…and this is a 
Here's a silly poll from Eric Hovind, and we know from experience how it will go: if he doesn't like the results, he'll jigger everything around until he gets what he wants. Make him dance anyway.
Without Him we can't know anything 47%
Um...He doesn't 35%
Examined evidence 18%
Hovind hasn't juggled the contents of the poll around (yet), but he has snuck in a redirect to take you away from it. When you follow the link, you'll end up on a page without the poll; to get to it, either go to the home page for the site, or just paste the address " drdino.com " directly into your browser.
Comments
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 31, 2010 9:17 PM
He put two choices to split the atheist vote. Aww, how cute: he learned everything about integrity from his daddy.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 31, 2010 9:21 PM
It doesn't split the vote. "Examined evidence" does not support the idea of a god.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 31, 2010 9:30 PM
Oh, my bad. I misread "Examined evidence" as splitting the There Is No God vote.
In my defense, I have a bad cold. My brain is overheating, I can't read properly, and for some reason I'm craving KFC. It's bird flu.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
August 31, 2010 9:31 PM
Already up to 63% "Um...he doesn't".
How long before the shenanigans begin?
Posted by: NotStradamus
|
August 31, 2010 9:34 PM
I watched the first video and part of the second before I felt the need to take a shower.
The final blow came from their statement that "proof assumes logic" and the bible, of course, is the source of logic.
They seem to have missed the fact that logic is a tool we use to avoid making errors in reasoning.
Posted by: Lynn Wilhelm
|
August 31, 2010 9:35 PM
Is this safe? Antivirus went all bleepy when I clicked on the link. I got nervous and shut down browser.
Creationist websites are scary!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
August 31, 2010 9:36 PM
We're already swamping him, but I assume he'll cheat and swap the questions around.
Maybe we can at least make him feel guilty for manipulating the outcome. Well, no. Psychopaths don't feel guilt.
Posted by: lmalena
|
August 31, 2010 9:45 PM
Is that webpage for real? It seems completly absurd to my south american point of view.
It's joke, isn't it?
I may show it to my primary school nephews so they can laugh at it. And I think our education is bad and under catholic influence...
Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger
|
August 31, 2010 9:46 PM
Isn't this the creationist fucknugget that inverted the meaning of a Pharyngulated poll?
Posted by: dsmwiener
|
August 31, 2010 9:50 PM
Site's down. They need to pray harder.
Posted by: Deepsix
|
August 31, 2010 9:50 PM
Yeah, I also got an anti-virus warning. The virus was JS/Dursg.A. I wonder if this was a set up.
Posted by: dsmwiener
|
August 31, 2010 9:52 PM
...I guess their prayers worked.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmiiaFY8JTt7Z5FJ9SJQlrrN-uxsCz_0yw
|
August 31, 2010 9:52 PM
I guess he missed that part in the bible about not bearing false witness...or being a sneaky doucheweasel.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
August 31, 2010 9:55 PM
Wow, your antivirus software picks up mind-viruses!? Where can I get me some of that?Posted by: ironflange
|
August 31, 2010 9:56 PM
What a maroon!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 31, 2010 9:56 PM
It's pretty sad when the bizarre fiction that we need God to know things is the favorite "reason" to believe in him.
Of course it depends upon a closed logical loop that necessarily excludes any evidence to the contrary, so essentially it's as self-serving as it is self-defeating (to anyone not caught in the loop, that is).
Early Xians wouldn't have dared anything like that, because they needed people to be open-minded, along with being fairly ignorant and naive. It's the logic of a dying religion, or at least of one fearful of dying if it allows its followers and potential converts any sort of freedom of thought.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Robster
|
August 31, 2010 9:58 PM
Me too. Sirens and red lights. Maybe it's a manifestation of their dodgy deity. I really wanted to add my vote...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 31, 2010 10:02 PM
I'm waiting for the attempt to cheat. Keep an eye out folks on the order and wording of the questions posters. EH is not an honest person.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
August 31, 2010 10:08 PM
I got weird behavior too from following the link, but then got out and went straight to their site and it worked. Good evidence that they're purposely screwing with Pharyngula - prosecutable, perhaps?
Posted by: mferrari
|
August 31, 2010 10:09 PM
I can't wait until he decides to alter the poll. We should make sure to take before and after snap shots of his polls.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmiiaFY8JTt7Z5FJ9SJQlrrN-uxsCz_0yw
|
August 31, 2010 10:11 PM
The link is no longer leading to the main page where the poll is. It's taking us to a video about Creation. So he must have noticed the attention.
Sneaky doucheweasel indeed.
All you have to do is click 'home' to get to the poll.
Posted by: Dahan
|
August 31, 2010 10:15 PM
FTW
Posted by: robertdw
|
August 31, 2010 10:19 PM
Strictly speaking, "Um... He doesn't [exist]" should be "Um... we don't [know that he exists]"
The former is a faith-based position, simply because it's impossible to disprove an invisible being who can do anything (including tampering with the evidence at the moment of evaluation to hide his tracks).
The latter is an accurate statement, which then begs the question of "seeing we don't know he exists, why do we give these priests so many perks?"
Posted by: erichovind
|
August 31, 2010 10:20 PM
Snap away my boys! Enjoy the videos too! You never no, you may end up realizing that you have no avenue to truth and decide to seek the ultimate truth found in Christ Himself.
Posted by: robertdw
|
August 31, 2010 10:21 PM
The other part, of course, is that with the Biblical position, God isn't the reason we know anything. Straight from Genesis, it says that we know things because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge against God's instructions.
Posted by: mferrari
|
August 31, 2010 10:22 PM
#24? Troll?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 31, 2010 10:27 PM
Nope, son of convicted felon for tax fraud Kent Hovind, holding down the web site in the absence of DOD...Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
August 31, 2010 10:29 PM
Someone using that name has posted here before and, while he was here displayed the immunity to reason that is the defining character trait of a creotard delugionist; there's no reason to believe he's not the real thing.
But at least we've got his post here as evidence that he's faked the poll. Liars for Jesus™ FTW!
Posted by: mferrari
|
August 31, 2010 10:30 PM
But is it really him? Anybody could register as "erichovind" just to get a good laugh trolling us.
By the way, Redheads FTW! I'm a fellow redheadian
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 31, 2010 10:31 PM
That it's just a frackin' cracker.
Posted by: studio34
|
August 31, 2010 10:36 PM
Yup, he's changed the link. Make sure you go straight to the homepage and you'll find his retarded poll there.
Posted by: HenryS
|
August 31, 2010 10:37 PM
By the way, Redheads FTW! I'm a fellow redheadian
*******
What's a redheadian???
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 10:40 PM
The link is no longer leading to the main page where the poll is. It's taking us to a video about Creation.
which, I note, is available in "high quality" (oxymoron for this vid) for dowload... for only 10 bucks!
what a bargain.
sneaky doucheweasel indeed.
chip off the old block.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 31, 2010 10:41 PM
If Hovind has changed the poll it's still in favor of no gawd.
How do we know God exists?
Um...He doesn't (87%, 1,511 Votes)
Without Him we can't know anything (9%, 160 Votes)
Examined evidence (4%, 71 Votes)
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
August 31, 2010 10:42 PM
He (the poster) had an extensive debate with one of the regulars (Kel, OM) on a thread a couple of weeks back. No-one (including those I believe are familiar with him from other sites/fora) seemed to have a reason to believe it wasn't the real Hovind.
Yes, it could be a fake - but why bother?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 10:44 PM
By the way, Redheads FTW! I'm a fellow redheadian
Ginger's have no souls
of course, that goes without saying since none of us do, but...
Posted by: mferrari
|
August 31, 2010 10:45 PM
A word I just made up for somebody who is a red head.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 10:48 PM
why the hell did I put an apostrophe on that?
Posted by: Aquaria
|
August 31, 2010 10:49 PM
#24
Fuck off and kill yourself to end your waste of oxygen, you lying nugatory douchebag.
Posted by: mferrari
|
August 31, 2010 10:51 PM
Gingers DO have souls!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY39fkmqKBM
Posted by: Jake
|
August 31, 2010 10:58 PM
Umm.... where's the poll? Did he take it down already?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmiiaFY8JTt7Z5FJ9SJQlrrN-uxsCz_0yw
|
August 31, 2010 11:02 PM
@Jake .41
It's on the home page. He redirected traffic from this site to a video about 'evidence of god'. That'll learn us!
Posted by: Iris
|
August 31, 2010 11:03 PM
Some of us are not "boys." And I'm pretty sure none of us are yours. But color me unsurprised by your fumbling patriarchal blindness and flaming narcissism.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
August 31, 2010 11:06 PM
Do you know that you are dyslexic?
Do you care?
Except that we do indeed have the logical and empirical method that does lead to truth. You have nothing but made-up contradictory nonsense.
You know, you started trying to argue this nonsense in the other thread -- and then suddenly quit.
What happened? Did you realize that your pathetic presuppositionalism is actually utterly indefensible bullshit? Did you get scared that your worldview would be destroyed by the careful logical analysis of consistent rationality, and run away?
Exactly how empty is your ridiculous boasting?
Posted by: randydudek
|
August 31, 2010 11:08 PM
And also his feeling of entitlement to possess any boy he sees. How very Christian.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
August 31, 2010 11:10 PM
I would advise that the first ultimate truth you should seek is how to distinguish between homonyms. Then you could move on to whether there's a magic sky fairy and what color hair she has.
Unless, of course, homonyms are related to homosexuals. Then you'll need to remove a lot of words from your brain lest they give you Bad Thoughts™.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 11:14 PM
he sez in the vid:
"I'm getting sick and tired of everyone making fun of red-haired people"
so he makes THAT?
LOL
Posted by: Mandrellian
|
August 31, 2010 11:17 PM
Truth. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 31, 2010 11:21 PM
So, Eric, knowing God is never even caring about being sleazy and dishonest?
I'm sure that appeals to many, but you might be surprised how many people think you're just a loathsome toad, a fit representative for your God.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Mandrellian
|
August 31, 2010 11:23 PM
Also - charging $9.95 to download a video? WTF? Is there anything these clowns won't make money from?
I'm tempted to say one or two things about camels and needles, but I think the latest interpretation of God's perfect, immutable word allows - no, instructs - convicted frauds and their huckster progeny to make as much money as they can out of the lackwitted & gullible.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
August 31, 2010 11:28 PM
Well, he is a right-wing evangelical. If his brethren in Christ are any indication, he likely took a break to get help lifting his luggage/scoring meth/getting the second wetsuit on.
Posted by: z1freeride
|
August 31, 2010 11:28 PM
I copy and paste the poll's url so that they don't know I am coming from pharyngula. :)
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
August 31, 2010 11:33 PM
What base is the second wetsuit? Inquiring minds want to know...
Posted by: Devil's Chord
|
August 31, 2010 11:39 PM
I got a warning from my antivirus software too. But, once I got past that and to the home page I was able to vote. It took alot of thought, but finally decide on Um...He Doesn't. Oh, wait... that was my immediate response. Nonetheless, looks like that poll has been obliterated.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
August 31, 2010 11:41 PM
Not just Liars for Jesus™, but Hucksters for Jesus&trade as well...
Posted by: HenryS
|
August 31, 2010 11:52 PM
What's a redheadian???
A word I just made up for somebody who is a red head.
********
I thought with your screen name, that you had a "thing" for the Testarossa.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 11:55 PM
What base is the second wetsuit? Inquiring minds want to know...
I think you've left the basepath and are wandering in left field somewhere...
;)
Posted by: W. H. Heydt
|
September 1, 2010 12:03 AM
Amusing link seen on the way to the poll..."My God can do anything."
Oh, really? Then why is your father still in jail? (And when will be joining him there?)
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used Programmer
Posted by: jaybgee
|
September 1, 2010 12:05 AM
Why not make all the choices exactly equal? So we can just vote for whichever choice is lagging behind.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 12:14 AM
Why not make all the choices exactly equal?
why not fuck off and die, troll?
Posted by: mferrari
|
September 1, 2010 12:14 AM
Well, that too :)
Posted by: ckitching
|
September 1, 2010 12:15 AM
Well, you know what they say about a fool and his money....Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 1, 2010 12:18 AM
Why not just not put up online polls if it bothers you this much when they don't go your way? Didn't you learn last time?
Posted by: Devil's Chord
|
September 1, 2010 12:28 AM
"You never no, you may end up realizing that you have no avenue to truth and decide to seek the ultimate truth found in Christ Himself."
That made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. I wish I could be perpetually delusional. Oh, wait... reality is much more interesting. By the way, I always "no" when it comes to religion.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 1, 2010 12:39 AM
Man, clowns and left-handers can't get a break around this blog.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 12:42 AM
Man, clowns and left-handers can't get a break around this blog.
a left-handed clown MUST be the personification of pure evil.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 1, 2010 12:46 AM
Holy shit! Hovind is right! God does exist, only it's not the god of the Abrahamists, it's the god of pizza, martial arts, and sewer surfing! He's left us a sign of His radical presence!
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
September 1, 2010 12:50 AM
See? The Founding Fathers, left-handers to a man*, would never have stood for such tyranny.
*I have no idea. But Glenn Beck makes a mint making up his own facts, and I'm tired of driving a car from the 1900s.
Posted by: crich83
|
September 1, 2010 1:12 AM
Speaking of Dr. Dino, I came across one of Hovind's VHS tapes for a creation seminar at a local Goodwill for 69 cents. I don't know if I'll be able to sit through the whole thing, I can barely watch 2 minutes of a Hovind Youtube video. But at least I was able to take some garbage off the hands of the Goodwill.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 1:15 AM
I'm tired of driving a car from the 1900s.
you'd like it here.
the cars all have the stick shifts positioned for lefties.
It's the only thing I never got used to, and why I ended up buying an automatic. In fact, I actually managed to destroy the manual transmission on a rental car here, slowly but surely, by repeatedly not shifting smoothly because I was so used to the stick being on the right.
The mechanic said he'd never seen anything like it.
I'm so proud.
I also managed to destroy the automatic I bought, but in an entirely different way.
2 down, less that 4 million to go!
Posted by: erichovind
|
September 1, 2010 1:22 AM
So, on a scale of 0 to 100 how sure are you that the God of the Bible does not exist? 0 being not sure and 100 being absolutely sure.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 1:24 AM
all my knobs only go from 0 to 11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN5SCRvhMtk
11.
Posted by: Akira MacKenzie
|
September 1, 2010 1:28 AM
Careful Ichthyic, I don't think the son of a felon is sophisticated enough to appreciate classic cinema or your sense of humor and rate you an 11 out of 100.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 1:31 AM
...or maybe twelvety?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 1:34 AM
Ichthyic:
Eleventy sounds better. Like when Bilbo declared he was eleventy-one years old.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 1:35 AM
oh, I think any fans of League of Gentlemen will know what I mean.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
September 1, 2010 1:38 AM
A smart fellow once said something like, "Had I been present at the creation some improvements could have been easily made." Twain, perhaps, with more wit than I can muster.
I fancy myself, truth be told, being a better manager than the beloved dog. I would have made the human knee more robust, for instance, having foreseen long distance running and football and work that requires one to attend to the junction of the floor with the walls. All that getting down and getting back up again. Ouch! And other things too, by Jove!
In all, the dogs that get the most worship seem to always be the ones that most resemble those who worship (or, at least, promote) them. Mostly in the prejudice department.
But then, there I go again. Using my brains instead of my glands. Probably the Ur-sin, eh?
Posted by: percyprune
|
September 1, 2010 1:41 AM
Are you local?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 1:42 AM
Crudely Wrott:
Well, yeah. Ol' El Shaddai wasn't too happy about the whole knowledge business. Prefers his
peopleanimals stupid.Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 1:48 AM
Are you local?
Eric is most assuredly not local.
nothing for him here.
Posted by: echidna
|
September 1, 2010 1:48 AM
This is a local blog. There is nothing for you here.
Posted by: erichovind
|
September 1, 2010 1:49 AM
So, How sure are you all that God does not exist? 50%? 80%? 100% put a number on it and let the world know!
Posted by: Balstrome
|
September 1, 2010 1:49 AM
# Um...He doesn't (92%, 2,852 Votes)
# Without Him we can't know anything (5%, 163 Votes)
# Examined evidence (3%, 80 Votes)
Posted by: Balstrome
|
September 1, 2010 1:52 AM
I looked around my room and saw no god, therefore there is no god. Back to you.
Posted by: echidna
|
September 1, 2010 1:55 AM
I'm sorry Eric, this is a local blog for local people.
You don't really get it, do you? There is no evidence for any deity. We don't need to be sure there are no gods, goddesses, demons, succubii, incubii, vampires, werewolves, witches, leprechauns or elves to not believe in them. People have believed all of these things in the past, but slowly, as we learn more about the world, the old superstitions are falling away.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 1, 2010 1:59 AM
Hovind, it is thanks to people like you that I am 100% percent sure that God does not exist. Ordinarily, I'd say it's about a 93% percent chance, through logic and all, but, by God, if any decent god existed he would have struck you down long ago.
The only reason that I ever thought a god existed is because people like you said so. After seeing all the deranged crap that you also believe in, I can safely put the idea of God into the deranged crap category.
Again, that is thanks to you, and since it is thanks to you that I no longer believe, your own holy book says that you are going to Hell for it.
Enjoy.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 1, 2010 2:01 AM
Same odds that God doesn't exist as the odds that Santa doesn't exist.
Due to similar levels of evidence for their existence.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
September 1, 2010 2:02 AM
Cain, Ol' El Shaddai, and associated littermates and stable mates don't seem to approve of much of anything.
Inasmuch as people are about the business of dammed near everything, and making a pretty good show of it all, I say screw the old lackluster, the poorsight, the dreamthinker, the ass.
Posted by: Balstrome
|
September 1, 2010 2:04 AM
People, you must understand that eric hovind does not believe in this stuff as well. He is only in it for the money he makes off suckers who buy his crap dvd's. What else can he do to earn money and feed his family, no one will offer him a job, the family tendencies are noticeable. Oh, he will rant and rave like a good salesman shouting that he does believe and he has the video to prove it ($9.94), but all he looks for is the paypal confirmation email.
Posted by: erichovind
|
September 1, 2010 2:05 AM
Menyambal: Not sure which passage you are taking out of context to get that idea but no, that is not what the Bible says.
So, Are you really 100% sure? Seems to me that with your own world view (I am assuming atheism) you would say that there are no absolutes. Yet you would be willing to say 100% on that one. Sounds contradictory. Are you sure about that?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 2:07 AM
Tell ya what, Eric - you pray extra supercalifragilisticexpialidocious hard and have that god of yours reveal to you a 16 digit number. That's nothing at all for that Super-duper miracle worker of yours, right? I have a 16 digit number written down.
When god reveals it to you, post the number and I'll gladly admit there's something to that Psycho Sky Daddy. No excuses now - it's just a number, nothing difficult like getting your for real daddy out of prison.
Posted by: Balstrome
|
September 1, 2010 2:08 AM
Hey, eric, trying to setup a pascal's wager ? careful, those usually bite the stupid in the bum.
Posted by: Harbo
|
September 1, 2010 2:11 AM
After visiting that site I am wondering if this is .....some new use of the word "evidence" with which I am not familiar.
(apologies to Douglas)
(should that be SAINT Douglas of Post-theism)TM
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
September 1, 2010 2:13 AM
Oooh. Cain tempts Eric to tempt his dog.
Five bucks on Cain and a nickel says the dog pisses on the nearest fencepost.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 1, 2010 2:16 AM
Oh, Eric's deeper than that, don't you know? He's pushing the tired old line that you have to know something absolute (god, despite no evidence for him) in order to, say, calculate odds, note what a load of rot he puts out, etc.
See, as long as he can convince himself that we're all wrong because we don't acknowledge god, he can be dishonest and our mere atheist knowledge can't prove that he's wrong.
Not knowing anything about epistemology, science, open-mindedness, intellectual honesty (the list goes on) he's ignorant enough to believe that he knows more than anyone who's learned the requisite knowledge--which includes a number of theists who can actually discuss these matters (never mind their compartments for now).
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 1, 2010 2:18 AM
Hovind, you ass, do you really not know your own book?
Don't argue literature with me, you gobshite.
Your book, by the way, says that I was damned to Hell before ever I was born. 100 percent surely damned, no forgiveness possible, for nothing that I did. Damned before conception, damned forever.
Atheism doesn't say there are no absolutes. Where did you get that deranged crap?
Posted by: Usagichan
|
September 1, 2010 2:22 AM
erichovind @ 83
In the absence of any evidence (and I mean real evidence, not bronze age fairy tales) 99.9% (for me Leprechauns and Unicorns seem slightly more likely (99.5% lets say)).
So, how sure are you that Shiva doesn't exist (same scale would be fine)?
How about Baal?
How about Baron Samedi?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 2:22 AM
Crudely Wrott:
And runs off with the goalposts!
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 1, 2010 2:24 AM
I cannot sleep for the pain.
I cannot sit down for the pain.
I cannot stand for the pain.
I have no money for the pain to stop.
I have no hope for the pain to end.
I have nothing but pain.
At least I don't have Jesus.
Posted by: tacroy
|
September 1, 2010 2:25 AM
I have to wonder:
Logic is meaningless in the face of a truly omnipotent God. I mean, what use is the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 when confronted with the existence of a being that can make 1 + 1 = orange? If there were a truly omnipotent God, then all the logic in the world would be of about as much use as nipples on a guy.
So the mere fact that you try to convince us with something that bears a passing resemblance to logic, Eric, means that you've already conceded that logic works. If logic works, that means you don't really believe in an omnipotent God - because if you did, your only real argument would be along the lines of "look: 1 + 1 now equals orange, check the math yourself". Any other argument is simple hypocrisy - "I believe that God has made 1 + 1 equal orange, but if you say that 2 + 1 = tangerine you're totally wrong".
For instance, if you believe in the Trinity, it's totally possible that Menyambal can both believe that something is 100% true and believe that nothing can be 100% true - that's a very simple step from believing that God is one thing but also three things.
I'm not sure why you would have a problem with that statement, unless of course you're one of those Christians that doesn't believe in the Trinity (in which case I'm certain we could dig up other inconsistencies in your belief). There is simply have no counter-argument from your perspective, because your perspective is already founded on illogic.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 2:26 AM
Usagichan:
Well, there are three eyewitnesses to Mr. Saturday, Esme Weatherwax, Gytha Ogg and Magrat Garlick saw him at Erzulie Gogol's place in the swamp.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
September 1, 2010 2:31 AM
The poll appears to have vanished without trace...
Posted by: Travis
|
September 1, 2010 2:36 AM
Michael #102,
I think Eric has made it so that people coming from this site are redirected. If you manually go to http://www.drdino.com the poll is still visible.
What a slimy, pathetic little man.
Posted by: Usagichan
|
September 1, 2010 2:43 AM
Caine, Flower of Evil #101
Three independent witnesses with no motivation to lie about it recorded in a well sourced document - quick, get consulscipo from the "What were they thinking of" thread... after all if its written down it must be true?
Speaking of the Ramtops, I believe there is a suitable spot near Lancre (notable for its solar deficiency) eminently suitable for eric & his book of fables!
Posted by: Malcolm
|
September 1, 2010 2:45 AM
Eric the moron,
As has been explained to you ad nauseam, logical impossibilities can be ruled out absolutely. The god of the babble is logically impossible, therefore we can logically say with absolute certainty that it doesn't exist.
so I am 100% sure that your god doesn't exist.
Now fuck off you vacuous twat.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
September 1, 2010 2:45 AM
Glen Davidson:
Come on, Glen, that's silly. I got presents from Santa. In fact, even now as an adult, I still get presents labelled as being from Santa. That's actual material evidence! Santa beats Yahweh hands down on that.Also, I think my cats must be gods. I get presents from them, too. And how do you explain how they giftwrap them without hands, if they don't have mystical powers?
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 2:52 AM
Eric, just look at the current results of the online poll. The question has been answered. God doesn't exist. I am glad it was posted, otherwise we might never have settled the matter once and for all. Thank God for online polls.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 1, 2010 3:00 AM
Dang, I can't find the poll. :( I was going to vote "he doesn't" and see how long before Eric changed the words on the poll and started crowing about how he tricked dose stooped ate-ists.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 3:02 AM
If you're being redirected to a stupid video, then what you need to do is copy and paste the url instead of following it from here.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 1, 2010 3:12 AM
@djfav: thanks; I saw there was also a tip from one of the earliest posts. Eric hasn't changed the words yet.
It's hilarious how these "how do we know there is a god" screeds go on for so long. The "how we know there isn't a god" is very short: there is zero evidence for a god, only ancient self-conflicting and very credulous claims.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 1, 2010 3:15 AM
Eric, aren't you going to come back and finish our discussion?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 3:18 AM
Usagichan:
Oh yes, it's the perfect place too.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 3:26 AM
Has anyone figured out how to vote more than once in this particular poll yet? My usual method (iMacros and Cookie Monster) aren't working. I can go through a free proxy and vote again. Then switch to a different free proxy and so on. But I can't figure out how to automate that. And not every free proxy works.
No, I really have nothing better to do, except maybe play some more Fallout 3.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 1, 2010 3:32 AM
Eric, we already went through this. The problems in your argument still go unanswered, and just ignoring what ground we covered to repeat the same dissected arguments is being immensely arrogant and dismissive. I thought you said you were interested in understanding where others came from. What you're doing shows the opposite of that.Are you really interested in understanding, or just proving that you're rubber duck is unsinkable?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 1, 2010 3:34 AM
*your
Posted by: GayHedBri
|
September 1, 2010 3:43 AM
I can't believe you get scared and feel threatened at a little poll!
You're like a little kid in the candy store who wants to play with the little soldiers and say "let's get 'em .... or atleast make 'em dance".
Your credibility is down the shitters with your juvenile and withoug anyintellectually-enriching information - your blog is well, fluff.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 3:45 AM
I can't believe you get scared and feel threatened by a little poll crashing!
See what I did there?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 1, 2010 3:46 AM
Not sure how you logically say something, but be that as it may, I would be extremely curious to learn since when the god of the bible has been logically impossible, and how that argument goes ?
Posted by: Balstrome
|
September 1, 2010 3:49 AM
Names, GayhedBri, names, you must supply your targets names or conclusion we shall jump and then the wrong people die.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 3:57 AM
Rorshach,
I don't know how that argument would go for the god of the babble, but I'm sure you've already seen arguments that the omnimax god is a logical impossibility. Can bog in his heaven create a rock too heavy for him to lift? That sort of thing. For a proposition to be logically possible, it must be free of contradiction.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 4:01 AM
djfav:
That sort of crap really isn't necessary. Vote once and let it go already. Better to sharpen your fangs on Eric when he dashes by with more bullshit.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 4:05 AM
Caine,
I don't see why I can't do both. It's not like running a bot in the background while I play video games takes much effort. I'd just like to learn how to do it on different types of polls.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 1, 2010 4:10 AM
GayHedBri wrote:
Please cite some text that supports this hypothesis.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 4:21 AM
djfav:
I don't see the point of cheating. It's unnecessary.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 4:23 AM
Caine,
I don't see the point of the polls in the first place, so I hardly see why it matters whether or not I cheat.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 1, 2010 4:25 AM
That's admittedly a cute little paradoxon, but not a logical refutation of the existence of god beings.We look at evidence, or lack thereof, and conclude based on that that god beings seem extremely unlikely.But that doesn't make them "logically impossible".
If a god being exists, it can do anything.
We see no evidence of a god being doing anything miraculous at all.
Therefore....Nothing.It's an inductive argument with grades of probability, not a formal or deductive one with only one logical conclusion.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 4:30 AM
Roschach,
I think you mean it's not an empirical refutation of the existence of gods. And yes, it's deductive, not inductive.
Posted by: PinkoCommieLiberal
|
September 1, 2010 4:34 AM
They must know that a poll like this will be targeted? Right?
He doesn't (93%, 3,396 Votes)
Without Him we can't know anything (5%, 164 Votes)
Examined evidence (2%, 83 Votes)
Total Voters: 3,643
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 1, 2010 4:34 AM
These words, dear Sir/Madam clownshoe, do definetely not mean what you think they mean.
The fact that we see no evidence of a god does not mean there isn't one there, it just means it's very unlikely there is one there.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 4:38 AM
Rorschach,
I've said nothing that contradicts what you're saying. Am I going to have to link to intoductory logic concepts on wikipedia, or what?
Fuck this thread. I'm out.
Posted by: lautrec85
|
September 1, 2010 4:41 AM
lol.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 4:43 AM
So, How sure are you all that God does not exist? 50%? 80%? 100% put a number on it and let the world know!
send me 9.95 via paypall, and I'll tell ya!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 1, 2010 4:45 AM
GayHedAss,
Do you have a point?
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 1, 2010 4:50 AM
I pointed out to you that the arguments on which we base our judgment that god most likely does not exist are inductive, not deductive, and therefore a god being is not "logically impossible".The fact that Achilles can't catch the tortoise in that race doesn't make running 100 yards impossible.
Nonsense.Anything is "logically possible", but it mightn't survive the test of deductive logical examination, and we might refute it on the basis that it is logically invalid(which is the correct term, not "impossible"), or false.It's got nothing to do with contradiction.
Posted by: snottyprofessor
|
September 1, 2010 4:51 AM
PZ, I am a big fan of your blog. But, IMHO, posting these sort of polls on your blog is a mistake because it does increase the traffic to their websites which sort would give them an illusion of popularity. Why can't we just ignore these clowns?
SnottyProfessor
Posted by: j-brisby
|
September 1, 2010 4:54 AM
I also got a virus warning, as well as 16 attempts to put cookies on my computer.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 4:56 AM
It does no such thing. In case you haven't noticed, Eric Hovind has been posting in this thread; it's far from the first time he's shown up and posted here. He's a chewtoy, nothing more. As for the poll, hey, poll crashing is somewhat of a tradition.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 4:57 AM
Rorschach, I find it amusing that you think we disagree about something. I'm going to bed now.
Posted by: echidna
|
September 1, 2010 4:57 AM
Surely whether a bog is logically impossible depends on the definition of said bog.
An omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient bog is logically impossible, but a bog that's scared of iron chariots may not be.
A bog that provides healing mud-packs for its adherents may be quite ok.
djfav, arguing about forms of logic before you have defined your terms is a bit pointless, as Rorschach intimated.
Posted by: djfav
|
September 1, 2010 4:59 AM
echidna,
I identified the bog that I was talking about as the omnimax god and said that the argument for the god of the babble would be different.
What the fuck?
Posted by: Oort
|
September 1, 2010 5:03 AM
Eric goes by the logic of absolutes. But his own question is his downfall. "how sure are you that the God of the Bible does not exist?"
See, if he asked, "how sure are you that A god does not exist" then we would have to say "we are not sure" because 'A god' falls into the common teacup around saturn argument. We don't know because we cannot see it. But that does not mean it does exist. It's like asking 'do hooved cats exist on another planet?'. Well, we don't know. But does that question really matter? Because 'a god' is just a supposition.
With his question, we can definitively say 'No, the biblical god does not exist'. Why? Because the biblical god has characteristics and descriptions that allow us to make logical and evidence based conclusions. The biblical god fails inspection. The book that describes it fails analysis.
Now people like Eric might grasp onto the 'a god' question and find that as proof of god, but again, that doesn't mean HIS god exists. His god is the same as any other god mankind has made up through history. They all fail critical inspection. It's like saying you found a bolt on the beach so there MUST be an aircraft carrier buried there. One does not lend proof of the other.
It's the classical god of the gaps logic. His god does not exist, but because there is the possibility of 'a god' because we can not disprove it then he uses that to validate his beliefs in his own god.
But 'a god' could mean anything. It could be an intelligent being, or a turnip that sprouted the universe. No matter what you dreamed up to identify 'a god' it would all be blind guesswork based on what a person wanted in a god.
I am 100% convinced that there is no "biblical god". I am NOT 100% convinced that there is not "a god" but my lack of conviction means nothing. It's a nebulous ideal. Even if it does exist its existence means nothing to me because such a being has not stepped forward to identify itself. Either it can't or its not interested to. Either way it means nothing to me.
The possibility (only because you cannot disprove it) of 'a god' is not the proof of a biblical god.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 1, 2010 5:05 AM
I notice that Eric the half-a-wit has a vid of relative star size. I'd like to see him put up a vid of relative star distances and explain how the ones outside of 6000 ly have managed to be seen yet. If I can figure out the speed of light in the high school field using century old experiments, why can't Eric? He must be as dim as his site makes him out to be.
In other news, the poll can be accessed by heading back to the home page by clicking the logo at the top. I didn't bother though. Since Eric wants to go to Hell for shenanigans and trickery, I'll let him mess with the poll all he wants after its been Phartinized. Whatever the real vote is, it will come out looking like a miraculous sign from Gord (Gord hates Stan, or so I hear from my religulous friends).
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 5:08 AM
I tell ya, you guys are missing a golden opportunity.
If Hovind thinks information on how we answer his inane questions is so valuable, we should all be charging him for it!
set up a paypall account, and tell him he can pay you for the answers he wants.
only 9.95.
Posted by: echidna
|
September 1, 2010 5:25 AM
djfav,
Sorry. Definition whizzed right past me.
Posted by: KG
|
September 1, 2010 5:33 AM
Which god of the Bible? The one who walks about in the Garden of Eden or the one who is pure spirit? The one who doesn't realise his pets have been naughty, or the one who knows everything? The one who is all alone or the one who has a son? The one who commits genocide and encourages mass rape, or the one who loves everybody? Etc., etc., etc..
Posted by: cnocspeireag
|
September 1, 2010 5:36 AM
Thanks for the instructions McChthulu. Poll now 93% for sanity, 3% & 4% for inanity.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 1, 2010 5:46 AM
No, no, and no.It's unlikely when we examine the evidence, but is not impossible, or logically refutable by ways of silly paradoxons.
Where the fuck is truth machine...:-)
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 1, 2010 5:52 AM
Bwhaha - watched the video. Naturally it's the 'creation means a creator must exist' argument.
Umm, show me that the universe was created. After you've done that, show me that the creator is your specific god.
Go on. I'll wait.
Posted by: Malcolm
|
September 1, 2010 5:57 AM
Rorschach,
Omnimax = logically impossible (see djfav's trivial proof above)
Given that, omnimax = logically impossible
and that god of the babble = omnimax (at least according to Eric the moron's site)
god of the babble = logically impossible.
Quad erat demonstrandum.
Posted by: zorbas
|
September 1, 2010 5:58 AM
Not exactly related to this post but I thought this little fella might cheer up the old man with the crooked heart.
Posted by: wccrawford
|
September 1, 2010 6:32 AM
It's up to 94% now.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 1, 2010 6:43 AM
Paradoxes are useful in terms of nutting out conceptual issues, it's a good defence against those trying to overwhelm an idea with attributes that each carry conceptual baggage.Posted by: Bob H
|
September 1, 2010 6:52 AM
Go to "Home" on this stupid site to vote.
http://www.drdino.com/
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 1, 2010 6:53 AM
Me, too. So I bailed.
Posted by: Bob H
|
September 1, 2010 6:54 AM
Now at "Um...He doesn't (94%, 3,828 Votes)"
Posted by: MJP
|
September 1, 2010 7:03 AM
99% sure that gods in general do not exist.
100% sure that the God of the Bible does not exist (due to logical contradictions.)
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 1, 2010 7:07 AM
Any god? about 95% given all things constant
God of the Bible? 98%
Hovind's god? 100% The rapture god is bullshit even in context of the bible.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 1, 2010 7:11 AM
I'll rephrase to put it at 99.99999% if Hovind's god is right, it's by literary accident and a damn unlikely one.
Btw, Eric, when you say no jesus? Do you mean no him biblically?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 1, 2010 7:24 AM
For those saying "The God Of The Bible" is logically impossible, can they show where in the bible such parameters that lead to a logically contradictory conception of God are laid out? From what I can understand, those logically contradictory attributes are a result of a particular interpretation and extrapolation of philosophical reflection rather than something that's there in plain ink. If that's the case then how can we rule out a biblical God 100%?
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 1, 2010 7:25 AM
The class of imaginary things do not exist include (but is not limited to) all gods, fairies, unicorns, gnomes and tea pots orbiting between earth and mars. Any extraordinary claim to the contrary requires proof.
In short, the mere fact that somebody can imagine something does not support the "we don't know if it's not true" intellectually sloppy position of epistemological accommodationist. The mere fact someone can adopt some horse-shit rhetorical games like "how do you know you exist..." or "God can change the evidence to hide" does not lend credence the argument either.
Further, for those of who've actually studied the origins and evolution of "God" are damn well certain that Christianity is a the great-child religion of multiple religions. We have the polytheistic Canaanite religion featuring El, et. al. as the base religion from Israel. We have the cult of Yahweh from Judea as the main over-lay. We have tales ripped-off from many other religions, such as the flood story which is a rip-off of Epic of Gilgamesh which in turn is a re-telling of some Sumerian mythology.
We also know that Judaism was polytheistic for much of it's history. Even after the monotheists arose (and took over the religious caste) during the exile and time of King Josiah, polytheism continued to be practiced by the main body of Jews well past the time of Christ. Some sects practiced it until some time into 1400AD.
And so it goes... Myth after myth, co-opted, massaged and re-written by various people to make their claims. All of which, when looked at it's entirety, is no more convincing than Norse mythology, Chinese mythology, Hindu mythology, etc.
And YET so many westerners act like it's the only question... While blindly ignoring they've already rejected every other religion from consideration as "obviously wrong..."
The parochial nature of it makes me laugh. The Christian God is debated... The concept that there might be a monotheistic Christian God is defended. Yet where is the defense of Thor? Isis? Ra? Zeus? And all other mythological realms?
They are as equally valid. Which is to say, NOT AT ALL. And yet people debating the existence of God/s give them no room at the table. YET REFUSE TO TAKE THE FINAL LEAP SETTING THEM FREE.
So near... And yet so far from religious liberation. It makes the baby Jesus cry...
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 1, 2010 7:26 AM
~Jesus loves me this eye no, because the bible tells me sew~
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 1, 2010 7:33 AM
100%.
Posted by: Jott
|
September 1, 2010 7:40 AM
94% for non-existence
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 1, 2010 7:42 AM
Ah, ha ha ha ha hahahahaaaa. Projection + arrogance = FAIL.
Toy soldiers in a candy store? Do you not mean toy store? Because while I'm sure some clever dick has made candy toy soldiers, it doesn't save you from a badly-mangled metaphor.
And has 87 million plus page views... Oh well... I guess you'll just have to keep on fapping...
Also, it really screws the message to castigate someone as juvenile while giving us a post full of grammar and spelling errors. Bad form, that.
Posted by: AreUNorml
|
September 1, 2010 7:49 AM
I always love how every site like that has a store to buy their crap. as if the donation button weren't getting enough hits already.
I particularly found this title to be of interest. 'god doesn't believe in atheists'. and the tag line below which stated; "This book has been written for the atheist, the agnostic, and the believer. It shows the atheist that he doesn't exist.."
I guess god and I are equal now.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
September 1, 2010 7:49 AM
Hmm... my infiltration-detector software picks up a bogon-range problem (bogus IP addy posing as a real one) trying to infiltrate my laptop from Hovind's site. Interesting. Never saw that one before.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 1, 2010 7:59 AM
@165
Remember atheists are the arrogant ones, not the dillholes telling other people what they REALLY believe despite their protests...oh and they deserve to be tortured because of it.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
September 1, 2010 8:04 AM
ericthefruitbat @71
99.99999. And even if I fully believed god existed ("0" on your scale) it would not be enough to convince me to go back to your disturbing, creepy, malignant religion. If there is a god and he is like the error-prone bumbling genocidal maniac found in the Judeo-Christian Bible, he's an evil bastard not worth worshiping, or even talking to.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 1, 2010 8:05 AM
I think PZ needs to clean up a very few of these one snarky post per thread wonders like GayHedBri and Stushie. If they aren't going to stay and defend their shit, they shouldn't be able to post. Of course, it would be proper to warn them first. Might actually cause them to wander off on their own. I wouldn't want to defend that shit.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 1, 2010 8:12 AM
MosesZD: Hush now! Leave the boy alone. How the heck is he even supposed to know what castigate means?
GayHed, define 'castigate?'
Gayhed: "Hotay! I went fishun and...and...and I pulled my fishun rod too far back and it stuck on Mrs. Pillock's fence, but I dun pulled reeeeal hard and it came loose, but, uhm, it pulled the hinges right off and I tossed the whole gate in to the lake! Mr. Pillock camed out and said, 'Boy, you just castigate into the lake! you owe me forty bucks!'"
Oh, as for the 'what are the odds' discussion. Seriously, if the god of the Old Testicles was real, with all that smiling genocide and ridiculous 'yeah, just sacrifice your son' shite? Man, Antitheist Homepage, here I come! You have to be a special kind of cretin to want to worship such a needy, tyrannical monster. Whether it's fear or brainwashing or Ozarkian inbreeding that makes them stay with it, no rational human being can say that the Christian god has superior morals to any of the regular posters on Pharyngula.
I'm pretty sure I have never advocated murder by stoning or advocated wiping a race of people from the Earth for their belief or unbelief, or suggested that all the eldest boys in an entire city should suddenly die for any reason. I didn't sit idly by while my 'chosen people' were shoved into gas ovens or starved to death or had lampshades made of their skin or had someone attempt to breed them with animals. If that's what some people think is the source for superior morals, well, some people are just royally fucked in the head. That they are crass enough to suggest I am the one that is immoral because I'm not giving the analingus motorboat to their magical sky fairy? Well, fuck them in the hoop the hardest with the c-velocity Decaying Porkypine for their level of stupid.
Shit, if I'm on this level of rant I may as well conclude GOATS ON FIRE!!!
Posted by: NoYourGod
|
September 1, 2010 8:25 AM
As noted above, beware the places Hovind wants to take you....
My anti-virus flagged a link on that site:
Denied: http://olthmqe.com/exemple.com/index.php (analysis according to the base of suspicious web addresses)
Posted by: austinfilm
|
September 1, 2010 8:28 AM
Eric, how certain are you that you are not being followed by a ninja at this moment? 20%? 50%? 100%? Give us a number.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkqQXrl7yEsdEmCGIJY6e4vK85szmL2lf8
|
September 1, 2010 8:30 AM
If there is a god he'd show me how to fix my Google account to let me change my username!
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 1, 2010 8:34 AM
#173: The Googlemess. The ultimate proof that the universe really is just unorchestrated chaos and electric mayhem.
Posted by: JackC
|
September 1, 2010 8:42 AM
Late to the party, but I will play...
Eric - I am PRECISELY as certain there is no "God" (pick any "God" - yours, the babbles, Zeus, Ra, my cat...) as YOU are that some sort of "God" DOES exist, right to the middle ground.
So how about it Eric? 100% certain for you? Or will you be, perhaps, the very first True Christian that will ADMIT PUBLICLY that there may NOT be a "God" (of any variety).
If you are only 99% certain there is a "God" then I am only 99% certain there is not one of your imagining. If you are 50% certain, then I am 50% certain.
Wanna play? I am going to bet - with 99.98% certainty - that you CANNOT state publicly that there MAY NOT be any god of your imagining.
If you cannot admit your lack of certainty, why should we?
JC
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 1, 2010 8:43 AM
@174
http://i429.photobucket.com/albums/qq16/Nicholai13/ElectricMayhemBand.jpg
?
Posted by: MosesZD
|
September 1, 2010 8:45 AM
By getting an in-depth education on the matter. Seriously. And not to be mean or point fingers at you specifically because I don't know what yo you believe vis your rhetorical device, but I find that people who take that particular position are generally rather uninformed of the evolution, origins and various schisms of Judaism. They may know some... Have some minor quibbles. But tend to be completely unaware of just what a load of fairy-stories the bible is...
They also, while being 100% sure that Zeus, Thor, Brahma, Ra, Isis and other gods do not exist, still give some sort of emotional weight to the cultural delusion in which they grew up. Which puzzles me. If you're going to argue "possible existence" why is it always the god of your cultural delusion? Why not Ra? Why not Thor? Why not Isis or Ishtar?
Anyway, simply put, the Old Testament itself is demonstrably false. That is, it is not some divinely inspired book given from god. Or even a reasonable, albeit tarted-up, history of the early Jews. Instead it is a vastly changed political-religious document written by a sect of monotheistic Jews in support of Judean King Josiah who wished to lay claim to Israel at the end of the Babylonian Exile.
The book itself is a blending of multiple mythologies and contains actual historical errors with dates, times and places. After all, it was written in 600BCE and, too many times, the accounts of history were anachronistic as many of the places did not exist (either in absolute or in character) nor did the events actually happen.
The easiest to see, after the great flood stolen from the Epic of Gilgamesh, is Exodus and the wandering of the Jews. The Israelites who wrote that story were unaware that the Egyptians had fully garrisoned the Sinai desert in that historical epoch. When they wrote it, Egypt had retreated back behind the Nile. But when said events happened, Egypt controlled all of the Sinai and was in conflict with the Hittites over the area that now consists of Israel, Lebanon and western Syria and borders on modern Turkey.
There was no room for 600,000 Jews to walk around fleeing Pharaoh. Pharaoh had studded the entire region with forts that were one-days march from each other. And they were garrisoned during the entire time.
And yet, to believe this "god of the bible" we have to believe a group of 600,000 people -- the size of a small city -- and all their animals could evade detection for FORTY YEARS. In a place where multiple forts, due to the dispersion the wanders would have to have had, would have seen them each and every day.
Ugh.
Exodus also contains a number of anachronisms. In Exodus, it is written: Get down and then come up, you and Aaron with you. But do not let the priests and the people break through to come up to Yahweh, lest he break out against them.
There were no priests at that time. They came later. But the priests of Josiah didn't know that when they were making up the tale. So they put them in. And there are a couple of more anachronisms in that story, such as Moses conducting worship rituals that didn't happen until much later in Judaism is a sore thumb. The pyramids were not particularly built on slave labor, by-and-large, by free men. And, of course, there is no evidence of the Jews every being (in any significant number) slaves of the Egyptians.
It'd be like I was writing a story from the point of view of someone in the 1700's and put in a television, the Internet and jet planes They just doesn't belong.
And I can go on. For HOURS. Days. Hundreds, if not thousands, of column inches. (Well, except all my books are packed for the impending move and I'm stuck with just my head...)
As for being able to imagine some sort of god, an invisible quantum god or some such, so what? Humans have a great capacity for self-inflicted delusions. I do not have to pander to them, or the defective logic chains people use in their accommodationist rhetoric.
As I like to say: Don't give me some rhetorical/intellectual fapping, just put on proof. No proof = no god, no matter how much you want to weasel around with empty rhetoric, appeals to emotion, tradition, delusion, imagination or authority.
And considering how many thousands of years nobody has been able to put on even one modest shred of proof... I consider the case closed. Even if people still want to run around playing their rhetorical games on the issue.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 1, 2010 8:47 AM
Hmmm. I loaded this page and the redirect away from the poll at the same time. One of them contained malware that my antivirus blocked. I wonder which one?
No time to watch the video right now.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 1, 2010 8:55 AM
Ing #176: YAY! You win Teh VIDEO!
I knew there were übercool people here.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 8:56 AM
So, on a scale of 0 to 100 how sure are you that the God of the Bible does not exist? 0 being not sure and 100 being absolutely sure.
9001%
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 9:06 AM
You're like a little kid in the candy store who wants to play with the little soldiers and say "let's get 'em .... or atleast make 'em dance".
>>Candy store
>>Little soldiers
what the fuck am i reading
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 1, 2010 9:15 AM
@MosesZD:
You've got a very eloquent manner about you... I like it :)
Posted by: Tink
|
September 1, 2010 9:25 AM
As of 9/1/10 09:24:58
looks like we successfully got this one.
How do we know God exists? (Watch video)
Um...He doesn't (95%, 4,653 Votes)
Without Him we can't know anything (3%, 166 Votes)
Examined evidence (2%, 87 Votes)
Total Voters: 4,906
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 1, 2010 9:25 AM
As sure as you are that Pecos Bill did not ride a tornado like it was a bucking bronco.
Posted by: cre8or
|
September 1, 2010 9:39 AM
Kel, it looks like Hovind is attempting to use the same poor argument that he abandoned in our other thread in this recent blog post on the dr.dino site:
http://www.drdino.com/two-questions-for-unbelievers/
...as he appears to have run away from that argument here, perhaps you could pursue it further there?
Posted by: erichovind
|
September 1, 2010 9:42 AM
Wow, just as I suspected, a bunch of individuals living contrary to their own worldview! "We don't know, yet we know."
Is it any wonder that we can't take atheism seriously?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
September 1, 2010 9:48 AM
Semantic bullshit, I agree. "Existence means that an existor must exist" sounds a lot more stupid, doesn't it? :-)Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 1, 2010 9:53 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/09/inside_natures_giants_ser_2_shark.php
LOL!!!
Come on. Confusing homophones isn't lysdexia. Confusing b and d, for instance, is dylsexia.
And about temples and moneychangers.
Shit. That was Pilty's bat[shit]signal.
COWABUNGA!!!
That question makes a lot less sense than you think it does. For instance, can you disprove solipsism?
(If you don't know what that is, look it up. Wikipedia is your friend.)
Huh? What do you mean?
In any case, however, we are local. Everyone is local on the Internet. Are you new cyber-here...?
Into my quote collection.
I had no idea. Evidence, please.
Day saved.
I didn't know that part.
I did, however, know about the laughable futility of fleeing inside Egypt when Egypt reached all the way north beyond Lebanon!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
September 1, 2010 9:53 AM
Read carefully:
As a general statement about the existence of a deity or deities, "I don't know" (with qualifications on likelihood) is perfectly valid.
As a specific statement about the god of the Bible: The contradictory nature of that entity's existence, and the source material, pushes towards "know that it doesn't".
Simple!
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
September 1, 2010 9:54 AM
Eric, who is this "we"? Do you have a crocoduck in your pocket?
Posted by: Tualha
|
September 1, 2010 9:55 AM
"Doesn't" is currently at 95% with 4,912 votes. Wonder how soon it'll get jiggered/reset/whatever?
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 1, 2010 10:01 AM
@erichovind:
Here's the thing. We don't know, but we don't imagine that every lightning bolt or sunray or dandelion is due to some god. There's absolutely nothing to provide even a hint that god's existence is true. If god exists, he does so in a way that's entirely and completely indistinguishable from reality.
If your god did exist, then he's a putz. He makes the world and the universe appear to be millions and billions of years old. He puts rocks on this new (but appearing old) planet that reconcile the fact. He puts bones of creatures that are found to be millions of years old in rocks of the same age that have the appearance of promoting the theory that everything came from an ancestral tree.
Not only does your god do this, but he punishes FOR ETERNITY those that do not ignore, do not test, do not research the reality that - once more - his existence is indistinguishable from. There is nothing at all to suggest his existence, time and time again things that have been thought to be from gods have been found - scientifically - to have natural causes.
Your god is contradictory - even to the second chapter of your holy book. Your religion is contradictory and fractured into tens of thousands of different sects. What you believe is mocked and called wrong by another sect of Christianity - which is then mocked and called wrong by yet another sect. If god's own 'chosen people' can't make a consensus then why should someone believe them?
@yahooname (Hairy Chris?)
Exactly. They have still yet to show that the universe was created. No one has even demonstrated that step. It's like coming across a dead body on the street and fingering someone for the murder - without showing the person was murdered.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
September 1, 2010 10:04 AM
This is a local blog. For local people.
Posted by: Andrew G.
|
September 1, 2010 10:12 AM
Nitpick: Josiah was pre-exilic, but not by much; he lived 649-609 BCE, when the Neo-Bablyonian empire was still establishing itself (replacing the Assyrian empire). This meant there was a power vacuum that Josiah likely wanted to exploit: the (richer) northern kingdom had been destroyed a century before by the Assyrians.
The Babylon exile in the traditional sense (invasion and deportation of Judeans by Babylonians) didn't start until ~597, a decade after Josiah's death, and Jerusalem wasn't sacked until over two decades after (in 586 or so).
Posted by: KG
|
September 1, 2010 10:15 AM
You're an idiot, just like your father. Have you inherited his greed and criminality too?
The "God of the Bible" is not a consistently described entity, and therefore cannot exist, any more than a cabbage which is also an elephant can exist.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 1, 2010 10:18 AM
Oops, sorry. That link to Tet Zoo was supposed to go into another thread.
Wow, just as I suspected, a bunch of individuals living contrary to their own worldview! "We don't know, yet we know."You haven't understood "our worldview".
You haven't even understood that lack of absolute certainty does not mean to wriggle on the floor and tear one's hair out because of nagging fear.
You haven't understood that there is such a thing as probability.
And finally, you haven't understood the difference between deism and your particular brand of Christianity.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty! I can't even prove that I'm not the solipsist!
A chapter of The God Delusion is entitled "Why there is almost certainly no god". You see, that's enough. I don't need to lose sleep over the possibility that a winning lottery ticket might be blown into my hands by the wind and make me rich. Really... I don't.
When Paul the self-proclaimed Apostle lapsed back into his Epicurean upbringing, he wrote 1 Corinthians 13:11:
Put away your childish crave for absolute certainty, your childish fear of not knowing everything, your childish lack of understanding of probability, your childish horror of uncertainty. Think, and learn.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 1, 2010 10:24 AM
HTML mistake. Correction:
You haven't understood "our worldview".
You haven't even understood that lack of absolute certainty does not mean to wriggle on the floor and tear one's hair out because of nagging fear.
You haven't understood that there is such a thing as probability.
And finally, you haven't understood the difference between deism and your particular brand of Christianity.
There is no such thing as absolute certainty! I can't even prove that I'm not the solipsist!
A chapter of The God Delusion is entitled "Why there is almost certainly no god". You see, that's enough. I don't need to lose sleep over the possibility that a winning lottery ticket might be blown into my hands by the wind and make me rich. Really... I don't.
When Paul the self-proclaimed Apostle lapsed back into his Epicurean upbringing, he wrote 1 Corinthians 13:11:
Put away your childish crave for absolute certainty, your childish fear of not knowing everything, your childish lack of understanding of probability, your childish horror of uncertainty. Think, and learn.
Over there it says...
Question #0: Does the God of the Bible exist in the first place?
As long as that question isn't answered with "yes" with sufficiently high probability, there is no point in asking question #1. There simply is no point. I mean, is it possible that the Flying Spaghetti Monster could reveal some things to us in such a way that we can know them for certain? And what about the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 1, 2010 10:24 AM
Eric, don't you have anything other than your totally refuted presupposition arguments? One would think you have the inability to reason. Making religion for delusional fools. Like an imaginary deity is needed for logic and reason. So F. the fallacious fool material. He just looked stoopid using it.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 1, 2010 10:25 AM
And, for a Hovind, that's all that matters! Just ask Eric's dad.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 1, 2010 10:28 AM
I refreshed the results page.
Posted by: MrFire
|
September 1, 2010 10:43 AM
erichovind @24:
Huh.
*puts on glove, sticks in arm up to the elbow*
Nope. No truth there. Just feces.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
September 1, 2010 10:47 AM
It's at 95% now.
Really, you would think he'd "get it" by now.
But I suppose this is what happens when your "science teacher" is Kent Hovind.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
September 1, 2010 11:03 AM
Oh, shut the fuck up, Hovind. You're like the barely-literate home-skooler rabid fundies that show up on my apostate forum. They never make a valid point, and every time they try to debate their silly arguments are laughed out of the room by people who use the fundies' own "holy" book against them. So, the fundies just come to lurk and offer witless driblets they think are sooooo brilliantly devastating, like the inanity you just proffered. Bunch of godbotting hyena hatched-agains. You fit that description.
Your religion is slowly dying, sucks for you. You and your disingenuous, parasitic ilk are Flintstones in a Jetsons world. Keep posting your inanity - it proves the worthlessness of your bronze-age dogma and it gives you something to do while your father is doing his best prom queen imitation in the federal penitentiary. Yeah, you and your felon daddy represent Christianity perfectly.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 1, 2010 11:11 AM
Dang, there are some smart people in this thread. Ericho isn't one of them.
Ericho has the delusion that atheists have no certainty. As usual, he is a mess. There is an underlying skepticism to atheism, but there are certainties in science, certainties that do not exist in religion, or are even claimed to be impossible by religion.
Take, as an example, the common science experiment of adding vinegar to baking soda. Carbon dioxide WILL result, every damned time. That is a surety, 100%. But in a religious person's world, there might be demons preventing the reaction, or some blessed thing--there is no certainty.
Look at the laws of motion. They state, although not in so many words, that there are no angels and demons keeping things moving or in place, that there is no need or want of matter to be anywhere--stuff just stays where it is, or keeps moving until it hits something--there is nothing but matter in motion, there is no supernatural power. And that is a certainty--it's the law.
Religious idiots like Ericho latch onto such laws, and claim that there must be a lawmaker. And of course the lawmaker is their snarly desert delusional despot. And their certainty.
But no. If there is a god, there would not be such a law as the laws of motion. Faith could move mountains, demons could poltergeist teapots, miracles could happen. Literally, all Hell could break loose.
Once magic is loose in the world, there is no certainty, Ericho.
In science, there are certain certainties. But there is also a healthy skepticism and openmindedness that leads to atheism.
There is not, in science or skepticism or atheism, a slobbering need for certainty that leads to the knee-crawling ass-licking of fictional deities or that justifies the burning alive of the majority of the human race but the god that allegedly created it.
Posted by: masturbating monkey
|
September 1, 2010 11:12 AM
I know it nothing I say would matter to someone who makes my family members look like geniuses. So instead, I'll just throw this feces your way.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 11:13 AM
Eric, would a just and loving God approve of your website being absolutely awful and full of malware?
It seems a lot of xian sites have that sort of shit on them.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 1, 2010 11:17 AM
@Shala:
*suddenly laughing my face off here*
Maybe it's because they think Jebus will protect them from malware XD
"Hello, I'm from Symantec. Would you like your website protected from ad-hijackers, malware drive-by-downloads, and denial of service attacks?"
"Sorry no. I pray to God and he'll keep my website clean."
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
September 1, 2010 11:19 AM
Well, then again, religions pretty much are mental malware...
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 11:27 AM
"Hello, I'm from Symantec. Would you like your website protected from ad-hijackers, malware drive-by-downloads, and denial of service attacks?"
Does that make Dawkins the equivalent of Norton? Oh, but he's so strident, removing all that bad software and advocating for separation of personal computers and malware!
"Sorry no. I pray to God and he'll keep my website clean."
It's like I'm really in a computer science class, only that requires copious amounts of alcohol instead of God.
Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9
|
September 1, 2010 11:27 AM
We should stop going to his site. There's only about 200 votes for god. Eric gets measly site traffic. Why improve his page views?
Posted by: Poor Wandering One
|
September 1, 2010 11:30 AM
The brave xian, witness to his faith, appears to have pulled the poll because he didn't like the results. Brave brave xian.
~will
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 1, 2010 11:31 AM
95% for "Um...He doesn't", Eric will not be pleased. So we can expect the poll results to be suddenly, er... 'edited' or for the poll to be abruptly closed anytime now?
erichovind @ 186;
You know what it would take to convince us; scientifically valid physical evidence for god. Assertions will not do, neither will theology or vague anecdotal accounts. Actual repeatable, scientific evidence. It is all we ask for, and yet it is never forthcoming.
I will offer you a deal. I (and, I suspect, many other atheists) will start taking you seriously (or at least stop laughing at you quite as much) as soon as you provide physical evidence* for god of a sufficient quality to satisfy the academic standards of scientific endeavour.
If you cannot provide such evidence, then you will never convince any rationalist. As Bertrand Russel's Cosmic Teapot demonstrates, the burden of proof rests with those making any assertion of deity.
* The curvature of bananas does not cut it. The evidence must be unambiguously beyond the capacity of science based upon a materialist, naturalistic presumption to explain. If there is a non-supernatural answer, then Occam's Razor takes any assertion of god out of the equation as an uneccessary addition.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 11:33 AM
Eric Hovind, I have scientific proof of your God.
However...
I HAVE CAPTURED YVHV AND I AM HOLDING HIM HOSTAGE
Are you a bad enough dude to rescue your deity?
I will provide photographic evidence if needed, but if you want YVHV back you must pay me $9999 (so that the government doesn't notice you borrowing just under the limit; like father like son).
REPLY IF YOU DARE, HOVIND!
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
September 1, 2010 11:33 AM
#210
If Hovind does what he did with the last poll that was Pharyngulated, he'll switch the poll options so that the results match what he wants the 95% to point to. Typical dishonest Christer. I won't be going back to his lame site and give him anymore "hits", since his site is apparently infected with malware that sent my web security software off. That, and I already know all the creationist lies. His kiddie site adds nothing new to the creo canard checklist.
Posted by: masturbating monkey
|
September 1, 2010 11:36 AM
Money is sad erichovind hasn't answered Usagichan in #97
Posted by: masturbating monkey
|
September 1, 2010 11:39 AM
Sorry... Monkey was thinking about the Hovind family and had a slip... didn't mean Money is sad... That's what the Hovind's worry about.
Posted by: JackC
|
September 1, 2010 11:48 AM
So Eric - I guess you don't wish to take me up on that issue of "certainty" then huh? Guess my certainty about it was pretty good then right?
Perhaps a different set of questions then:
Do you believe that God is the origin of All Things? Yes or no?
Do you believe that all things are possible with God? Yes or no?
That should be easy enough for you to answer.
JC
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 1, 2010 11:50 AM
erichovind @ 186;
In relation to claims of god, the null hypothesis must be that god does not exist. Arguing otherwise would require a fundamentally unscientific (and, indeed, anti-scientific) presuppositionalist assumption of the existence of a deity.
You cannot simply posit something so utterly opposed to all scientifically established knowledge of the universe as god as a fact, and then demand that science prove a negative (something that is widely recognised as being all but impossible). If such argument is to be accepted, then this 'logic' could equally be applied to the deities of any other religion and to all manner of other mythological creatures. Simply put, if this is the basis of your belief then you must necessarily also accept that your own logic requires that you confer equal belief in the existence of Cthulhu, the FSM and the Pink Quantum Unicorns.
If you want a superior standard of proof, then science is the only game in town, and your concept of god just does not measure up to the required standards of evidence.
Theists are the one's making the assertion of godhead. We are saying that we do not know with certainty, so we reserve belief until the claim is scientifically established. You do not know either, yet you choose to believe in something without proof essentially because it makes you feel better. We are living in a fashion that is wholly consistent with atheism. We will not profess belief in god without evidence of god. On the other hand, you have decided to abandon reason itself because you cannot accept that your favourite supestition is no more evidentially supported or rational than belief in the Tooth Fairy.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 1, 2010 11:50 AM
Shala @213:
Marry me.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 11:56 AM
Marry me.
Very well. We will dine on the flesh of the divine tonight, my dear!
(i hope you like crackers and cheese)
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 1, 2010 12:04 PM
Eric, I am sure that the sociopathic god that you preach does not exist.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 1, 2010 12:08 PM
Shala @ 220;
If you intend to wine and dine an atheist girl like Rutee properly then you need at least one dish containing well prepared baby-meat.
I recommend steamed or lightly fried.
Bible and Qur'an page napkins also add a touch of class...
:-)
Posted by: amc
|
September 1, 2010 12:10 PM
@erichovind
To answer your question, I'm 100% sure that god doesn't exist. I include Jesus, Osiris, and other fantasy characters in mymy definition of 'god'.
You claim that as soon as people die they'll begin spending eternity either in heaven or hell. Well guess what - eternity doesn't have a starting point.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/e61mRilms9AN937_emwgxcoti69CC8fY0IA-#f3236
|
September 1, 2010 12:11 PM
As of this writing, 96% for the "doesn't exist" result.
I love you guys so much.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
September 1, 2010 12:11 PM
Taking the analogy further does this make Bill Gates = God???Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 12:21 PM
Bible and Qur'an page napkins also add a touch of class...
I also can't forget the cups of filth, Babylon style, that we'll mix with the blood of Christ from the holy grail (kind of like mixing alcohol only this way we can claim Christ has a high BA level) and have a wonderful evening!
This is delicious!
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 1, 2010 12:34 PM
I am 100% certain that Kent Hovind is the most evil person that I have ever personally encountered. I went to one of his talks, at a church in Springfield, Missouri, and was only mildly horrified by his constant shilling of his books and tapes--it was a Baptist church, after all.
Then he spent a few minutes talking about how evolutionists are evil, mostly--and this was his favorite point--because they think that when people die they become nothing but "worm dirt". "Worm dirt" was his phrase, and he hammered it home.
Then, a few minutes later, he started blatting about the Flood, and all the people that died in it. He had, at some other point, a population graph that showed that a billion or so people drowned in the Flood. The bodies of the people that drowned in the Flood, he said, became the coal and oil underground. He then mimed putting gasoline into an automobile, and screamed, "So long, Grandpa! You should have listened to Noah!"
Everybody laughed long and hearty, Kent smiled big and happy, and I wrote "Evil" in my notebook, in bold, underlined three times.
He wasn't making a wry joke, he was cackling triumphantly and ridiculing the billion who died, and quite thrilled that their bodies had become nothing but gasoline.
There were other incidents, but that one was most memorable to me. The children laughing, Kent smiling, and my lunch rising in my throat.
Kent Hovind is the most evil man I have ever met.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 1, 2010 12:43 PM
@Menyambal:
Oh that's just sick. My mother (when we were homeschooled) gave us one of his videos to watch. It's so full of ignorance and stupidity that I can't believe I agreed with it.
My brother tried to pass along Kent Hovind's ideas as why the Earth is how it is and I had to suppress a roaring laugh because I've seen those points refuted.
Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
September 1, 2010 1:19 PM
Dear boy, I think you'll find that most here conduct their lives according to a basic hypothesis of knowledge derived from logical consideration of likely explanations of observed evidence, or rely upon peer-reviewed research done by others.
Can you please provide citation for your assertion: 'Wow, just as I suspected, a bunch of individuals living contrary to their own worldview! "We don't know, yet we know."'
Most here, in my understanding, do not base their 'knowledge' on a priori assumptions.
We have been monumentally patient with your foolish behaviour hitherto, but it is also the last straw that unleashes the atheist's ire.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 1, 2010 1:29 PM
If we drive his page views enough, is he running a DDoS attack on his own site?
Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
September 1, 2010 1:33 PM
KG #195
Nicely and logically put, can't pick it apart unless someone's modified the Theory of Descriptions when I've had my back turned.
Posted by: Yoav
|
September 1, 2010 1:49 PM
He doesn't is currently at 96% cue resetting or switch of question in 3 2 1....
Posted by: jaybgee
|
September 1, 2010 1:49 PM
@Ichthyic #60
why not fuck off and die, troll?
I know this is from way upthread. I'm not a troll, mostly a lurker, and I'm sorry if I sounded like one. I just don't understand what was so wrong about what I said and why it warranted such a harsh reaction. (Plus I think I remember this being suggested before on another poll pharyngulating thread and no one jumped down their throat for it, so I was really surprised by the response.) I suggested voting to make all the choices equal only so that it would be even more pointless if Hovind chose to change the question or answers like he did last time.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
September 1, 2010 1:53 PM
I hope that everyone who has a blog is outing Eric Hovind as a cheat and a liar, using the screen captures that one of us must have for proof.
Otherwise, forget his polls! Or vote them so they're always 50.1 to 49.9 so there's no point in rewriting the damn questions and yet no overwhelming evidence in support of superstition.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 1, 2010 1:56 PM
Interesting possibility, jaybgee. I don't see it as being as good as documenting that he made changes, though. If all answers came out even, he could still make publicity milage out of that without changing anything.
Posted by: jaybgee
|
September 1, 2010 2:09 PM
I forget there are ways to record what he's done. Are there caches of web pages each time there's an update, or is it only recorded periodically?
Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
September 1, 2010 2:44 PM
Deprogrammed #203 and others,
Can we please accept that whatever his Dad did is not his responsibility because either:
A. The sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons down even unto the third and fourth generation. Yes, fits in neatly with the concept of original sin, also the wee boy's good book, but we don't subscribe to such nonsense, do we?
B. Somebody, and I cannot for the life of me remember who, once said that 'Nervous Breakdowns are genetic in origin, we get them from our children'.
Either way, we don't need to play nice, but the application of Occam's Razor should dissuade us from being unpleasant to him simply because of perceived faults in his blood relations.
We have logic on our side, we have no need to be unnecessarily nasty.
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 2:51 PM
Percival, the problem I see with that is that Eric is running his father's business of Lying for Jesus. He may be morally better than his father (afaik he's not a criminal other than lying to children), but it's still enough to point and laugh.
Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
September 1, 2010 3:03 PM
Forget Rutee, marry me instead dear boy/girl!
Doesn't do it for me though. He may have an illogical sense of entitlement, but we can only cricise him for his overt idiocy, I think.
Posted by: molto legato e sostenuto
|
September 1, 2010 3:40 PM
I wonder if erichovind can explain to me why his website contains malicious software which is blocked by Kaspersky.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
September 1, 2010 3:44 PM
Dammit. Beaten to the joke. Twice.
(Don't post before reading. Don't post before reading. Don't post before reading. Don't post before reading. Don't post before reading.)
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
September 1, 2010 4:08 PM
Franklin Percival #237
Hovind Junior gets no exemption from mockery simply because he's outside the prison. Junior is a lying delusional idiot like his father. His delusions, and the delusions of people like him, do serious harm to the mental health and the educational and constitutional stability in this country. Why should I cut this religious loon any slack in any way shape or form? Fuck off and get off your high horse.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 1, 2010 4:24 PM
Franklin Percival #237, the junior Hovind is in the same business as his father, has taken over his father's work, publicly supports his father's crime, is of the same religion and of the same genetics.
That religion does say that the sins of the fathers, etc, so we are just doing unto him as he wishes to be done to.
Not that I was deliberately tarring Ericho with his father's brush when I denounced Brother Kent. I just despise Doc Dino, and used that as an example of something that I was 100% sure of.
And that stuff I was babbling earlier about me being denied the congregation of the Lord, that was about the sins of my fathers. So it is personal and proper, as far as I am concerned.
But, hey, if Ericho is offended, he can imagine us all frying in Hell.
Not that you don't have a point, Franklin Percival. I just choose to berate them both with one stone.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 4:28 PM
just paste the address " drdino.com " directly into your browser.
strangely this sounded like a command to pith myself.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
September 1, 2010 4:40 PM
Not only is Daddy Hovind a convicted felon, Mommy Hovind is one also. She served one year (less time remitted for good behavior) and is presently on probation after conviction of tax evasion and fraud.
Posted by: Free Thinker
|
September 1, 2010 4:43 PM
I just voted and it read that 96% out of 7,063 votes (6,786) said "Ummm....He doesn't". Lol! Where are his supporters????
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
September 1, 2010 4:48 PM
'Mr' Dino. Obviously...
Posted by: jennie.erwin
|
September 1, 2010 4:53 PM
6,820 now. :-D
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 1, 2010 5:43 PM
ffs, we covered that last time! No! (Link goes back to last thread because this has been adequately answered) "Cogito, ergo sum" (Link goes back to last thread because this has been adequately answered). Can't comment there, the comment section has closed. Best you're going to get is me linking to the answers I already provided over a month ago that Eric was *supposed* to be trying to understand. Here I was thinking he was actually interested in those answers...Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 1, 2010 5:50 PM
I think you missed what I was saying, it was about those who say that the God of the Bible is logically impossible. I want to know where biblically they get those parameters.I'm of the position that certainty isn't something that we can aspire to in anything beyond logic, mathematics and the cogito. Beyond that it's flawed knowledge, but that's okay. I don't need to rule out the God of the Bible 100%, I just have no reasons to rule the God of the Bible in. The burden of proof is not mine...
Posted by: Paul Burnett
|
September 1, 2010 5:53 PM
Eric, we have several proofs that a merciful God exists:
Your dad is in prison
Ann Coulter had her jaws wired shut for a few days a while ago
Your dad is in prison
Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy are dead
Your dad is in prison
Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart have been revealed as pious frauds
Your dad is in prison
Posted by: JackC
|
September 1, 2010 6:33 PM
That is, without doubt, the COOLEST thing I have heard all day!
Is there any way we can make it permanent?
JC
Posted by: JackC
|
September 1, 2010 6:36 PM
Re Coulter's Jaw: aww hell - that was 2008. You just know that the good news can't last around here.
I read "for a few days awhile ago" as "a few days ago". My bad. Back to drinking for me....
JC
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel
|
September 1, 2010 7:06 PM
Really? 253 comments and nobody caught "Don't Supress The Truth"?
Posted by: KG
|
September 1, 2010 7:21 PM
Kel, OM,
I'd say the God of the Bible is impossible because he's described in completely incompatible ways in different bits of the Bible. For example, the God of Genesis is clearly a fairly anthropomorphic sort of fellow, who makes Adam "in his own image", has to ask Adam "Where are thou?", and has to be told who has done what, while the God of later books is pure spirit and knows everything.
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
September 1, 2010 7:38 PM
Very good point, KG!
There is no such thing as "the God of the Bible". That phrase is one of the things that Christians use to sneak a whole bunch of assumptions into a discussion. And a set of movable goalposts, too.
Some of the time the God of Genesis refers to itself in the plural, no?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 1, 2010 7:48 PM
If the god of the babble existed, Eric would be telling us where to find the physical evidence of say the eternally burning bush, and the evidence to show a one-time all world flud in the geographical column. Since physical evidence for a deity appears very slim, and we would say non-existent, he has to try an inane philosophical presupposition argument. Presupposition arguments are for losers since they have no logic, reason, or evidence, which appears to cover Eric quite nicely.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmd0JQT5RGH9tw98hgR4Au80-RC1x_9wWY
|
September 1, 2010 7:51 PM
@ erichovind #24
You fucking jeezoids crack me up. Hey, check out this video of "god's creation" in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVE60zwXx1k
Now Eric, while you're watching, do try to keep in mind, that around here, YOU'RE the frog.
--fireweaver
Posted by: HughWillRidmee
|
September 1, 2010 7:53 PM
How do we know God exists? (Watch video)
Um...He doesn't (96%, 7,327 Votes)Without Him we can't know anything (2%, 177 Votes)Examined evidence (2%, 106 Votes)Total Voters: 7,610
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
September 1, 2010 8:34 PM
Menyambal wrote:
Indeed - well, not a consistent one at least; the god character seems to fluctuate wildly in power and personality throughout the stories.
At some points he's omnipotent but at others he isn't - he needs six days to create the world rather than just being able to will it into existence; similarly, when it comes to the Flood, he's been diminished in power even further and can pretty much only manage communicating with Noah and making it rain a lot - not really all that impressive as godlike powers go, since any god worth his salt (just ask Lot's wife - ha!) would have just poofed everything he didn't like out of existence and poofed in a shiny new world - which seems a whole lot more efficient and practical than subjecting Noah & co. to a nightmarish few months of shovelling animal shit and keeping the carnivores distracted.
Oh, and not to mention the awesome power of a fully operational
Death Stariron chariot.Personality he's even worse - at one point he's all for genocide and infanticide and slavery and oppression and other truly vile acts of unjust monstrosity; then, all of a sudden, he loves us so much he sends himself (or part of himself, or someone representing himself; no-one seems to know for sure) to
die horriblybe temporarily inconvenienced in order to allow himself to forgive humanity for doing exactly what he created them to do. Again.Really, if the bible was marketed as a one of those collections of short stories on a common theme then it'd make a whole lot more sense. As it is, God comes off as being mindbogglingly inconsistent - not exactly something you'd imagine an omnipotent creator being to be.
Posted by: JackC
|
September 1, 2010 10:35 PM
OK - I am out. Erick the Ho has chosen to not take up the challenge, presumably because he lacks the courage of his convictions - or at least the Courage of his Con Fictions. Either that or he is an entire half a world away from me, which is possible, I suppose.
In any event, I am wiped, can no longer keep my head up and am too full of some lovely Old Fashioneds to maintain my vigil. If he actually shows up and takes up my challenge, I will respond on the morrow (for me).
Night all. (and yes, they WERE made with rye, thank you for asking)
JC
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 1, 2010 10:45 PM
Wait, we all come down on virtually certain 99% and Hovind says we're being inconsistent? Did he just read off the script and ignore reality?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
September 1, 2010 10:46 PM
Wowbagger, OM:
God comes off as a Sociopath who wants to play Daddy but fuck you on the side.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
September 1, 2010 10:49 PM
Did he just read off the script and ignore reality?
*doubletake*
did you really just ask that question?
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
September 1, 2010 11:13 PM
If erichovind is so concerned with degrees of uncertainty, why didn't he put in his poll any questions an agnostic could agree with?
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 1, 2010 11:21 PM
How can you tell a Hovind is lying?
Their cash registers are ringing.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
September 1, 2010 11:25 PM
Caine @264
May I relate that from time to time? All due credit of course.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
September 1, 2010 11:27 PM
Ah, that would have to be 263. Numbers should be my strong point.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 2, 2010 4:02 AM
You're right KG, but in that respect all one has to do is drop the literal pretence and those problems go away. It's really not that hard to see that such a conception of God is bogus, if you take a literal interpretation then you have to contend with a talking snake. Is this Harry Potter? Surely by this stage we realise that if we're getting talking snakes that we're probably the wrong message home.Nonetheless, I'm still baffled how can claim "The God Of The Bible" is logically contradictory in the sense that it is Omnipotent and Omniscient and those two qualities are incompatible when really those attributes come not from The Bible but philosophical musings.
This is trivially true, and not very helpful. While there are a range of conceptions, there are still some definable qualities that come with reference to a Christian conception of God.Posted by: Shala
|
September 2, 2010 6:25 AM
God comes off as a Sociopath who wants to play Daddy but fuck you on the side.
So he's kind of like the omnipotent version of one of his priests?
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
September 2, 2010 8:43 AM
WowbaggerOM wrote:
That's pretty much what some liberal Christians do; they'll describe it as "documenting people's experiences of God during a millennium" or the like.
(One'd like to ask why they care more for these particular people's experience than that of, say Muhammad, Plotinus, Charles Manson, or, indeed, Kent Hovind, but I've never got the opportunity. One suspects some sort of new-agey waffling about what's "true for me".)
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
September 2, 2010 8:53 AM
Kel, OM, wrote:
Plenty of people believe in sillier things today. Whether or not the author of that particular vignette thought he was writing something we'd recoginze as history or not, it doesn't seem safe to assume he'd reject the notion of talking snakes as unrealistic.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
September 2, 2010 9:01 AM
@Shala:
Ow... coffee doesn't go down that tube! Mustn't drink while reading Pharyngula.
Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
September 2, 2010 9:34 AM
Sod Numbers, stick to Deuteronomy.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
September 2, 2010 6:03 PM
Indeed, however that's not really an argument against looking at absurdity. I'd be sure that most people with even the most basic education would be able to recognise that only humans talk. You don't have to have a great education or be a great thinker to understand that something with a talking snake isn't an realistic description of reality.I thought we were talking about those who have decided the author was God. But in terms of authorship by a mortal, does it really matter whether the author thought it was historical or not? We recognise it today as a creation story - something that's part of every culture. We are a story-telling ape, it doesn't matter whether the author thinks he was writing something historical (of course there was no historical event to write about - it's pure imagination) because we know that it can't be history any more than the Aztec or the Aboriginal creation stories.Posted by: bombria
|
September 2, 2010 8:42 PM
"Too bad common sense is rare, for it and the Bible tell us—with evidence all around—that there is a Creator of the universe! Article: They Say, We Say: Evidence of the Obvious Download this episode in high quality for just $9.95"
At $9.95 a pop, I would think they are happy that common sense is rare.
Posted by: humanistic-rabbi-jeff
|
September 3, 2010 2:29 PM
Our side is now winning by thousands of votes! It doesn't mean anything except that he's got a pretty small audience!
Posted by: CJO
|
September 3, 2010 2:49 PM
Whether or not the author of that particular vignette thought he was writing something we'd recoginze as history or not, it doesn't seem safe to assume he'd reject the notion of talking snakes as unrealistic.
I think it is safe. Whoever he was, however many snakes he came across, he never saw one speak. The literature collected into what we call the bible was written by and for people for whom God was silent, just as he is for us today (being, as we understand, non-existent). Miracles are consigned to the mythic past, which is an artifact of a view of time and the past we can no longer internalize, as empirical, rational worldviews see time as continuous and employ a principle of continuity to the workings of the universe. As today, so in the past. Ancient people didn't see it this way. What they understood to be impossible in their own time was not ridiculous when represented as occuring in a lost Golden Age, when God appeared personally to great patriarchs and prophets like Abraham, Moses, and Elijah, or at the dawn of time, in Eden. Ancient people were not unable to discern the function of a story, but they had a more fluid sense of what could possibly have occurrred in the past because they didn't see time over long scales as continuous.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlilp9Eepzb7HACfNkzQ8JEHNtOahPR5N0
|
September 3, 2010 6:47 PM
Look everyone, a real Hovind (#24). Wow, I've never seen a real one in the wild before. I've heard the adults do defrauding and live in jails while the juveniles mostly just lie and an old book or something. Quick, point and laugh before it starts lying, it's the best defence.