovind’s conviction. The fraud is them pretending they still own the land, and expect the government to give it back. Since they have no legal claim to the land, trying to tie up the title with bogus claims is fraud.
@ jeffreykramer, to defraud means to illegally obtain money or goods by deception – which is what the false claims are, a deception. IANAL either, but to defraud has a specific meaning and the ‘fraud’ bit you’re quibbling over relates to the falsity of the claim, not the object of what it is intended to achieve.
The criminal statute here (other than the conspiracy one) is 18 U.S.C. § 1341:
Civil fraud, on the other hand, requires that the person intended to be deceived be in fact deceived.
My income is primarily derived from rental properties, legal counsel fees, selling PowerPoint presentations
Throw the book at him. Anyone selling PP slides (because I’m sure they are full of wonderful clipart and transitions) is committing crimes against humanity
Xanthe, paulambos: could any lawsuit which relied on dodgy reasoning then be considered a “false representation” of the law? If so, there would have to be literally hundreds of petitioners open to prosecution for fraud. If not, do you get any sense from the case file in the link as to what makes the Hovind/Hansen suit different from all the others which just get summarily dismissed with no prospect of prosecution?
Nerd, if Hovind/Harvey were writing letters to supporters, asking for loans and promising to pay them back from the sale of these properties (which they no longer legally owned), that would be no-questions-asked fraud. But here they are not promising or offering anything, they are petitioning the government itself to reverse itself on the decision to seize the property. People make such petitions all the time, and very seldom are they successful. But making such a petition does not in itself constitute fraud.
I was imprecise in saying Hoving/Harvey were petitioning for a reversal; they were making a statement that the property still legally belonged to them. But it amounts to the same thing, substantially; the only entity which can give them the property is the government before which they are stating the claim, so for the claim to be have any money value (which is one of the elements of fraud), the government would have to reverse itself on the seizure. In effect, a charge of fraud here amounts to the government saying, “you are claiming that property is yours; but it isn’t, because it is absolutely clear that you have no legal case to claim it; and by saying you do, you are trying to deceive us.” It’s the last part which makes no sense to me. How can the government claim both 1) that it is absolutely clear that Hovind/Harvey have no legal title, and 2) that their mere statement that they do have legal title could possibly deceive the government into acknowledging that they do have legal title?
They’re basically trying to tie the whole thing up in knots and slow the process down and basically waste the government’s time and money arguing about something that is done, dusted and over.
But as far as I can tell what they are being charged with is ignoring the government’s legally acquired ‘this is over, unless you actually somehow get a real lawyer to bring this to court stop wasting our time’ order.
jeffreykramer:
I’m no lawyer myself, but it seems that this is exactly what’s going on. Of course, their attempt at deception isn’t a very good one, but because they are simply continuing to claim the property is theirs, instead of actually trying to appeal or reverse the earlier decision that it isn’t, they are claiming things which they have already been told aren’t legally correct, so they cannot make that claim, even to a person or entity that should already know and can easily verify that this claim is utterly false, like the government.
Wikipedia says:
This suggests that it may also count as fraud if you aren’t trying to get some, but instead are trying to harm the victim.
So there seem to be two options why filing these claims counts as fraud:
a. The government thinks that they are actually stupid enough to think if they just keep filing, sooner or later they’ll get what they file for. (Doesn’t actually seem all that implausible, that they’d believe that, does it?)
b. The government thinks that their intention is actually to cause financial damage to the government. (Also seems possible with these two clowns.)
Of course, then there’s
c. The way clouding a title works may well be that it makes third parties cautious about buying, which means deceiving those third parties, for reasons of either a or b above, and that makes it fraud.
IANAL, so I can’t tell which it is, but something along those lines does seem believable to me.
@jeffreykramer
[Disclaimer: IANAL] The issue is not the court filings, but the lis pendens claims, and using the mails to send them. If they wanted to file/re-litigate claims for the property, they might be subject to contempt for filing vexatious claims, but that would be comparatively minor. The lis pendens is filed at the county land office/registrar, declares that the property is the subject of an active lawsuit, and can make it difficult for the actual owner to make use of the property (e.g., getting loans to build a house, getting a mortgage, selling the property, …).
The court no doubt finds these claims frivolous since the lawsuit is — in their opinions — settled, and filing these claims through the mails is mail fraud, intended to or having the effect of harassing the new owner. That some of this activity appears to have been done through sockpuppetry by the principals does not help.
Since they’re under court order not to do this without getting the advice of a qualified lawyer and/or permission of the court, they probably also get extra attention from the local judiciary.
My opinion: proving mail fraud is straight-forward. Committing it is stupid, and the court will, with the help of prosecutors, smack them down thoroughly. Hovind is very likely to see his incarceration time extended substantially and, eventually, find his parole boards particularly unsympathetic.
Wow, I see this forum is where mostly bootlickers hang out. I don’t believe I’ve read a single opinion challenging the underlying (victimless) premise of the purported charges. What a pathetic lot.
The tax payers are victims, pathetic illogical post once and run for your life intellectual coward….
Here’s a question: Did it take Jethro nearly 2 weeks to find this thread, or was he trying to find a moribund thread in which he could have the last, lonely, pathetic word?
Either way–didn’t work, did it Jethro.
Hey!
A troll!
“The tax payers are victims, pathetic illogical post once and run for your life intellectual coward….”
Is that so? Who are these “tax payers” and why haven’t they come forward to TESTIFY UNDER OATH as to how they’ve been victimized?
“Hey!
A troll!”
Hey, a state worshiper!
Says the dude who is defended a convicted felon.
You are surprised that nobody thinks defrauding people for jesus and evading the consequences is anything other than immoral, reprehensible behavior? (also clearly illegal whether you are defrauding individuals or governments)
We’re rubber, you’re glue…
Gandhi was also a convict. Your point?
Sorry, I see no fraud, except on behalf of “government agents”. Their apologists are not much better.
Don’t flatter yourself. I write not for you, but for others to see that not everyone supports the fraud and abuse perpetrated against these people.
What is your point, pointless one?
You are stupid. Show us it isn’t fraud. The burden of evidence is upon you, as Hovind’s trail has enough evidence for conviction and forfeiture.
You haven’t defined the fraud and abuse against these people. A court decision might help your evidenceless claims. But I doubt it. You word is that of a liar and bullshitter, since you supply no evidence, just attitude.
Dang, sometimes my copypasta gets sticky and unresponsive. #66 should read:
What is your point, pointless one?
You are stupid. Show us it isn’t fraud. The burden of evidence is upon you, as Hovind’s trial has enough evidence for conviction and forfeiture due to his fraud.
You haven’t defined the fraud and abuse against these people. A court decision might help your evidenceless claims. But I doubt it. You word is that of a liar and bullshitter, since you supply no evidence, just attitude and ignorance.
Meanwhile, over here in the real world, religions and the law agree that stealing is very bad, and thieves are assholes, not to be trusted.
HAhahee! I guess I am imagining that you quoted and responded to me. Don’t worry sweetpea, I am not flattered.
Um … huh?
I’m an apologist for the government in this case. It was a clear case of tax fraud on Hovind’s part, he was convicted.
now it’s a clear case of frivolous lawsuits using liens to try to irritate the government into not actually getting from him what he owes them, still.
does that make me a fraud? evidently you don’t know the meaning of the word. I suspect there are a great many words you don’t know the meanings of.
keep that xian education goin’ strong!
Jethro, do you have an actual point other than “Nuh uh!”, or are just here to masturbate to the sound of your own voice?
yes. it is exactly that, and intended to be that. the intent specifically being to attempt to defraud the government out of money already owed.
you know, much like Hovind’s original attempts to defraud the government by not paying taxes to begin with.
it really is fraud.
well thanks Jethro. Indeed, not everyone clearly saw that Hovind and his pet lawyer were indeed yet again attempting to defraud the federal government, and thus, all the rest of us.
oh, wait, not what you meant was it?
LOL
I bet you like music, Jethro.
I got a song, just for you!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLgEnDGkG4
“Bootlickers”?!?
Have you been to a Hovind presentation? Have you met his fans?
“Victimless”?!?
Why would you even need to include that word, except to say that, yes, he broke the law, but nobody got hurt? Yes, he broke the law, and yes, the rest of America got hurt, and our legal representatives are stepping up to punish Hovind.
Jethro is re-defining everything as he goes, to get the meaning he wants, and expecting everyone else to agree with him as he insults them. Where, oh where, have I seen that before? Oh, yeah, Brother Kent.
chigau #69
It’s a liberturd tell; they call anyone who isn’t them ‘statists’ and similar, because they’re anarcho-capitalists.
You might find your vision improved if you removed your head from your fundament.
I doubt our little troll has any political convictions behind his poorly aimed insults. Kent Hovind is clearly a piece of greedy lying scum, and it seems the Gov will be more than happy to provide him with a jail cell for awhile longer. I approve this use of my tax dollars, and I certainly won’t be losing any sleep over being a law-abiding citizen.
Wow, glad to have stirred things up here a bit. Not much really worth responding to, besides perhaps these:
Do ad hominems qualify as “argument” here?
I agree. However, who the thieves actually are appears to be lost on most here.
No, it’s a case of using lawful (and apparently effective) processes to prevent STEALING by men (and women) acting via their legal fictions. Too bad if they don’t like it – they can deal with it CIVILLY. But instead they play dirty and get a (publikly-skool’d) “grand jury” to indict. Ever hear the expression “They could indict a ham sandwich”?
Who is this poor, victimized “government”? Does it have arms? Does it have legs? Can it talk?
Really?? So “the rest of America” lined up and testified at trial as to how bad this naughty Hovind hurt them? Oh wait, they didn’t, did they? How did Hovind harm you, the man? Please explain your theory of phantom victims.
Leave me out of your “the rest of us”.
if you’re the real Jethro, where’s the fake Jethro?
I want to hear his opinion on who is the real Jethro.
excellent.
Shall I notify the IRS you have decided to refuse to pay taxes as a conscientious objector then?
well, if corporations are persons….
you ARE stupid.
that is not an ad hominem, but then, you can’t be expected to know that, because you are stupid.
In fact, I expect everything you say to be mockable because you are stupid.
which, btw, IS an ad hominem.
apparently effective?
uh, not only are you stupid, you appear to be blind as well.
Jeffrey Dahmer was also a convict. Your point?
They laughed at Galileo! (actually they didn’t).
They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Our troll doesn’t seem to know the difference between an insult and an ad hominem.
Oh, right, so you never make any use of (and never will) of the roads, bridges, schools, universities, hospitals, security services, public health facilities, legal system… paid for in whole or in part out of taxes. Or, of course, the skills of anyone trained in those schools, universities or hospitals.
So you admit being a troll.
A libertarian troll thinks xe’s got something original and possibly worthwhile to say. However all we see is a feeble defense of a convicted felon and whining about the big, bad government. Nothing to see here.
“IRS” — that’s a funny name for a kid. Who is this IRS? Does it have arms & legs & hair..? Can IRS talk?
Corporations may be PERSONS, but a corporation is never a man.
Poisoning the well. If someone being a “convict” discredits them, then history should have paid no attention to Gandhi, MLK, Mandela…
Which taxes? Didn’t you ever read the Grace Commission Report..?
“100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services [that] taxpayers expect from their government.”
Still no evidence troll, it isn’t “sovereign citizens” or other fuckwitted idjits.
Which is Hovind and his accomplice. You haven’t shown otherwise with evidence, and you opinion will never be evidence,.
The people it represents, who have all those limbs you claim is required.
Easy, he didn’t pay taxes on personal income. Which is stealing from those who do. And even “men of god” have to pay income taxes on their personal stipends. Show otherwise with a court ruling…..
Whether you like it or not, you ARE part of this nation. Either behave yourself and pay your taxes, or we authorize those agencies to jail your sorry ass…..
Non-sequitur. Like all your fuckwittery.
And why isn’t he a felon, based upon the law? No law cited, so nothing but your fuckwitted opinion based on presuppositional idiotology. Typical of losers,
Non-sequitur. Typical of iditological losers like you and Hovind.
It appears you have funny opinion (religion?) that slapping the word “tax” on something automatically means anyone can do anything they want so long as it’s for “taxes”. I LOVE that… Because I have a whole bunch of taxes to impose. So let’s start: Have you paid your (Real Jethro) taxes?
Then WHERE ARE THEY? (hint: they’ve not in court testifying, and they never will, because these “victims” don’t exist).
Bull. More phantoms. Do you even know what “stealing” is?? The real world isn’t this hard. Come on, try again — WHERE ARE THE “VICTIMS”?
What is “this nation” and prove I’m part of it.
Prove I owe “taxes”.
An alleged tax debt is nothing more than a DEBT. Do you understand that there is no debtor’s prison? What theory do you have to “jail” someone over a debt? (hint: there is one, though I doubt you’ll ever get it).
Real Jethro
What is money?
Real Jethro
What is proof?
Wow. You’re calling the distinction between a PERSON and a man a non-sequitur? Wow. Just wow.
There can be no discussion about “law” without a common understanding of who the supreme lawgiver is. Whom do you believe that is?
So did you or did you not read the Grace Commission report?
No fuckwit, show me YOUR tax return first. SHOW us you don’t have to pay taxes with real evidence, like court decisions. SHOW US, or shut the fuck up.
Walk into Walmart. Everybody there.
YEP. I’m waiting for your EVIDENCE, not merely your idiotolgy, that taxes are stealing. Start with court decisions….
Prove you don’t, with EVIDENCE, not blather from an idiotologist, both ignorant and arrogant, and likely to end up in jail. Remember, what Al Capone was finally incarcerated for…
Nope, it is your part of existing in a social society. Prove you are an island not dependent upon roads, mail, etc., provided for by government. OR SHUT THE FUCK UP LOSER.
Real Jethro @94:
Hmmm, that’s a decent segue from liberturdism to godbottery. Judges give it a 6.5.
Here’s a good start:
“Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition:
Dollar, money. A silver coin of the United States of the value of
one hundred cents, or tenth part of an eagle.
2. It weighs four hundred and twelve and a half grains. Of one
thousand parts, nine hundred are of pure silver and one hundred of
alloy.”
Does someone want to define ‘proof’?
Or are y’all happy just flinging the word at random?
What’s the context?
Who else?
I wonder when all the libertarians are going to stop making use of bridges, utilities, schools, roads, libraries, law enforcement, fire department, the legal system, or mail…
Since they whine about paying taxes, then fine, they don’t have to, but they can no longer benefit from everything our taxes pay for. Not sure how they’re going to survive, but they’re bootstrapping individuals who have no need of any outside help, so I’m sure these resourceful individuals will find a way.
Goooooo Galt!
Shut the fuck up and point, like THIS.
Your word is dismissed before you post without third party evidence. Shut the fuck up until you are able to supply such evidence.
Real Jethro
Are you fucking kidding?
supreme lawgiver????
Burden of proof error. If you don’t think so, again.. WHERE IS YOUR (REAL JETHRO) TAX RETURN? Am I gonna have to get JIRS to throw your butt in jail?
Oh really? So People of Walmart™ all got called as witnesses in the trial and testified that big, bad Hovind injured them?
Let’s stay on point here. You think an alleged >>debt<< is a jailable matter? Do you got any overdue books? Been late on a payment? Hey, I got one up on your over your "dependent upon roads, mail, etc." theory — those whom you stiffed were likely actually harmed by you. Off to jail for you.
Nerd
if you type “third party evidence” once more my head is going to explode
I had a discussion about law, once, with no assumption of a supreme law-giver, let alone an understanding of who it was. It is possible. Checkmate, Jethro.
And there was a discussion of law, once, in which the supreme law-giver said, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
Yep, your claim, your evidence, or shut the fuck up.
We let the government represent us, but yes, I would testify that his not paying his fair share of personal income as tax hurt me. What is your problem?
Not alleged. That is our point. LEGITMATE TAXES OWED BY HOVIND AND NOT PAID.
What is your problem?
Real Jethro
So actually do not know what ‘money’ is?
You are stupid.
Jethro, the people of America, through their elected and appointed representatives, did indeed testify against Kent. Does that concept totally evade you?
chigau @108:
Come on, be fair. Jethro knows an 1856 definition of money.
We can discuss law perfectly well, seeing as it’s a human invention. In this case, it’s a very short discussion. Kent has been convicted of massive fraud, and he can rot in jail. Your mythical god actually has a much worse punishment in store for violating multiple commandments. I don’t even believe that KH truly believes in his own god.
Paul Krugman has some thoughts about taxes:
and ships are never women.
i like you, you’re just nuts.
you all realize Jethro is using some of the exact same inane arguments tax evaders have tried to use for decades?
it’s NEVER WORKED.
but of course, they’re too stupid to realize that before they end up in jail.
like Hovind.
I eagerly await Jethro’s stint as a conscientious objector to being a citizen of the United States.
go get em, tiger.
Jethro, provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity, physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Like Hovind, nothing but presuppositional bullshit, which landed him in jail. What a fuckwit you are to think you even have an argument without evidence…..
I’m betting that actually would be the Sheriff in Jethro’s case, judging by the arguments he’s using.
…and you thought I was gonna cite some Abrahamic deity.
i like people like Jethro, they’re too stupid to understand that their arguments don’t hold water, but happy to think they’re fighting against “the man”.
probably voted republican. because… liberal = socialism.
amiright billyjobobjeterjethro?
hey, tell me billyjobobjeterjethro…
do the words:
Posse Comitatus
have any special meaning for you?
False.
That you think this is merely one more demonstration of just how narrow and bankrupt your imagination is.
Speaking of the teachings of so-called “Supreme lawgiver”s:
Who was it that said, when asked about the paying of taxes, “render unto Caesar”?
Billyjobobjeterjethro,
Does the yellow fringe on the ‘Mercan flag have any special meaning? Does your answer involve admiralty law or the Uniform Commercial Code? Do you believe that Philander Knox lied about the 16th Amendment? Is Ohio a state?
Says you.
Ok, you’re on the stand now, under oath. Nerd, explain your relationship to Mr. Hovind and how he has harmed you.
Apparently this is difficult for you, so let me try talking very s-l-o-w-l-y. Whether the purported “debt” is legit is not the matter — whether a debt is jailable is. Try again.
p.s. I see no one has proffered a legal theory as to why an unpaid debt — real or not — can be a jailable offense, given that debtor’s prison was abolished long ago. Come on geniuses, you can do it! (probably not)
No it isn’t. Your assumption of the supreme law-giver was present whether you acknowledged it or not. Try again.
I provided a legal definition indicative of the essential characteristics of money, and you provided…?
You’re saying these “elected and appointed representatives” — these flesh and blood men and women — actually got on the stand and TESTIFIED UNDER OATH that Hovind harmed them? Oh wait, they didn’t, did they?
Ah, we’ve finally hit on an honest answer! **For Tethys (and presumably most everyone else here), the supreme law-giver is HUMAN, all else is “mythical”.** Thank you for that admission! That explains the present vitriol against Hovind — you hate his God. And given that Tethys (and the rest here..?) believe humans to be the supreme law-giver — a view consistent with the communist theory of governance — it’s no surprise folks here worship the income tax (2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto).
One more…
You didn’t finish the quote… “And render unto God that which is God’s”? What is Caesar’s and what is God’s? (hint: EVERYTHING is God’s).
Try reading Matthew 17:25-26 for an understanding of the proper subjects of taxation.
Easy peasy evidenceless loudmouth. By not paying his fair share of taxes, it requires more tax revenue from those of us who pay. And where the fuck is your evidence that Hovind doesn’t have to pay taxes. Without that evidence, you have no case, making you nothing but a loudmouthed liar and bullshitter.
He isn’t in jail for debt, but for fraud, His land was forfeited to help pay his back taxes. Pay attention loudmouthed ignorant fuckwit to the real facts, not what you pretend the facts are. Still no evidence he is not required to pay taxes.
Fuckwit, that is your presupposition, but you are still an evidenceless ignorant loudmouth fuckwitted asshole since you provide no evidence for your imaginary deity.
You show you don’t understand the definition, ignorant fool.l
We were represented by the prosecutor ignorant fuckwitted idjit. The depths of your stupidity apparently has no bottom. You are terminally ignorant.
HOW CAN WE HATE SOMETHING THAT DOESN’T EXIST, FUCKWITTED IGNORANT ASSHOLE? Show us evidence for this imaginary deity. Show me the recent signed letter from that deity giving KH authority to speak for it.
I’m still waiting for any evidence that matters from you. Nothing but ignorant, stupid, and presuppositional blather from a confirmed liar and bullshitter.
Real Jethro:
Until you can provide evidence for your god, you’re not going to get anyone here to believe in it. Wander off little troll.
Oh, it’s about “us” being damaged, not “you”. Thank you for admitting you have not been damaged.
The witness’ credibility has been impeached. STEP DOWN.
Waitaminutenow… Who was it that was screaming bloody murder, “Jail for those who don’t pay their taxes!”?
And, I see no charges of “fraud”, but rather “twelve counts of willful failure to collect…” (<–see that word WILLFUL? What does that tell you?), 45 counts of structuring, and one count of obstruction. Sorry, pal — who's having trouble with the facts again?
There's nothing else worth responding to from Nerd, because he made no further actual responses.
Oh, there is plenty of evidence for my God. I tell you what, Tony! The Queer Shoop, tell me who your god is, then we’ll compare the respective evidence for each. Ok?
Real Jethro:
Why are you bothering to debate this here? Few of us are lawyers and none of us have any legislative or judicial power. Even if you do manage to convince a few people, it won’t make any difference; not for you, not for Kent, not for anybody.
If you really care about this subject and you think that your arguments are strong enough to hold up to expert scrutiny, then you should argue your case before a judge or maybe try to arrange a public debate with a legal expert. That’s the appropriate venue for this sort of thing. If you’ve got a serious argument, you’re wasting precious time on us, giving the tyrants more time to consolidate their grip of the American populace. Stop twiddling your thumbs here and fight for your freedom, brave patriot!
Alternatively, any continued debate here pretty much amounts to an admission that you’re just a troll who doesn’t really care about any of this, but just taking advantage of an opportunity to stir up shit.
Real Jethro
Don’t preach here.
It will get you banned.
Real Jethro
Most of us here are atheists. Do you know what that means? Asking us “who our god is?” is pointless*. Since you seem to be a believer can you tell us who your god is and why we should give a damn?
*Although I have a feeling you will try and pull some “gotcha” about how we worship the government or science or some bullshit.
It’ both liar and bullshitter. You are terminally stupid if you don’t grasp that concept.
And what part of tax fraud don’t you understand. That is the definition of defrauding the government. Willfully not paying your taxes.
Yes there is. EVIDENCE must be presented by you.
Evidence that Hovinds imaginary deity exists.
Evidence that Hovind doesn’t have to pay his taxes on personal income.
So far from your liar and bullshitter:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Crickets chirring.
Then why aren’t you presenting it?
Since gods don’t exist, Tony doesn’t have god. Neither do you. Your claim without evidence is prima facie evidence you are a liar and bullshitter.
Time to evidence up Jethro. You come across as an angry stupid and delusional fool.
LykeX,
Thank you for your comment. This is public forum, accessible to anyone on the internet (which is how I found it). So I’m not necessarily writing for you all, but for the lurkers. Let it be known that there is not universal condemnation for Hovind and Paul Hansen, but rather rational and moral support for these men. While it would be good if a number of folks on this board were persuaded, that’s not my concern. The Truth speaks for itself, whether acknowledged or not. And that does make a difference.
HappyNat, everyone has a god. Everyone. Even atheists. Who or what that god is, is a separate matter.
Real Jethro
You are mistaken about everyone having a god.
Unless your definition of ‘god’ is so loose as to be useless.
Oh for the love of… not that old “everyone secretly believes” bullshit.
I do not have a deity in any way, shape, or form. There are no ‘higher’ powers who command my allegiance or even my respect. The only gods that ‘exist’ are pure fiction and reside solely in the imagination.
Yes, you are writing to show them you are stupid, ignorant, delusional fool who believes in phantasms. And you are doing a fine job, better than we are, at doing so,.
This is stupid and ignorant presuppositional fuckwittery. Gods don’t exist, except in the minds of delusional fools like yourself. Otherwise, you would lead with the evidence, evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Ergo, your argument is false.
You can keep lying to yourself about that presupposition, but we don’t have to accept it as it is bullshit.
Nerd of Redhead @136,
We take particular pleasure in watching you dismantle the unsupported and unevidenced nonsense some people try to spout, and we have been excitedly anticipating the moment when you have had enough fun and send them away for good with your trademark Floosh! Your patience and perseverance in the face of theistic nonsense is inspiring.
Irrational and immoral support for those who want to take from the system and not give, and these *aren’t* the people on welfare who would love to be earning enough to not rely on the system. But the already rich people who take even more out of the system and don’t pay their fair share of the load.
And no. You might think we have a god, we don’t think so. We have no evidence to suggest so. I’ve got lots of fictional books in them with gods, but I know they are fantasy novels (and to be honest most of the gods in them are far more appealing than the judeo-christian one).
What is your definition of “god”? Nah, nevermind, I know it will be pointless. I had a neighbor years ago who when I told him I was atheist, his reply was “You THINK you are.” We had a good relationship so I tried to pin down what he meant several times. His response always boiled down to, “you know you really believe”, nope sorry, fuckwit, you can’t see inside my head.
What do you believe, chigau, and why do you believe it? There is where you will most likely identify your god.
It appears Nerd’s god is science.
FFS
Are we going to play games with the word ‘believe’, too?
I believe you are wasting our time.
Science isn’t a belief, science is a methodology idiot.
So you’re not going to state what you believe? It’s ok if you don’t state it publicly, but you do already know the answer.
… A methodology that has been deified by many.
Real Jethro @132
So you know that we’re not buying your bullshit so you’re hoping that some lurker will think “hm, there might just be a nugget of gold in all of BillyJoeJimBobJethro’s bullshit.” The point that this is a liberal, atheist blog means that few if any people reading it will be other than liberals and atheists. But you never know. There are stupid people in the world. You’re Exhibit A.
There are not only stupid people in the world but some of them are greedy as well. Kent Hovind and Paul Hansen are Exhibits B and C.
No, you’re just trolling.
The Truth™ (you forgot the ™) is that Kent Hovind is a convicted felon who could have stayed out of jail if he’s come to a reasonable settlement with the IRS. But since Hovind is both stupid and greedy, he didn’t want to take the easy way out by paying his taxes. Instead he played tax protestor and sovereign citizen games with the IRS and court. The court was not impressed. Hovind has appealed his conviction. The Appeals Court was not impressed.
If Hovind or Hansen or you want to live in this country, you have to pay for the goodies which come with residency (notice I’m not saying anything about being a citizen, just a resident). The only two ways to get out of paying for your residency are (a) be so poor that you’re legally poverty stricken or being so rich you can buy a congresscritter or two to rewrite the tax code in your favor.
If I am wasting your time, why are you responding? Intriguing.
I don’t think that word — resident — means what you think it means (legally).
For the lurkers, who if they are reading here, are far more likely to be unsympathetic to you than otherwise.
And I don’t know any scientists who deify science. Scientists know how much hard work it is. Ignorant people might, but then ignorant people believe in things like magical sky fairies that care what people do with their private lives so their opinions aren’t worth much on that front.
Most of whom would also be generally uninformed of the legal details of this stuff (as I suspect you are, yourself). Here’s the thing, when you are arguing a controversial point and then deliberately avoid experts on the subject, in favor of pitching your arguments directly to the uninformed public, that makes you seem like a con artist. Because that’s what con artists do.
If you instead took on a lawyer in a public debate, you’d be able reach the lurkers, show support for Hovind and demonstrate that your arguments had real merit. You might try contacting Ken from Popehat to see if he could guide you to someone who’d be willing to participate.
Of course, if you really don’t care about convincing people, if you’re fine with people thinking you’re a troll/a conman/just plain stupid, then keep doing what you’re doing.
Real Jethro @146
Not any of us.
What you goddists fail to realize is that not only don’t we believe in gods, we have not need to believe in gods. There’s no gods-shaped holes in our psyches crying to be filled. We live happy, satisfying, fulfilling lives without gods.
So, if I believe that ice cream is delicious, does that make ice cream my god or deliciousness?
Real Jethro @149
Nobody here is going to dispute the first three words.
When I’m talking about “resident” I mean someone who resides or lives in the country. You may have some wacked out, libertarian bullshit definition of “resident” but I’m using the common, normally understood definition.
Better yet, if I like neapolitan ice cream, am I a polytheist or just a trinitarian?
No, there are no gods. Believe what you will delusional fool, but nobody else in the world must believe in your delusion.
Belief is what is required without evidence. There is no evidence for deities, ergo, they don’t exist. The is what free thought means.
Yes, those who believe in imaginary deities think that. Nobody else. Just godists like yourself. Full of ignorant presupposition and lack of looking at reality through non-religious colored glasses. You black tinted glasses make it impossible for you to deal with reality.
It could be your god depending on how much of your belief system is placed on ice cream deliciousness.
No. There is usually evidence for belief. Just like you likely have some evidence for your beliefs. Atheists have plenty of beliefs.
I do.
So what’s the evidence for your belief in gods? Don’t have any, do you?
Real Jethro: I’ll tell you what I believe. I believe that many people, like yourself, are so afraid of being alone and vulnerable in a cold, uncaring universe (i.e. afraid of reality), that you desperately cling to a patently absurd notion about a stern but caring Supreme Daddy.
Sounds like it would be a pretty ineffectual god. And of course there would be the schisms, the mint choc chip against the pure vanilla, and the neopolitan maintaining their trinity against all.
So basically you’re just playing around with the word ‘belief’ which has some different nuances in different situations and trying to pretend that it means the same thing, or different things depending on which matches your set of prejudices.
I don’t have beliefs. I do have some axioms, things that I accept as true for the moment because they haven’t had any evidence to counter them. If evidence does come along to counter one or more of them then I’d look at that evidence, and if good, well then the axiom would be changed. Would you change what you believe if there was evidence to the contrary? Somehow I doubt it because ignoring evidence is obviously your modus operandi.
Real Jethro @159
You probably don’t. You’ve just convinced yourself that since you deify bullshit that other people do as well. Here’s a hint, not everyone is as stupid as you.
I believe my throat hurts.
Can’t be very good scientists then. How exactly do they deify it? Do they have a science temple they go to? Do they mutter science prayers? Does their science god get them better funding?
Appeal to authority error. Lawyers today are treated like “medicine men” of old, who work some sort of incomprehensible magic. (<– see another 'belief' there?) Law is not hard to understand — at least not when Christ is recognized at the top of everything.
I believe I will go out for pizza for lunch.
I already have an offer to Tony! The Queer Shoop, to tell me who his god is, then we’ll compare the respective evidence for each. That offer extends to you, too. So tell me what you believe, and why you believe it, then we’ll talk evidence.
Please go on Real Jethro. I believe that you are fascinating.
But I could be mistaken. It could have been the misused magic.
It is the highest authority, object of reverence and adoration for all things in their life — the worship of a process.
I believe I’ll have a beer with that.
Sure you do. For starters: What is right? What is wrong? And why?
In your deluded opinion, of course. Not in theirs. But then, you show a huge break with reality, in that you can’t conceive your religious beliefs are an empty shell, no diety, an book of mythology/fiction, and tithing.
Nope, if there is evidence, it is a conclusion. No evidence, it must be belief. Reality is not your friend.
Belief systems are what religious have. You cannot conceive of the lack of evidence makes no gods a rational and reasonable conclusion.
By the way, you are 20 posts late with evidence for you imaginary deity loser. No evidence, no deity, you are a delusional fool believing in a phantasm…..
Nope, medicine men where healers, taken over by the rational medical practices. But we still have medicine men. They are call naturopaths.
It’s not an error to note that people who know about a subject, know about it. I’m not claiming that lawyers are always right; that whatever a lawyer says is necessarily true; or that a nonlawyer can’t be right about law. I’m simply pointing out that it’s a good idea to know something about a subject if you’re going to discuss it. I’m noting that people who are ignorant on a subject can often make mistakes that an expert will catch.
There’s nothing fallacious in what I said. If you think there is, I submit that it’s because you don’t understand how the appeal to authority fallacy works or why it’s a fallacy. Just because a person mentions an authority doesn’t automatically mean they’ve committed a fallacy.
You should really read this. The less people know, the less likely they are to have a correct view of how much they know. This is one reason why consulting an expert is a really good idea.
Messed up the link. I meant for you to read this.
I’m not asking what you (mistakenly) believe about ME, but about YOURSELF.
The “Dunning-Kruger effect” has no relation to law being fundamentally simple.
The scientific method is a tool and a methodology. A way of finding out things. It is a very good and useful tool, which when properly used allows us to see the world as it is without letting our own prejudices and superstitions get in the way. It isn’t always properly used, but then it’s an imperfect world. All that science really is, when you get down to it, is trying to find out how the world really works, without relying on authority, because if someone reports something they have done using science, then other scientists can check it, and if it’s real well then they’ll get the same results. Since finding something incomplete or incorrect about a scientific theory (which is *not* the same thing as a guess, that’s a hypothesis) is something that can get one kudos then deferring to authority is something that scientists as a general rule don’t do.
I am a scientist. But it’s hardly the only thing in my life. I don’t read my fiction books using the scientific method. I don’t choose what to cook by the scientific method. I don’t socialise with my friends by the scientific method. Perhaps my craftwork would be a bit better if I used it a bit more there, but it’s not necessary.
But it is completely obvious that you are totally ignorant about science, about law, about economics, and… actually I can’t think of anything that you have shown yourself not ignorant on. What exactly is your area of expertise? Apart from trolling, which I have to say you’re barely scraping a pass at right now.
Wow, seriously? You think evidence comes with its own conclusions? Yikes.
What deities? Yours doesn’t exist. Period, end of story. So, you claim evidence. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
No, what the evidence means is the basis for a conclusion. Like the millions of scientific papers that back up the theory of evolution, both directly and indirectly. The ToE is a logical and scientific conclusion.
Whereas there is no evidence for your imaginary deity. It doesn’t exist without real solid and conclusive physical evidence.
I believe that Bodine is trolling.
I have opinions on right and wrong. I think that people using the infrastructure and resources of the country in which they live, while being able to contribute to the support of that infrastructure, and choosing not to do so is wrong.
I think that people treating people as lesser based on their age, sexuality, gender, skin colour, ethnicity or any disability is wrong.
I think that defending someone who has defrauded other people of money is wrong.
I think that these (and other things far too long to go into) are wrong because if people do these things it contributes to a less kind and stable society thus leading to reduced standard of living and happiness for the people in that society, and possibly other societies that they have an influence on.
As a general lurker, Jethro, I have to say that your arguments have been singularly incoherent, confused, and unconvincing. Please put forward a positive point at some point, because so far all you’ve provided is vague semantic mush.
Ariaflame, I generally agree with your assessment of what science is: It is a tool and process of understanding our physical world for the purpose of furthering understanding of it, or making predictions such that we can do something useful with it. But after that first paragraph, you didn’t do so well. Not using science for socialization or literature purposes has no relation to its deification. It can be worshiped in substance in a manner not unlike people who bowed down to graven images. The rest of your assessment of me is cute and quaint.
Real Jethro @185
Surely you have an example of this happening right? Or are you just trying to position yourself so you can differentiate good godly science from heathen evil science like so many other apologists
re @179:
read more than the single phrase you blockquoted. He is saying there is NO EVIDENCE to justify their belief in God. The only “evidence” in such a situation is only the “conclusion” these people have reached to believe in God. He is NOT saying that evidence comes with conclusions; you are correct to say “yikes” to that misconception.
So what? What’s wrong with being “less kind”? Less stable? Reduced standard of living? Less “happiness”?
I don’t see ‘inaccurate’ in your assessment of my assessment. You appear to do some worshiping of graven images, (or at least a text that’s been through several translations written by people with very limited understanding of the world) yourself. As I already said there are people who do think that way, but they tend not to be scientists. Some people can’t deal with the complexity of the real world and go looking for things that appear to give them simple answers since they can’t or are too lazy to deal with complex ones.
You said Jethro
Thus referring to the things in my life that it has nothing to do with is absolutely addressing your assertion.
As a rule I prefer to live in societies which are more stable, where the people around me are fairly happy and content. Where they aren’t living in constant fear. This is because if it’s better for most people it’s more likely to be better for me too, and because I have this thing called ’empathy’ which means I actually care about the welfare of other people. Have you considered trying to develop some of your own? It greatly facilitates social interactions and makes it far more likely that you will either help your friends when they need it, and thus have friends to help you when you need it.
So you’ve expressed a personal preference for yourself. So what? That extends to no one else.
Do you have a basis for anything right or wrong beyond yourself?
Real Jethro @168
As I’ve said previously, I don’t have any gods. I don’t see any evidence that gods (note the plural, there’s more than your pet deities) and so I’ve reached the conclusions that gods don’t exist. Now tell me the “evidence” you have that Zeus or Wotan or Vishnu or whichever superstition you worship actually does exist.
Pure trollery on your part, and you know it.
I believe I should turn clockwise for the last move of シソーチン.
Since your deity is imaginary, you don’t have anything for a basis, other the what a bunch of scribes wrote down 2500 years ago in an attempt to maintain tribal identity. Poor unthinker, you have no idea of reality.
Nope. I certainly don’t see the sadistic, narcissistic, megalomanic bully of the Old Testament as being a basis for anything having to do with morals or ethics. God Will Fuck You Up!
Because ethics is so much easier when it is handed to you by an authority.
Jethro, you are a dull little wanker..
Jethro is one of those Xians who would rape and murder and eat babies if he weren’t afraid of Hell.
Not a moral system at all. Just self-interest.
I notice the complete ignoring about whether Real Jethro has empathy, which was the main focus of my response. It does indeed seem to be their tactic, find a small snippet of your answer, and complain about it out of context.
Since they are incapable of responding honestly, because there are plenty of others awake and able to respond to their unevidenced assertions, and because I need to get some sleep so I can do some work and earn money to pay my taxes, which I have no objection to doing, I’m going to leave this to others for the next while.
Jethro if the god as put forth in your bible was real I’d go and start building Iron Chariots.
me #198
I believe
So what? Sorry, but you haven’t explained why “having empathy” is good (or bad), beyond your personal preference.
And for that matter, still no one here — with the partial exception/attempt of Ariafame — has positively set forth what they believe, and WHY they believe it. (And without that, there is no basis for condemning Hovind and Hansen).
I thought that was clear. I’m alone and vulnerable in a cold, uncaring universe. And loving it!
And for that matter, at no point here with no exceptions, has The Real Jethro put forward a positive explanation for what they believe and WHY they believe it. (And without that, there is no basis for a discussion at all)
Which means you are a liberturd or sovereign citizen. And uncaring fool without evidence for your idiotology. Typical of the hate you show.
And the dullness continues. If Jethro’s version of a deity is above empathy, that is good enough for Jethro.
Also, the question of empathy does not matter at all in the question of if Hovind is a liar who has deceived his followers for financial gains.
YOU have beliefs. We don’t. We have logical evidence based conclusions, like your deity is imaginary.
What’s wrong with being a liar? What’s wrong with deceit? What’s wrong with both for financial gain?
You folks still haven’t — and obviously cannot — articulate a reason beyond personal preference why any of these things are wrong and thus providing a basis for condemning ANYONE for the same.
I believe I’m ready to send an alert.
I believe that PZ is still feeling ill so he’s probably in a surly mood.
Unless one believe that a big sky daddy is going to punish you with eternal punishmennt, just what is the point of social animals try to treat each other decently.
Jethro, you’re game is boring and pointless.
So by this point Jethro cannot be doing anything but trolling.
Do you have no concept of the word better? A society is better with less bad things. How much more basic do we need to go with you?
Your own deity commanded to give all of your possessions to the poor. Mark 10:25 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” But you’re not the kind of Christian who follows that part of the bible, are you? You use your religion so long as it holds up the status quo and allows you to feel superior to others, to keep your status and wealth. By the same standard you label science as a “god” to people here, I’d label your “god” to be greed and selfishness.
Easy peasy fuckwitted idjit. It’s funny how Xians liars and bullshitters don’t believe in what jesus said. Like praying from the closet of your soul (no ostentatious public prayer), and the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In other words, your lying and cheating are fine as long as you are willing to be conned out of your money by liars and bullshitters. Or, would you rather have folks be honest in their dealings with you, and tell you the truth?
Your choice cricket.
Yeah. We’ve heard all the squeeks this toy has to offer. It’s just getting boring now.
I believe that Jethro has reached the point of being extremely boring and tedious. They may, in fact, be about to ascend to a higher plane of existence and because the Archetype of Boring and Tediousness. Every school child on the last day of school before summer break shall be as a supplicant unto Jethro.
*and become. Stupid 3 hours sleep.
“Bad” and “good” are arbitrary judgments. Who are you to say what’s “good” or “bad”, other than for yourself?
This discussion is not about my faith, it’s about YOURS. This thread is about YOUR condemnation of Hovind. However, nobody can provide a basis for that condemnation based on their own atheistic faith.
Not only can no one articulate their atheistic basis of “right” and “wrong”, but now it’s compounded with the cry of the coward: “Mommy, make him stop!” Ironically, you all have no basis for complaining that my posts as “good” or “bad”.
How typical of Jethro’s despicable morality that he makes no consideration of the financial loss to other people.
You do not get to unilaterally declare what this thread is about, you immoral, dishonest piece of shit.
YOU made it about YOUR FAITH as well as ours the MOMENT you appeared and tried to condemn our condemnation of Hovind.
By what standard do you presume, you arrogant slime, to condemn us, if not by your OWN morality and faith?
And in doing so you automatically create a COMPARISON between our morality and yours (or lack thereof), making your morality central to all aspects of this discussion in which you are a part.
And now we get the dull troll’s dull endgame. Because he is unable to understand why a social animal would need to have ethics and refuses to attempts to state this, he can claim to have stumped atheists when people have expressed a weariness of dealing with the same old script.
You have won, Jethro. Go forth and express you superiority to the world.
*yawn*
What’s wrong with suffering eternally in hell? Do you have anything other than your personal preference for not suffering to base not wanting ( see, personal preference) to spend eternity suffering? Considering that suffering, pain, misery, etc, are all real to individuals in the reality that we experience, but are just imaginary in the fictional afterlife that you believe in for no reason whatsoever, I’d say that personal preference and consensus among societal groups are a fine way of working on what is good and bad, but your personal preference about happens in fairyland is absolutely meaningless.
It is also quite telling of Jethro’s bankrupt inhumanity that his arguments center around the dismissal of “personal preference” as if it were unimportant.
As if the personal preferences of individuals, collectively added together, is not, in fact, the MOST important, if not the ONLY, factor of importance here.
I see jethro is still trolling away, demostrating he really doesn’t believe in the ten commandments and the lake of eternal fire.
Oddly enough, US law, atheists, and non-hypocritical religious people agree that being a deceitful asshole for the purpose of profiting is criminal behavior. KH decided to become a martyr to his cause, (Ur not the Boss of me IRS!) he was given multiple opportunities to avoid jail, but because he has the emotional maturity of a cranky three year old he insisted that he would NOT follow the rules. The law obliged and put him in timeout, plus fined him property in lieu of money as partial debt payment. I find it hilarious that he is such an asshole that the Feds are completely out of fucks to give and are now just going to seize their forfeited property, and he will earn as much jail time as possible under the law for his trouble.
Uh, no. You don’t get to decide the parameters of the discussion. There are multiple people here, and we ALL get to decide what to talk about. That’s what a discussion is.
I can figure out what is bad and good because I am a person with lived experiences. I know what alleviates my own suffering. I can perceive others around me, so I know that some good and bad things are objective. Food, water, and shelter are objectively good things that people need to not suffer. Violence and poverty are objectively bad things that cause suffering. For subjective things, you talk to people and learn as much as you can about their experiences. It’s really not that hard. Why do you think it’s so hard to figure out what is good and bad without believing in a god? I imagine you have figured it out to some degree, even though you clearly suck at reading your own bible, since you defend people who greedily horde their wealth.
Excellent! Thank you for admitting atheism is a FAITH. We’re making progress.
Hold on there, buckaroo. Now that we’ve established agreement that atheism is a FAITH, we must first determine what atheism’s “articles of faith” are before answering your question. So as I have previously invited folks to articulate, what’s your basis for right and wrong? Once you’ve answered that question, then we can move on to the basis on condemnation.
Hey, thank you — an attempt at answering the question! Except rather problematic. If “consensus” determines right/wrong, good/bad, then what is right today may be wrong tomorrow, and vice versa. In short, that means there is no right and wrong. Is that really the foundation of your faith?
Things that do demonstrated harm tend to be bad. It is not that difficult.
Here is the conclusion from the USA vs Hovind case that resulted in the current jail sentence. There are 57 counts in the suit, and it is quite remarkable that a white couple in Florida were convicted on all counts.
The individual charges and links to other legal woes of KH can be read right here.
Actually, there’s pretty broad agreement about what’s “bad” and “good”. There are certainly border cases, but nine times out of ten, everybody agrees. For example, there aren’t many people who will prefer a kick in the face to a hot meal.
Moreover, since we don’t think there’s any ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, we don’t run into any problems with such subjectivity. I’m perfectly happy to admit that there are some people who have very different views on right and wrong, compared to me. I don’t see that that’s much of a problem. Assuming that they’re reasonable people, we can work out a compromise.
For example, if you think that taxes are wrong (to go back to the original subject), I won’t demand that you pay taxes. I’m perfectly happy to allow that. All I ask is that you then refrain from using any of the infrastructure, institutions and services that the government pays for. If you don’t want to help pay for the government, you don’t get to use what the government provides.
On the other hand, if you use the services, I expect you to help pay for them, via taxes. This is basically the same system as a golf club expecting you to be a member and pay the dues before you can use the courses. If you don’t like the rules of the club, you can either work to change the rules or you can go somewhere else.
Sadly, there isn’t enough land on the planet to give everyone their own private kingdom, so you can’t just head for the hills and make your own rules. It turns out that, as a practical matter, you life will necessarily intersect with other people and you will have to consider their wishes. I know that can be frustrating at times (believe me, I know), but I don’t see any real way around it. Certainly, expecting your wishes to trump everyone else’s isn’t particularly realistic.
I’m not saying that your posts are bad. I’m saying that they’re boring. You’re not bringing anything to this conversation. That’s a perfectly good reason to kick you out.
You might want to try actually answering people’s questions instead of these transparent dodges. If you refuse to engage, don’t be surprised if people don’t want to talk to you anymore. Nobody owes you an audience.
Who the fuck are you to make that question, without providing an answer with EVIDENCE.?
Since I don’t have faith, and you and Hovind DO, it is about your faith. Nothing to discuss from my end.
Atheism isn’t a faith. Only delusional godbots make that claim. And we have provided a reason we don’t like liars and bullshitter who cheat on their taxes. You don’t find it compelling, because nothing we say will be found compelling by you.
But most of us have read the bible cover to cover (reading the bible is a leading cause of atheism), and the bible is very strict on helping each other, not cheating (old testament punishiment for cheating was thrice the amount you cheated people of), and rendering unto caesar what is caesar’s.
It isn’t hard to refute your presuppositional morality.
Nope, we aren’t. Somebody misspoke. Atheism is a conclusion based on the lack of EVIDENCE for your imaginary deity. Which you haven’t provided. You have nothing without evidence.
Nope not established at all, liar and bullshitter. No wonder you defend Hovind. You think as stupidly as he does.
That has already been said. But then, since it wasn’t the words you wanted to hear, you ignored it, being to stupid to go off script. And atheism still isn’t a faith. You lose loser.
Your experiences are yours alone.
And what’s wrong with “suffering”? Maybe suffering is “good”, couldn’t it be? After all, doesn’t “consensus” determine right/wrong?
Without God, there is no good or bad, things just are what they are to you — and that’s not good or bad, it just is.
“Misspoke”? Very funny! Freudian slip perhaps, but not “misspoke”.
I love the way you’re playing stupid fucking rhetorical wordgames, it makes it easy to realize you can be dismissed out of hand. I love the way you bent and twisted and spun, spun, spun to try and get “Atheism is a Faith” so you can move onto the next part of your apologetic preaching. Must be a little frustrating that no one is playing ball huh? I mean it took how many comments and how long to get the opportunity to dishonestly put words in someone else’s mouth? It must really have been a relief considering the way you dropped everything to jump on some minor phrasing as a pretense to move into the next phase of your playbook.
Protip: If you had to grab a tiny scrap and pull it out of context and meaning in order to continue your “conversation with atheists” model mayhaps your understanding of Atheism and Atheists is inaccurate.
Yes, and I am also able to perceive the world and other people and creatures and determine that there are some objective experiences. Like, we all need food or else we experience hunger and eventually die. You interact with your world to learn about it. Pay attention to other people.
How do you justify Hovind disobeying the bible with his greed? If the bible is your god’s word, and what it says is absolutely right, then Hovind has broken your god’s law by hording his wealth.
Hovind’s defense called no witnesses in defense and it is reported they presented no case. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/pnj/doc/436025927.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov%202,%202006&author=Nicole%20Lozare&pub=Pensacola%20News%20Journal&edition=&startpage=A.1&desc=Hovind%20defense%20lawyers%20call%20no%20witnesses%20in%20case
Way to go, “smart” lawyers.
So there’s nothing wrong with suffering? Then why not go to hell? By your religion hell is eternal suffering right? If suffering isn’t wrong then why do you preach and spread your religion to non-believers? Most religious people do to try and instill a fear of hell, is this wrong? Indeed if the threat of damnation isn’t a problem why are you spending the time and effort to try and convert us?
I posted my comment @233 before I saw this pop up. It’s amazing how prescient it was in hindsight.
No, I understand atheism quite well. It’s a religion. Getting you all to admit that it is therefore a COMPETING religion (usually with Christianity) is worse than pulling teeth. Glad someone here was at least honest enough to admit it.
You understand atheism? But that’s like ONLY YOUR EXPERIENCES Jethro! Therefore you’re wrong or something.
Also as has been stated before you’re desperately hanging onto that scrap out of context and meaning because it’s all you’ve got. It’s like pulling teeth for you because you don’t or won’t understand atheism and are continuing to try and play comparative religions with people who are non-religious.
No, there isn’t. Examples: abortion on demand, “The Final Solution”, euthanasia, etc.
Explain why any of those are good or bad using your god Jethro. And keep in mind you’re on a blog that’s pretty much in favor of Abortion on Demand so you messed up when you blew that dog whistle.
Real Jethro,
We don’t have faith. Someone mispoke and it is certainly not determined that atheism is a faith. Anyway, you have yet to give your “evidence” that your god exists. For that matter, you need to define “god.” Do you believe in a deist deity who sort of set things up and then faded into the background, never to be seen again? Or do you believe in a white-bearded geezer who helps you find your car keys, decides which high school team wins football games, and has an unhealthy obsession with peoples’ sex lives? Or something else?
Sorry, but no. Atheists are just as fervently religious as (some) Christians. You can see it all over this thread.
Define “Fervently Religious”. Once again you seem to have different definitions for words than I do.
It’s telling that Jethro would rather talk about his semantical word games than answer questions about his faith and how it justifies Hovind’s crimes.
No, there is plenty wrong with suffering from the Christian worldview. Problem is, atheism cannot provide a basis for anything being right or wrong.
What’s wrong with YOU? If you want to suffer, be my guest. Most of humanity won’t join you.
Since Hovind presented his own defense, and wouldn’t listen at all to his court appointed attorney, what is your problem? Hovind was stupid, like you.
Nope, not a religion. No deity, no holy book, no church, no rites, no tithes, nothing. You are stupid to keep repeating such stupidity, and think it will be accept for anything other than showing you are a confirmed and proven liar and bullshitter. What a waste of your posts.
Only in your delusional thinking, that is far outside of reality. I pity your lack of cogent thought. Mindless parroting of evidenceless idiocy seems to be your lot in life.
Correction, you refuse to accept that an atheistic worldview can have any basis for something being right or wrong. Seeing as how you have deliberately ignored, refused, and misinterpreted responses you have been given this is the only sensible explanation for your actions.
KH did hire an incompetant lawyer, but that isn’t why he is in jail.
Who needs witnesses when the criminals provide you with duly signed and notarized paper trails of their fraudulent behavior.
Ultimately hell is 1) destruction and 2) eternal separation from God. (2nd Thessalonians 1:9). If you don’t want Him now, what makes you think you’ll want Him for eternity? He’ll give you exactly what you want.
It’s wonderful that you’ve dropped the pretense and gone full on into a sermon. It’s much less obnoxious than playing word games.
Come on, seriously? No atheist has provided a basis of right and wrong other than… (get ready for it) –> his belief. Guess what? That’s all that lies at the heart of right and wrong: belief. Only question is whose belief will predominate. Atheism won’t admit that.
Who was it that brought up hell again? Right, not me.
And who is playing word games? Same answer.
With God, there is no good or bad, things just are what they are to God — and that’s not good or bad, it just is.
I don’t know why you “absolute morality” guys never get that. Putting god into that equation doesn’t really change anything. Changing which person gets to decide things doesn’t make it any more objective. you’re still going by somebody’s preference.
You’re no better off than we are. The only difference is that, since you’re wedded to the objective morality thing, you get all confused and scared if anyone has a different opinion. Me saying something is right and you saying that your god thinks it’s right – it’s all the same. There’s no real difference at all.
Those would be the border cases I mentioned. I already agreed that there’s no absolute, universal agreement, so you’re not really making any argument here. Sure, you can find exceptions, I already said as much, but my point still stands: People generally agree.
For example, while I suppose it’s possible for somebody to consider suffering good, most people don’t. Most people dislike pain and enjoy pleasure. It’s so common a position that it’s practically axiomatic. The various exceptions aren’t a problem for me. I don’t have an absolutist mindset, remember? My world view can handle diverse opinions on this subject.
Some people like blue cheese, other people hate it, but everybody agrees that eating something they like is good and eating something they hate is bad. They just disagree on what goes in each box. For someone like me who doesn’t accept the absolutist, one-opinion-rules-all mindset, this is no problem at all.
1) Murder is wrong (because man is made in the image of God – Gen. 9:6).
2) Murder is wrong (because man is made in the image of God).
3) Self- (or assisted-) murder is wrong, because you didn’t give yourself life, God did, therefore it is not yours to take.
Now, what is the atheist’s rationale for why murder is right or wrong?
False. Several people have given an explanation of secular concepts of good and bad, you’ve misquoted and ignored them. I’m not surprised, you started as you meant to go on: Arguing in bad faith, ironically (or perhaps not).
False. You have been playing wordgames this entire time, your very first post started a long stupid dance about how Kent Hovind’s tax evasion “Victimless”, you’ve played the “You believe in Science therefore it’s a religion” game, and Unless you’re going to back down and admit you were deliberately misrepresenting Amphiox you’re still in the middle of that particular word game.
Actually, the problem is that you’re sneaking a hidden premise in there. You’re right that if you reject absolute, objective morality, then you cannot have a basis for saying that something is absolutely, objectively wrong. However, that’s only a problem if you assume that you have to have absolute, objective morality. In other words, you’re really begging the question. You’re not engaging with our position in an honest way. Your argument amounts to saying that since we disagree with you, we’re wrong.
To explain, let me use the example of up and down. Obviously, if you think there’s an objective up and down, the round earth seems preposterous. People on the bottom would fall off. But just as obviously, that’s not a real argument, because it actually uses the competing conclusion as a premise. If you dump the notion of absolute up and down, you’ll see that there’s no contradiction at all.
Furthermore, using the same example, you’ll see that rejecting objective standards doesn’t mean that you can never tell what’s up or down. People won’t suddenly start floating into space or spinning uncontrollably. There’s still up and down, it’s just relative and it takes a little more work to figure out what’s what in each situation.
This has nothing to do with Hovind, and his failure to pay income taxes. That have everything to do with his basic dishonesty and narcissism. You haven’t shown any EVIDENCE that Hovind was not required to pay taxes. In fact, you haven’t shown anything other than your ability to lie and bullshit like Hovind.
Pitiful display of proselytizing. A banable offense. Who the fuck cares what your imaginary deity does to him? Not I.
Yes, you are playing word games. SHOW US HOVIND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY TAXES, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
I have short term memory Jethro, I remember that every time someone has bothered to try and explain a thing to you, you have ignored them or deliberately misrepresented them. At this point why should I bother? It’s clear you aren’t really interested in learning about what or how atheists think, why even bother asking when everyone knows you aren’t interested in the answer?
Then what was the basis for the Nürnberg trials? It was already admitted here that for atheists, right/wrong is determined by “consensus among societal groups”. The “solution” for the “Jewish problem” was obviously reached by “consensus” among a “societal group”, so what’s the atheist theory for Nürnberg? Or is it the atheist position they should not have occurred?
Yawn, just more evidence in favor of Godwin’s Law.
Well, I’m a fallible human being. Within any given time span, there’s a non-zero chance that I’ll change my mind on any given subject. Therefore, over the course of a literal eternity, there’s a 100% chance that I’ll change my mind on all subject.
So, I conclude that eventually, hell will be filled with devout believers and heaven will be overflowing with adulterous murderers. Indeed, that division will keep flipping back and forth forever. Since any finite timespan is insignificant in comparison with eternity, every human soul will spend eternity in both heaven and hell, at various intervals.
I think I’ve just founded a new church :D
troll #166
troll somewhere in the 200’s
Own goal! Game over. Troll admits that appealing to mythical higher authorities is a faulty basis for morality.
And all of them ultimately rely on nothing more than… faith.
Correct. No one has still produced an actual, real victim that can talk, therefore Hovind’s “crimes” remain victimless.
Not a game at all. Science is very much a religion for many.
I haven’t seen a retraction by Amphiox. Do you speak for him?
So when I provided a list of all of your Word Games, all those word games you pretend to not be playing, you respond by doubling down and dealing another hand to all of your word games. Whee!
There is no “what’s what in each situation” in atheism, things just are. Whether you personally like the situation is only up to you with no judgment attached except for yourself.
What does the bible actually say about killing fetuses? And even children?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html
All verses in that link are cited. It is clear that the bible does not consider the killing of fetuses to be the same as murdering an adult human. Of course, I find most of those verses morally abhorrent, but since they are from your book, you should agree with them in full.
Yikes – it appears you don’t understand the appeal to authority error.
By “consensus among societal groups”. Specifically, the judges at the trial.
Once again, you’re assuming the existence of an absolute standard in order to make your argument. Toss that bit out and there’s really no problem at all.
In the eternity spoken of in scripture, one would no longer be a fallible human being.
Only in your delusional mind. Without a god, all moral decisions are made by men. The best they can do to keep society running. Since your deity is imaginary, it can’t come from it.
Only in your delusional and presuppositional, and very stupid and unrealistic opinion. Reality says otherwise.
Still waiting for two pieces of solid evidence Jethro. You know, something outside of yourself and your twisted unintelligent mind.
1) Evidence from law and SCOTUS that Hovind doesn’t have to his income taxes on personal income.
2) Your imaginary deity really exists, and you have conclusive physical evidence to back up your lies and bullshit.
So, why aren’t you presented very pertinent evidence? Right, you don’t have any. If you had honesty and integrity, you would either put up the evidence, or shut the fuck about your claims.
But you are too arrogant to admit you are wrong.
So the bible is not the basis for your beliefs on right and wrong? I would agree that basing your beliefs on the bible would be an appeal to authority. But we’re talking about your beliefs and where you get them.
yeah, I myself am pretty bored with burning strawman armies.
I thought maybe Jethro might be more interesting, but no, he’s just your garden variety fuckwit.
boring.
And the intersection of the opinions of interacting people is what morality is all about. This has been Ethics 101. Please pick up your exercise book on the way out.
So god can make people infallible? Why didn’t he just do that the first time around? Seems to me that would have saved a lot of trouble.
The fact that Jethro ignores my pointing out how he is conducting his little troll game leads me to think that this is an old long time troll. Can’t guess who, there are two many of these fools but I think it is one that I had very harsh words with.
Have fun stomping on this worthless fool.
Real Jethro’s god is an immoral, sadistic bully. According to Christian propaganda he kills people just because he can. Take the story of Exodus for example. Yahweh kills children because Pharaoh won’t listen to a political lobbyist. Why doesn’t Pharaoh listen? “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.” Ex 9:12 (NIV) Yahweh set Pharaoh up to fail. But Real Jethro pretends that his god is a source of morality.
Real Jethro is a cafeteria Christian, taking those parts of his superstition which appeal to him and ignoring those parts that don’t.
it does have that stale, moldy aroma.
@Janine
I don’t mind the trolling so much, since he has started actually talking about his beliefs. He’s gotten much more entertaining this way.
Jethro wrote:
Reading for comprehension: Jethro is not doin it.
Jethro omitted the following embolded section in that first blockquote, up above:
Jethro, YOU are playing games. YOU are saying that “Believing in Science is effectively Religion”. Comprehend: NO ONE is saying they “believe in Science”. We all say, “Science is facts, a collection of facts, etc. _Belief_ has nothing to do with it.”
Jethro’s God says murder is wrong!…. but offering up your daughters for gang rape is a-okay, as is slaughtering a girl’s family, forcing her to ‘marry’ you, and then raping her.
Lovely God you’ve got there Jethro.
Let me help you out here. The primary basis for Nürnberg was international law. International law is for — listen closely — Christian states. From The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary (verified in Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as well): http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=15s7ev5&s=5#.VF_WEd6MH0c
“INTERNATIONAL LAW. The system of rules which Christian states acknowledge to be obligatory upon them in their relations to each other…”
The notion that the trial judges could judge because there’s now a “new consensus” is the pinnacle of absurdity. So what’s right/wrong can change by the moment’s “consensus”? Ok then, what if another new consensus formed and deemed the Nürnberg judges criminals? And how about another consensus judging the judges’ judges? Or the judges’ judges’ judges..? What you’ve postulated is a complete absurdity.
He did, but they rebelled. They continue to rebel to this day.
I suspect that our troll is related to the jailed felon. His grasp of christian theology is quite consistent with the gospel according to Kent Hovind.
Jethro:
I do not have a god.
I do not have faith in or belief about things without evidence.
I do not worship anything or anyone.
Btw, what is your evidence that your god (out of the thousands of other gods created by humanity) exists? You said you have evidence, so by all means, present it.
Nope, they got smart and realized that biblical laws were contradictory. Just like your logic.
Still no seeing any evidence that Hovind wasn’t required to income taxes on personal income. You can’t present any, because that is not what the law and SCOTUS says. You know you have no case that Hovind’s conviction was bogus. They had him by the short hairs, and any sane person would have plead guilty and paid their taxes. Why are you defending what appears to be an iron-clad conviction?
Somebody should have told the Soviet Union that they were a Christian state. They didn’t think they were, even though they participated in the Nuremberg trials.
@Jethro @267
Jesus, you’ve been busy today. Is the christian god your authority? Is the bible? As has been pointed out, those are pretty shitty authorities to rely on, but you seem to by quoted bible versus. In fact it seems you think those bible versus are the only reason you know killing is wrong. If you are so helpless for morals that you depend on a deeply flawed ancient book to know that murder is wrong, then I don’t know what to tell you, other than I’m glad you aren’t my neighbor.
Jethro the Dull doesn’t do teh thinky too well, eh what? Hint: it’s people, all the way down. No gods, no demons, there’s just us.
How is this remotely relevant? The subject at hand is the atheist basis for morality. I’ve given my opinion and nothing you say here contradicts that.
I didn’t say “new”. I just said there was a consensus. Clearly there was, or they wouldn’t have ruled the way they did.
Then I guess whatever group that formed that consensus would attempt to punish the judges (posthumously)
And that group would attempt to punish those people.
Only if you assume that there has to be one, absolute, objective moral standard.
That’s my point. I don’t accept such an objective standard. My world view accepts the existence of disagreements,so I have no problem with them. It’s your problem, not mine. I’m perfectly fine with people having different opinions.
This is what I’m talking about. You clearly have a problem even understanding the opinion I lay out. You keep assuming your conclusion as a premise for the discussion. You’re debating as if “morality is absolute” is a premise. You don’t seem to understand that I don’t accept that premise. Once you get this point, we can move forward. Until then, I think we’re stuck.
Round and round we go, uh? Okay, I’ll have to cut this short, my food is almost ready: Since there’s a non-zero chance that infallible people will rebel, over the course of eternity, there’s a 100% chance that everybody will rebel and heaven will be empty.
Back to where we started.
Well doi — whether you want to label it “new consensus” or not, it is a “new” consensus judging the “old” (formerly legal) consensus. So which one is right? The “new” consensus, or the “old” consensus?
<– And there is your FAITH.
couldn’t be Eric. surely Eric is too busy managing the business.
;)
worldview /= faith
cretin.
..besides, this guy is way dumber than Eric.
Eric is a conman, this clown is a true dumbass.
Huh? Where? Does your worldview preclude the possibility of the existence of disagreements? Are you really saying it’s an article of faith in the non-existent atheist church that disagreements happen? I never expected you to be coherent with all your little games, but I’m legitimately puzzled by you now.
8 billion people can’t be wrong.
it’s good to be a rebel.
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/11700000/Rebel-Without-a-Cause-Poster-rebel-without-a-cause-11767582-375-500.jpg
So logically, your god is incompetent and a psychopath. If the first people were infallible, then their rejection of god was a demonstration of infallible reasoning. If the first people were fallible, then god made them wrong and lied about it to justify genocide.
Whichever one you don’t like. You are Heinlein’s fool one uses to vote. Listen to your opinion, and the opposite is the proper way to go
Still no evidence presented that Hovind didn’t have to pay income taxes on his personal income. In fact, you avoid the subject. Your silence is screaming what the real answer is. That he WAS required to pay income taxes on personal income.
question:
If they remade “Rebel” this year, would Stark (who would play Stark?) still have a cig in his hand?
“You can wake up now, the universe has ended. ”
-Jim Stark
Ichthyic
Nah, his brain works fine, it’s just been damaged by being homeschooled rather than a getting a real education.
There is no “new” and “old” consensus. The two consensi (?) coexist beside each other. It’s not as if the nazis magically stopping thinknig they were right once they were convicted.
Neither one is right, in an objective, absolute sense, which is the very point I keep trying to make. Once again, you’re stuck in your own world view, even while trying to understand mine. You need to accept the simple fact that I don’t agree with you. You keep trying to bring your premises into my argument and, predictably, you end up getting confused, because obviously, they contradict with mine.
You’re not arguing for your position. You’re not telling me why your premises are correct. You just assume that they are and go from there, even while I’m telling you I disagree. You’re assuming your position to be true and then arguing from that platform. That’s no way to have an honest discussion. If you have to assume that you’re right in order to prove yourself right, you’re not really proving much at all.
Try this: Argue for the existence of an absolute, objective moral code without first assuming that there has to be one. State your premises and show how you derive your conclusion. Show your work, as they say.
Bye, Real Jethro. You got boring really fast.
Stop being silly.
what he said, quoted in 303, among other things, suggests otherwise.
also:
kinda raised an eyebrow.
you need a magnifying glass. It’s right there, just to the left of the arrow.
probably need a higher screen resolution.
I suppose that it would have been better phrased as inability to use logic correctly due to having been subject to appallingly inadequate christian homeschooling.