an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Eric Hovind’s New Years Resolutions for Atheist

“Honk! Honk! Honk! Affirm absolutely that there is no such thing as absolutes! Honk! Honk!”

 
Crikey! Eric Hovind hasn’t half written a pile of dogshit this week!! Let’s go through it point by point! (As Reynold so rightly points out in the comments, we have to address it here, as Eric has ‘forgotten’ to enable comments on his blog!)

Ready?

AS A DEVOUT ATHEIST, FOR THE YEAR 2012, I WILL ALWAYS ENDEAVOR TO CONTINUOUSLY…

Strap yourself in, here we go…..

…discover new and exciting ways to tell people that it’s wrong to tell people that they’re wrong about things.

Point one makes almost no sense at all, tell people it’s wrong to tell people that they’re wrong? What?? 

…affirm absolutely that there is no such thing as absolutes!

Really? Sometimes language and logic can get a little tricky, Eric…I’m not surprised that you don’t understand though

…design intelligent arguments to prove that intelligent design doesn’t exist.

Ah, I see what you’ve done there! You’ve talked shit! Eric, just because I can design an argument doesn’t automatically mean that ID is a real thing!

…proclaim that everyone is always right about everything all of the time (except for the Christians, of course).

I don’t know any atheists who do this. Personally I think a lot of people are wrong about a lot of things a lot of the time. The only thing that doesn’t change is reality itself – if what you preach doesn’t match reality (as in the physical universe and things in it) then you are wrong. Understand?

…invest more time and energy, of my preciously short life on this planet, constructing arguments to oppose those who waste their time believing in imaginary things.

Cos maybe, by pointing out the bullshit that you lot preach on a regular basis, we’ll rescue some of the fence sitters from losing their only life to the lie of religion

…attempt to write an inerrant ‘holy’ book (yet again) about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Nope, don’t know anyone who is trying to do this. Strawman argument

…stick my head in a microwave until I can develop a ‘beneficial mutation’.

Nope, don’t know anyone who understand evolution who would do this either. Another strawman

…complain loudly and obnoxiously when Christians won’t let me post vulgarities and hate speech on their youtube channels.

Nope, again I don’t know anyone who does this. Strawman number three.

…be offended by the very idea of a God who judges His Creation, but yet I will enthusiastically support and encourage the American government in their practice of punishing criminals and evil-doers.

Again, nope. I don’t enthusiastically support and encourage the American government, and I don’t know anyone else who does either. Funnily enough though, the Bible commands YOU to obey the ruler of the land you live in! As for being offended by your god, it’s impossible to be offended by something that doesn’t exist…I am offended by people like you who enthusiastically cheer lead for such a nasty fictional character. 

…believe that there is no such thing as a heaven. But, if there was, everybody gets to go there (except for Hitler, Manson and a couple of other really, really, REALLY bad people).

Nope, I don’t know anyone who thinks that either. Strawman number four

…assert that the Bible was written by man and, therefore, cannot be taken seriously. Instead, I will blindly trust every single thing EVER written and/or said by Richard Dawkins, Thunderfoot, Eugenie Scott, the Amazing Atheist, or any other yahoo out there who hates Christianity as much as I do.

Sigh. Nope, I don’t know anyone who does that either. Strawman number five

…follow things that absolutely make no sense in the historical and philosophical framework from a point of view that is self defeating in order to indulge myself in things that are ultimately damaging to myself and others, not to mention destroy the “moral” framework of the humanistic philosophy I love to try and follow (which is also self defeating).

Try and rewrite that in english, Eric, and we’ll come back to it another time.

…allow my willing ignorance and suppression of the truth to anger Christians to the point that they become unfruitful and waste their time trying to prove to me intellectually that God exsists and if they do prove it, then my faith will stand in the Wisdom of men and not in the” power of God.” (win/win)

Ah, so you finally admit that the many hours you spent trying to convince Jim and I that you god is the prerequisite for all knowledge was a waste of time! Very big of you! Got to take issue with your statement about ‘willing suppression of the truth’ though, that’s just horseshit.

…take hypocritical offense at perceived wrongs while denying the existence of the One who defines right and wrong.

So let me get this straight, I’m not allowed to think you’re a douchebag when you act like one (which is, let’s be honest here, all the fucking time) UNLESS I believe in your invisible sky buddy? Ridiculous!

…make sure not to read the Bible again this year for fear that it may actually begin to make some sort of sense.

I’ve read the Bible several times, from cover to cover, and most of the atheists I know have also done so. In fact, it was that reading of the Bible that started me down the path to non-belief! Ironic, no?

…NEVER leave my seat at this computer in my mother’s basement!

Oh, that’s weird, I thought I was in a first floor apartment sitting next to my wife! 

Seriously Eric, you come across like a total wank.

(Thanks for Ben from Canada for the idea of Eric as a performing Sea lion)

Single Post Navigation

29 thoughts on “Eric Hovind’s New Years Resolutions for Atheist

  1. I read Eric's part as seals barking, then clapping their fins, then repeating. Strangely, that would be more intelligent than what he actually posted.

  2. What pissed me off about this? Eric's blog doesn't seem to allow comments on it. We have to go to other places, like here, to point out the flaws to him.As for Eric's intelligence, I think he's just dishonest like his father.

  3. Yeah, I'd meant to mention that, but forgot as I ragetyped!

  4. Eric's attempted satire seems to missing a key element essential to it's success: Truth. Eric sarcastically writes that: "AS A DEVOUT ATHEIST… [HE] WILL ALWAYS ENDEAVOR TO CONTINUOUSLY… affirm absolutely that there is no such thing as absolutes!"This remark seems curious to me. Rather than attributing this to atheists — especially those of us who hold rational worldviews and who, in fact, do affirm absolutes — doesn't Eric's remark reek of something that he, as a Christian, should use in a satirization of Christianity? Let's look at what some Christian spokespeople have said, to find out why I might think such a thing. First, from Cornelius Van Til:"God may at any time take one fact and set it into a new relation to created law. That is, there is no inherent reason in the facts or laws themselves why this should not be done. It is this sort of conception of the relation of facts and laws, of the temporal one and many, embedded as it is in that idea of Go in which we profess to believe, that we need in order to make room for miracles. And miracles are at the heart of the Christian position." (The Defense of the Faith, p. 27)Next up, is apologist Brian Knapp, whose comment on "abolute[s]" as it pertains to the uniformity of nature, was addressed by Dawson Bethrick in his blog entry, "Bolt’s Pile of Knapp, Pt. 4," (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/03/bolts-pile-of-knapp-pt-4.html). Dawson writes: "In his essay “Induction and the Unbeliever,” for instance, Brian Knapp sought to defend Christianity against the objection of “the possibility of [miracles] presenting a challenge to the Christian’s claim that induction presupposes Christianity” (The Portable Presuppositionalist, p. 139) on the basis that such an argument would be “sound only if [Christian theism] assumes that nature is absolutely uniform, which it does not” (Ibid., p. 140). According to two Christian spokespeople, it is *not* an absolute that nature is uniform. I wonder if Eric is aware of these quotes? (continued)

  5. Dawson continues:"In other words, on the Christian view, nature is not inherently uniform; any uniformity which nature happens to exhibit is put there by some force “outside” of nature, by means of intentional activity on the part of a supernatural consciousness, which can only mean one thing: that nature is inherently non-uniform on the Christian view. The most that Christians affirming this view could say is, not that nature is uniform, but the way in which their god manages it is uniform. But even this would compromise the Christian doctrine of miracles, so – following Knapp – Christians would have to add the caveat that the way their god manages nature is not absolutely uniform: sometimes it departs from its “normal” ways of managing nature in order to exercise abnormal “procedures” for some purpose or another. So yes, presuppositionalists do in fact deny the uniformity of nature, and they provide no convincing explanation for how they could know how their god will manage its creation from moment to moment. Knapp even admits that man does not know this. The upshot of all this can only mean that the Christian does not and cannot consistently affirm that nature is uniform because his worldview is at odds with it in principle. In Christianity, the uniformity of nature is sacrificed on the altar of the doctrine of miracles, for – as Van Til exclaims – “miracles are at the heart of the Christian position.” Knapp himself hastens to tell us that Christian does not affirm that is absolutely uniform, which is just to say that nature is not really uniform at all to begin with. A supernatural form of consciousness is need to make nature uniform."Perhaps for the year 2013, Eric can write a different set of resolutions satirizing atheists. If he does, perhaps my little reminder here has helped to lift the fog of faith that, this year, seems to have prevented him from recognizing that humor works so much better if it's based on truth. Ydemoc

  6. Ydemoc you sure your senses are not fooling you again?

  7. Trinity,Fooling me "again"? Please, I would love to hear your account of my senses fooling me for the **first time**. Proceed to tell me where, when and how this happened. After you get done telling everyone how my senses fooled me for the first time, tell me how my senses are being fooled as it pertains to what I've written above. After you do this, please explain how the senses can fool anybody. Please try to do this without using stolen concepts — oh, and your senses.Here's a little something to get you started: "…man's 'senses cannot deceive him, that physical objects cannot act without causes, that his organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or distort, that the evidence they give him is an absolute, but his mind must learn to understand it, his mind must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of his sensory material, his mind must identify the things that he perceives.' [Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, p. 957.]Common attacks against the validity of the senses often include pencils which appear "bent" when placed in a glass of water. But such attacks themselves must assume the validity of the sensation, for how else would one know that a pencil is actually straight in the first place? The fact that we perceive what appears to be a distortion in the pencil's shape only testifies that perception provides a "full context" of data, including light refraction, of the objects we perceive. The context of our perception, however, once we get to the conceptual level of consciousness, can be accepted or rejected in the formation of our ideas and concepts.That man can gain knowledge through his perception while not being able to "empirically observe that he can have knowledge through empirical observation," is not problematic for Objectivism. As Dr. Harry Binswanger argues:'The processing that underlies perception is neurophysiological and nonintrospectible. When a child sees a table, he is unaware of the neurophysiological processes, from the retina on up, that make the percept [of the table] possible, and he had no choice in the control over the development of those processes; the percept is for him a direct "given" rather than the product of inference or interpretation. We learn of the existence of sensory processes only extrospectively, by scientific investigation.' [Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation, (Oceanside, CA: Second Renaissance Books, 1991), p. 8.] The perceptual level of man's consciousness, on one hand, is not a volitional form of consciousness. Man cannot choose to feel pleasure when he passes his finger through a flame any more than he can choose to see Michelangelo's David in place of Munch's The Scream. Man's conceptual faculty, on the other hand, is volitional in nature, as it can be directed by conscious self-regulation and involves an act of selection from among the data he perceives."(The material quoted above comes from "An Introductory Critique of Presuppositionalism," Anton Thorn, http://www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/1019/Morgue/Harrison.htm) ———————I really, really look forward to your response, Trinity.Ydemoc

  8. blah blah blah how is it that your senses are not fooling you again?

  9. Trinity wrote: "blah blah blah how is it that your senses are not fooling you again?" Did you see what I wrote above?Ydemoc

  10. I don't care what you wrote above. We already know that your senses have giving you false information in the past so how is that they are not now?

  11. Trinity wrote: "I don't care what you wrote above."But did you see it? Were you made aware that I wrote it? Did you check to see if what I told you (i.e., that I wrote something) matched what you perceived? Or did you choose to evade it, by not reading it?Trinity wrote: "We already know that your senses have giving you false information in the past so how is that they are not now?"Trinity, are your senses giving you false information about how to spell and use proper grammar? Or are your senses working and is perception providing your brain with information, while it is your mind that appears not to be properly identifying and integrating the objects (or in your case, the lessons) of your perception?And guess whose fault this is: Not your senses. Ydemoc

  12. Trinity,The fog of faith has forced you into fallacy upon fallacy. Your whole system is simply:Believe first. Now find support for my belief. Believe first. Now rationalize my belief. Believe first. Now ignore all evidence that contradicts that which I didn't accept on the basis of evidence in the first place. Believe first. Now use reason to support this belief, even though it is the antithesis of reason. Believe first. Even though belief is not certainty.Believe first. Even though believing doesn't make it so.Believe first. Even though facts are facts no matter what you believe.Believe first. Even though believing can be no basis for knowledge.Believe first. Even though you really didn't know what you were believing in, and still don't.Believe first. Even thought existence, consciousness, identity, and the primacy of existence would have to obtain prior to any belief of any kind.Ydemoc

  13. More evasion that's fine you can't hide the truth.

  14. Trinity wrote: "More evasion.."I addressed you in detail. What I presented was absolutely not evasive, as is quite plain to see. You just can't deal with the fact that what you worship is absolutely not plain to see because it is imaginary. Trinity continues: "…that's fine…"It being fine or not fine has nothing to do with it. I was not evasive. That's a fact.Trinity continues: "… you can't hide the truth."Nor have I tried to. You can see for yourself in what I've written above. But what's funny about this statement of yours, besides it being a such a cliche', is that you would probably claim that your god is "truth," yet it's your god that stays hidden. See the "POOF"?Ydemoc

  15. Trinity,Did you see what I wrote?Ydemoc

  16. I don't care about what you wrote.In other words, and in spite of the evidence, you are claiming that your senses have never giving you false information?

  17. Trinity wrote: "I don't care about what you wrote."And I don't care if you care what I wrote (or presented). I'm simply asking you: Did you see what I wrote? Did you observe paragraph after paragraph, even though you didn't read it? It's really a simple question.Ydemoc

  18. I'm not reading anything you write or anything you post from Dawson I couldn't care less.it's fine your evasion, refusal and silence says it all.

  19. Trinity wrote: "I'm not reading anything you write or anything you post from Dawson I couldn't care less."I know this. But did you see it?Trinity wrote: "…it's fine your evasion, refusal and silence says it all."You characterization is false. But even if it were true it has no bearing on the question I'm asking: Did you see what Dawson wrote? Do you see what I'm writing right now?Oh, a few more questions: Does what I've written exist whether you want it to or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you perceive it or not, whether you know it or not?Ydemoc

  20. I don't talk to fools.

  21. Trinity wrote: "I don't talk to fools."Then don't ever pray alone and aloud, because there is no one there but you.Ydemoc

  22. Hezekiah:     " don't talk to fools."     The fool here is yourself. But that's okay because your evasion and silence say it all.

  23. Now you are begging the question Pv isn't it amazing. Pv guilty of the same fallacious reason he wants to charge others with. Good Job

  24.      Hezekiah needs to learn to get his fallacies straight. As I offered neither an argument, nor a purported "proof," begging the question was impossible. What I did was state a fact, once that I recognize is inconvenient to Hezekiah.

  25. That's the point in question Pv so yea your begging the question.

  26. Hezekiah:     The people here can look at your responses and recognize that my assertion is correct. But since (by your standards) you are only "poisoning the well," I wouldn't even try to get you to agree that grass is green.

  27. Pv anyday now with that argument

  28. I tweeted to Eric (even though it is blocked) that his New Year's Resolution should be to do better research after he tweeted about being Archaeopteryx being a fake and deleting the tweet.

  29. Hezekiah AhazI've not seen this asked of you before (which I honestly find surprisingly odd), are you a Poe?~Mex

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: