an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Hezekiah Ahaz Speaks!!

http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2012-03-30_episode_41__hezekiah_ahaz_special.mp3

 

ENJOY!!

Single Post Navigation

40 thoughts on “Hezekiah Ahaz Speaks!!

  1. reynoldhall on said:

    Hopefully you had an easier time getting him to deal with your points than I am having.

    I’m downloading and will be listening to the last few podcasts so it’ll be a while.

  2. he sounds like a teenager and about as inarticulate as I would have expected. To this day he still does not understand that a concept and it’s referent are not the same thing, he still does not understand that the concept identity applies to everything including actions over time. Still does not understand the nature of concepts and their relationships to each other. And…. he still does not value error correction or doubt as a virtue.

  3. I’m listening back, and he’s worse than I remembered! Wow.

  4. I couldn’t actually bring myself to listen to the entire thing, and skipped ahead a few times. The argument of induction vs deduction was pretty amusing though.

    “There’s a difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.”

    “No shit.”

    lmfao

  5. BathTub on said:

    Wow. He barely answered anything. at all.

  6. Reasonable Sanity on said:

    he got really tied up on inductive and deductive logic. when trying to provide his knowledge of each, he started with inductive and finished with saying you can deduce…; ooops. then another point he failed on was where he talked of disbelievers. According to PA, everyone believes (because everyone has knowledge of god [sic]), but atheists choose to suppress the knowledge. Um, or as Sye would say, erm, FAIL.

    Jim was actually incorrect in his statement that the scientific method is based on deduction rather than deduction. An inductive approach is one based on probability, whereas a deductive approach is one based on the truth of the premises. Jim stated that you observe phenomena then deduce from the evidence, but actually, one induces from the evidence based on probability. The argument HA was trying to make is moot, however, because of the uniformity of nature. This is what makes induction possible. If nature were not uniform, or if we believed that magic beings controlled the universe, then induction is not possible. The point HA was wanting to make is that nature is uniform because some magic being is controlling it and making it uniform. However, this presents many problems because, even in the bible, god [sic] intervened in natural events (such as stopping the earth from rotating, even making it rotate backwards; making animals converse in human languages; flooding an entire earth with no trace of this flood, nor any answer as to where the water has gone; etc.). Atheists don’t have to account for nature’s uniformity, because that is one of its properties. Everything, right down to the pieces of an atom, obeys certain physical/chemical laws.

    Anyway, it was a good show. Lots of things thrown out for discussion, and trying to keep HA on topic proved as hard to do verbally, as it is in written form. He is much younger sounding than I expected! Which, to me, explains his posts!

  7. Reasonable Sanity on said:

    Jim was actually incorrect in his statement that the scientific method is based on deduction rather than INDUCTION.

    Made a mistake. Typed the correction in all caps.

  8. Phlegon on said:

    I’m currently listening to this podcast – Hezekiah is nearly incoherent. He states at one point that circularity equates to irrationality…. Yet this is the basis presuppositionalism…

  9. Ydemoc on said:

    As I’ve written elsewhere (and I think even Jim or Alex mentioned this on the podcast) Hezekiah seems like a pleasant enough chap. But I felt bad for him at times, (he had a tough job… defending the indefensible… trying to make the arbitrary come true) and thought it mighty charitable of Paul Baird to chime near the end in an effort to help him with his struggles.

    At least his appearance has inspired me to stop calling him “Trinity” — for whatever that’s worth.

    Ydemoc

  10. Hey Ydemoc, did you catch that Hezekiah wants to have a skype discussion with me. I am game, but frankly dont know what it would accomplish.

  11. Listening through it, it sounds like the exact same argument I and others were having with him on his blog. He never answers any questions or presents any evidence, he just throws out random nonsense questions that have been answered for him multiple times.

    I almost couldn’t listen through all of it, it’s so frustrating. I honestly don’t know how you guys went through a two hour discussion with him without your brains exploding. You all show a mental fortitude much greater than my own, and I tip my hat to you.

  12. Holy balls; I’m thirteen minutes in and Hezekiah’s confused word salad is driving me nuts. His confidence far outweighs his abilities.

    Thanks for trying guys.

  13. Forgive me, if this doesn’t belong here. Will happily delete the comment if it doesn’t.

    I’ve literally just had an argument with him spanning the entirety of the day. The idea of the argument was to get him to focus on a single subject – whether or not his beliefs are paradoxical, and provide evidence or logical proof stating that his beliefs actually make sense.

    Over the course of at least twelve hours, I literally got nothing but a handful of ‘are you real? is your imagination real? Your logic is circular, but before I tell you how it’s circular, you first have to prove that you’re real.”

    I don’t think anyone is going to be explaining or proving anything to him any time soon, nor do I think that he’s going to be converting anyone any time soon. He’s just…confusing, and frustrating.

    • Alex Botten on said:

      It’s almost like he’s deliberately trolling, isn’t it?

      • freddies_dead on said:

        It’s all he has left after his worldview has been shown to be utter nonsense.

    • Steven S. on said:

      That’s HA all right; I went around and around with him quite a few times, until I gave up as “not worth my time”. He admits, when pressed, that his definitions presuppose God, and therefore nothing without God will fulfill his requests — making them pointless to use in discussion.

  14. Alex, Alex, let me finish. It’s like I was saying before…

    Do all these guys have a script?
    1)Use host’s name repeatedly and before every statement
    2)Accuse host of taking your words out of context
    3)Accuse host of missing the point
    4)Assert that you have already made that assertion
    5)Plead to be allowed to lay out a false argument with no interruption or interrogation
    6)Repeat

    There must be a manual they are working from as I have heard this on several different podcasts that featured interviews with amateur apologists.

    • I think they just assume that is how one debates.

      • After watching Eric Hovind “debate” Thunderf00t at the Reason Rally, I am convinced you are correct. Hovind sounded like a slightly better rehearsed Hezekiah. Both like to take hypotheticals “Hey, let’s assume I believe in god” and then suddenly proclaim that “Stamped it, locked it, no erasies, you believe in god! Neener neener!” It’s truly stunning to watch and listen to that kind of willful deception and intellectual dishonesty. They’re like really bad telemarketers after you call them on their bullshit. They can’t go off script and act offended when called out.

  15. It seems that you people aren’t the only ones who aren’t impressed with Hezekiah.

    • I’m actually from there. I heard about Hezekiah through the forums, saw his usual debate tactic through his argument with Neith, wanted to see if he was really as nonsensical as he looked.

      Quite a few of the people debating him over the past few days – me, Neith, Bryan, Jake, Vormir, and Otend, were all from there…I wasn’t exactly kidding when I said that he had a forum laughing at him. He’s also been quoted on the main site.

      All I can really say is, while he isn’t the most insane person I’ve encountered, he’s pretty high up there.

      • @Miles

        I have been dealing with Hezekiah Ahaz since before he had that handle back in mid 2011, and yes he is bat shit crazy. This guy told me in no uncertain terms once that it was better to be a conformer to some dogma (preferably his obvious) then it was to be a seeker of truth.

      • Have to say, dealing with him for that long, you deserve a medal or two. I couldn’t deal with him for longer than a few days without getting a massive headache.

        *tips his nonexistent hat*

        I’ve been through 14 years of YEC internet homeschooling, and Hezekiah manages to be even crazier than that. My hat is off to you, Justin.

  16. Ydemoc on said:

    Miles,

    If you want to see just how crazy some of his comments are, take some time to read through what he posted in our exchanges with him over on Dawson’s blog (starting with July 2011 or so — you could start here http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/07/nides-snide.html).

    At one point last year — given his claim that Jesus was fully-god and fully-man — I asked him if Jesus ever had an erection. That really sent him for a loop, and he never did answer, just like he hasn’t answered all the questions you’ve posed.

    Ydemoc

    • Holy hell, I don’t think I’ve even reached the real meat and potatoes of this, yet there’s already main page material aplenty here (the main page of FSTDT is a collection of quotes from a wide variety of idiots, from misogynists, to fundamentalist Christians, racists…any type of idiot you can think of, really.)

      It also seems like everyone here has a lot of history with him and people like him. As I said before, all of you deserve medals for dealing with this as long as you have and has often as you have. You all have a lot more mental fortitude than I think I ever could.

      • Forgive me for the double-post. I just noticed something while I was reading through Dawson’s blog.

        I was going to ask where he and others who visit here stand on Randian Objectivism. I don’t know too much about it myself, aside from Bioshock and Rationalwiki (along with the oft mentioned rant in Atlas Shrugged which lasts more than 30,000 words)

        It’s not exactly something I care about too much, for the record. It’s just something that I was curious about after seeing it on Dawson’s blog, and felt the need to ask. Hopefully even clear up nasty assumptions due to what most people who know about Randian objectivism associate with it – the belief that giving or needing is immoral and selfish.

        As I said, just curious. I don’t want to make an assumption just on what little I know, after all. That would be rude.

        Feel free to delete or ignore if this doesn’t belong here.

      • Ydemoc on said:

        Hi Miles,

        Yes, Objectivism is often mischaracterized, and Ayn Rand is often (unfairly, in my view) smeared for her view of “rational self-interest,” or “selfishness,” (as she has defined and defended it).

        But I think you will find that if you read her works, and that if you read Dawson and other sources like Peikoff, you will find that such criticism is ill-informed and without merit.

        For a primer, you can try these links:

        http://objectivistanswers.com/

        http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?

        http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?act=idx

        And, of course, Dawson’s blog, and Anton Thorn (http://www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/1019/Thorn2.html). I’ve learned a tremendous amount from both of them.

        Take care.

        Ydemoc

      • Apologies, would edit the second post if able, but I cannot find a button. If possible (and convenient, of course), please delete it. I would feel extremely rude for clogging up the comment page.

        Was simply going to say, read through more of Dawson’s blog now that I’ve had the chance. It has become apparent that he is not a dick.

        I may not agree entirely with his beliefs, but at the same time, I’m tolerant of just about anything so long as the person holding the belief isn’t a complete dick, or hurting people against their will. As I said before, though, it doesn’t really help that the only examples I’ve seen of Objectivism are Bioshock’s Andrew Ryan and Rationalwiki, as well as a few people I’ve known who have done quite evil things because they felt they had the right to ignore human decency. (Not to say that their philosophy is the reason for this, of course.) It is fallacious and rude of me to paint the whole based on my few experiences though, hence, why I asked.

        Either way, apologies for the off-topic discussion. I won’t make another comment on this again.

      • Miles, you can say what you like here.

      • Alex Botten on said:

        I should also point out that Rand had some pretty weird ideas in some areas, but her approach to ‘what is real’ was spot on.

      • ‘eh, as I said. It’s not really something I care about enough to linger on for a long time. I will look at those resources though.

        Even if I don’t share the beliefs put forward by them, I’m always happy to learn more about the views held by others.

        Speaking of, if anything, the only other sort of off-topic conversation I can come up with is my school, which I tend to prattle on about at FSTDT and my own blog. I do tend to try a bit hard to get people to notice it because it *is* a shitty school. All I really need to show to prove my point is something from a 9th grade Science lesson: http://i52.tinypic.com/hvths1.gif

  17. @Ydemoc

    Yeah I remember that, he really did flip out over that:)

    • Ydemoc on said:

      Justin,

      Given the time of year that it is right now, perhaps I should resurrect that question — or should I say “res-erect”?

      Ydemoc

  18. Wow…guys, read this post. This….is nuts.

    Here is the link(I’ll post them here too) to what “atheists” have been saying about my historic appearance on the “Fundamentally Flawed” podcast. Guess who showed up? Steve!!!!!!!!!!! I kinda miss Steve. We had some good times together. I have to admit out of all the “atheists” I have dealt with, Steve, after Dawson, is my favorite. Anyway, they are pretty funny comments. I have to admit it, I am pretty tremendous!!!!!!!!!!!!! Enjoy:

    • I find it sad that out of all of the problems there are with this, along with the fact that he’s watching the FSTDT thread, is that he continues to put the word ‘Atheists’ in quotes.

      Am I the only one who finds that weird?

      • Alex Botten on said:

        He does it because presubullshitters all deny that atheists exist

      • Here’s another case of denial.

        I was very happy to see Sye stand his ground and not get into a foolish rabbit hole discussion with Arrogant Atheists.

        “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” ~Proverbs 26:4-5

  19. @Alex

    I saw your comment over on Hezekiah’s blog concerning his sanity. He has been creating those dialogs to mock me and what I have been writing over on my blog and yeah, he is bat shit crazy.

  20. Myself, I think he’s just trolling. His sole purpose is to annoy people who reject his theology.

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: