Apologetics is... Part 2

In the first post I wrote I explained my reasons why christian (and indeed all forms of) theistic apologetics was bullshit.

In this post I'd like to ram home this point and solidify my position. At the Christian Colligation of Apologetics Debate Research & Evangelism (CADRE, or a I like to call it, BULLSHIT) website ( http://www.christiancadre.org/statement.html) they include their statement of faith, which reads as follows:






Statement of Faith

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
He came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
He became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
He suffered death and was buried.
On the third day He rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and His kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father.*
With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.



This rambling pile of nonsense is proof that christian apologists (in fact all apologists of any theistic faith) start with a predetermined conclusion and then try to find "facts" in an attempt to support their biased conclusions. This is how all apologetics is done, including creationism/intelligent design. Here is the statement of faith at answersingenesis.org (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith):

The AiG Statement of Faith

Section 1: Priorities

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Section 2: Basics

1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
4. The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man’s sin.

Section 3: Theology

1. The Godhead is triune: one God, three Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
2. All mankind are sinners, inherently from Adam and individually (by choice) and are therefore subject to God’s wrath and condemnation.
3. Freedom from the penalty and power of sin is available to man only through the sacrificial death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, and His complete and bodily Resurrection from the dead.
4. The Holy Spirit enables the sinner to repent and believe in Jesus Christ.
5. The Holy Spirit lives and works in each believer to produce the fruits of righteousness.
6. Salvation is a gift received by faith alone in Christ alone and expressed in the individual’s repentance, recognition of the death of Christ as full payment for sin, and acceptance of the risen Christ as Saviour, Lord and God.
7. All things necessary for our salvation are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.
8. Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
9. Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, ascended to Heaven, and is currently seated at the right hand of God the Father, and shall return in person to this Earth as Judge of the living and the dead.
10. Satan is the personal spiritual adversary of both God and man.
11. Those who do not believe in Christ are subject to everlasting conscious punishment, but believers enjoy eternal life with God.
12. The only legitimate marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage. Any form of homosexuality, lesbianism, bisexuality, incest, fornication, adultery, pornography, etc., are sinful perversions of God’s gift of sex.

Section 3: General

The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture.

1. Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
2. The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
3. The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.
5. The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into ‘secular’ and ‘religious’, is rejected.
6. By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Updated: January 20, 2009



As can be clearly seen what these people are participating in is not science, or any form of scientific investigation, because both christian apologists and intelligent design/creationism advocates always start with a preconceived conclusion, which is anything but scientific. Science looks at all the evidence and only then forms a conclusion, not the other way around.

Even the chrisitan apologist David Marshall has a statement of faith on his website, christthetao.homestead.com (http://christthetao.homestead.com/statement.html):

Kuai Mu Institute Statement of Faith



We are a Christian organization that seeks to make the best orthodox Christian thinking on culture and faith available to people around the world. Our goals are partly evangelical — to bring thoughtful unbelievers to faith, and partly educational — to help Christians understand how the Gospel relates to world cultures and religions.

Our theological viewpoint is what C. S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity," grounded in the central tradition of the faith, from the apostles, to early Church fathers like Justin Martyr and St. Augustine, to Christians of all churches in the modern world who hold to that faith. We work with faithful Christians of many denominations and mission and educational organizations. For that reason, as a fellowship we usually avoid taking stands on issues that we see as secondary or potentially divisive within the Body of Christ.

We believe that God is One, the Creator of all things, Who has made man and woman in His image, is Author of the moral law, Judge over all creation, and calls us to know Him, and learn His ways.

We acknowledge the sinful and broken condition of humanity, and recognize God's calling on His people to reconcile people to Him, and to one another.

We believe in Jesus, the Messiah and unique Son of God. He lived in Palestine two thousand years ago, as the Gospels say, taught his disciples and the Jewish people about the Kingdom of God, healed the sick, and raised the dead. He was crucified for the sins of mankind, and rose again from the dead the third day, as had been foretold in the Scriptures.

We seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We recognize that His guidance most often comes through the Scriptures, through other believers, and through the intellectual and moral capacities which God has given to us. We do not rule out His ability to guide us in other ways as well, in accordance with Scriptural principles.

St. Paul writes, "All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be well-fitted and adequately equipped for all good work." We find this to be an accurate description of how God guides believers through Scripture.

It is, the Gospels teach, the duty of man to "love God, and love your neighbor as yourself." Christians therefore are called to help others however we can. As a ministry, our primary calling is to strengthen the faith of Christians, and to work with missionaries, teachers, and other believers to persuade the world that the Gospel is true, and the fulfillment of the deepest needs of mankind as expressed in world cultures. Being called to act as the "light of the world," it is a Christian's duty, we believe, to conduct our ministry as well with integrity and compassion, treating both fellow believers and unbelievers with respect and honesty.

After reading that last bit which says,

"...it is a Christian's duty, we believe, to conduct our ministry as well with integrity and compassion, treating both fellow believers and unbelievers with respect and honesty."

This is a pile of bullshit. Here is proof of Marshall's disrespect to unbelievers and believers. Not to mention his dishonesty.

After showing many of the apologists' statements "of faith" it's even clearer that they come to any and all questions with a theological bias and preconceived conclusions regarding all things. This is just another reason why apologetics is nothing but bullshit.

Apologetics is... Part 2

IRS: Thieves of the State

I found this yahoo.com news report explaining the IRS' attempt to steal people's money who are trying to keep their possessions from getting taken by these thieves...and the IRS calls these people tax cheats!!! This piece of Orwellian newspeak is akin to the following example:

A thief comes into your home to steal your money but you resist and hide your money to keep it from him. The thief then huffs and puffs and says you're not supposed to hide the money in order to keep it from him! So, the thief puts a gun to your head in an attempt to compel you to give up the money. "I won't shoot you if you give up the money," says the robber. I see no difference between these two scenarios.

Here is a reproduction of the story (minus the word inserts in the picture):

IRS launches crackdown on offshore tax evasion

By Corbett Daly Corbett Daly – Thu Mar 26, 1:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Internal Revenue Service announced new steps on Thursday aimed at getting taxpayers hiding money in offshore accounts to pay up, promising not to file criminal charges for those who voluntarily fess up to hiding money overseas.

"This is a chance for people to come clean on their own," IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman told reporters.

While promising not to prosecute criminal charges, the IRS would impose penalties and interest on past due taxes, he said.

Switzerland agreed earlier this month to relax its strict bank secrecy rules and cooperate more on tax evasion to fend off a global crackdown on tax havens. The country has been under pressure because of an IRS tax fraud investigation targeting UBS AG

IRS memos sent to agency examination staff said offshore tax cases should "receive priority treatment."

"Offshore cases sent to the field are work of the highest priority," said one document, which was made public by the IRS. "Examiners should utilize the full range of information gathering tools in properly developing offshore issues with special emphasis on detecting unreported income. This includes interviewing taxpayers, making third-party contacts and timely issuing summonses to taxpayers and third parties."

(Editing by Andre Grenon)

IRS: Thieves of the State

Ignorance Abounds

A little over a year ago I had began to embrace the anarchist philosophy and I thought I'd start to debate people about it, just as I do the idea of atheism and rationality. While doing a web search for any mentions of my blog I came across a conversation about me at the well known atheist website Daylight Atheism and I find that this guy calls me "nuts" for being an anarchist.

After a few months of back and forth the moderator of the forums finally closed the comments so I could not reply to my detractors, though I finally did here on my blog much later on.

I looked over the criticisms and my responses and I do agree that not all of my answers were satisfactory; I was fairly new to the idea at the time and did not have as good of a grasp of it as I do now. However, looking back at the responses of these atheists, people I usually consider very intelligent, they sounded much like brainwashed theists with many of their replies. They were being wholly irrational in several instances. Of course, as I've shown, atheism does not automatically protect one from ignorance and error.

I thought I'd reply to some of their claims once and for all. My comments and replies will be in bold.

The first comment I'm going to confront of my accusers was from someone who goes by the name "Mrnaglfar":

"Anarchy, were it achieved, wouldn't last very long. Having no government means no law enforcement, which means murder and rape now become all but accepted parts of life depending on whether the murder/rapist/thief/whatever is bigger, stronger, smarter, or quicker than you are. No one would be maintaining public works like roads, running water, electricity, or really any store (since once there was no enforcement you can bet large scale looting will soon become commonplace, at least intially). Without government, money also loses it's value and we're back to the barter system, which on the scale and size we live in today wouldn't work very well. Lots of people would be starving, injured, or dead very quickly.

Oh, and let's not forget our prisons are about to empty out with no government force at play there. That should make things even more fun."

As I showed in the above link in my reply to this guy, this claim is illogical and false. He sounds exactly like a theists who says, "Without god, everything becomes lawful." In fact, you could even replace god with state with the famous saying theists use of Dostoevsky:

"If [the state] does not exist, everything is permitted."

Of course, as I've shown, the idea of a god being needed for morality is completely unfounded. I argue that the same goes for the state. In fact, one of the reasons I became such an ardent anarchist was because most of the same arguments for god are, ironically, often used for the state! I've expressed these ideas here:

Anarchism vs. The State: Looking at the Facts

Anarchism vs. The State: Civility or Incivility

Statism vs.Theism: The Similarities Are Striking

If the claims are illogical in the case of god, then why not government? Atheists bitch about how evil god is in the bible and how horrible it would be to be ruled by such a being. Well, we are not ruled by god, but by a similarly evil entity: government. Atheists wonder why theists would ever wish to be ruled by such a tyrant, but then completely contradict themselves and allow themselves to be ruled (and defend such rulers!) by those who would steal from us; lock us away for our "sins" handed down by the rulers (an attempt to show the similarities between statism and theism); and murder us. There is an immense hypocrisy here.

A comment by Alex Weaver:

"A society which adopts a system that can only survive if absolutely everyone in it not only actively tries to behave in the fashion most conducive to the survival of that society and that system but succeeds in doing so simply isn't workable. The idea that people will voluntarily refrain from exploiting the system for their own benefit is naive, and has already been tried in a different, more economically focused form advertised with the slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The results are a matter of record."

First of all, as I stated in a reply linked to above, anarchism and communism are not the same thing. Yes, some anarchists are communal in their philosophy, but what happened in Russia was not what anarchists wish to happen by any means.

Second, no one said an anarchist society would not have problems. That is a common misconception about anarchism: it is not utopian. Anarchists have solutions to social problems and troublemakers (I've written about it some here and here). That is a completely unfounded strawman argument.

Ebonmuse weighs in:

"Arizona Atheist, your reasoning is fallacious. Just because crime still occurs in a society with a government does not mean that government is ineffective at preventing crime. How do you know how many more crimes there would have been if there was no government making and enforcing laws?

Mrnaglfar's point was a good one, and I'd phrase it like this: Anarchism is an intrinsically unstable strategy. It only works if everyone agrees to participate, yet by its nature it has no way to enforce compliance. With no police, no laws, no government - no overarching authority that has a monopoly on the use of force - all that would happen is that people would begin to ally together for mutual benefit and to impose their will on others. They'd progress to forming larger and larger alliances to outcompete others who are doing the same, and eventually (after, no doubt, much war and bloodshed), we'd just end up with one or several large alliances which control the allegiance of all the population (since any unaligned individual or small group would be quickly snapped up or crushed). In short, we'd end up with exactly the same overall situation as we have now. What exactly do you imagine will happen to prevent this outcome?"

Chet also says:

[replying to my quote] No one forces their will upon another, or harms another is the golden rule.

"Some people want to do those things, though. Anarchy provides no way to stop them."

It's actually Ebonmuse whose thinking is "fallacious" because, as I said in another post, the very nature of government is force! Anarchism, depending on the society, might punish offenders; or as I've proposed, pay out restitution of some kind. From my research (here) restitution and offender mediation with victims has actually been shown to be just as effective as the punishment model, if not a little more so. They are more moral in that they give something back to the victims, unlike the immoral system we have now that ignores victims to concentrate on the perpetrator.

Again, anarchism is not utopian. The sole idea is that it is wrong for the ruling class to hand down laws and then at the same time break its laws and abuse its citizens. Once that is gone it is up to each society to figure out exactly how they'd like to live and the rules of their town, etc. I've given some abstract ideas that can be applied, but like everything else in life things change and things must be adapted and problems sorted out. There is no such thing as a perfect society. Anarchism is not utopian; it is realistic. It's a fact that in any civilization there will be problems and people must come together to figure out how to solve those problems. However, it does not seem logical to me to have a society that is ruled by tyrants who abuse their citizens and break their own laws with impunity just to have this illusion of safety.

Privatized security is a solution to unjustified uses of force.

3-28-10: It's recently come to my attention that Ebonmuse is the author of the blog, Daylight Atheism. I had never really read his blog much, though liked much of what he wrote. However, as I've said before just because someone is an atheist doesn't automatically make them a completely rational thinker; even myself, though I try my best to check my facts and be as accurate as I can. Being a human being, I am not immune to potentially irrational thoughts. It's my more logical side that I must train to overcome any possible irrational thought. Clearly, Ebonmuse is not thinking rationally about my arguments, nor does he seem to understand anything about anarchism.

Chet says:

"Hiring a security guard, or any other employee, to coerce others by force, would seem to be as much a violation of anarchy as hiring a government to coerce others by force. If the only solutions anarchy has to encroaching rulership are non-anarchic, you're making my point for me."

He also replied to a comment of mine: Many of these things will not stop, but the slaughter of millions would drastically be reduced if statism (and even theism) were abolished.

"There's no such thing as 'statism.'"

First of all, yes statism is a word. Please see this dictionary entry.

Second, anarchism in it's original greek simply means "without rulers", or anarchos, without a king, a pope, and other rulers. Now, true, there is a bit of an overlap with some of the statist institutions and some of the institutions I've proposed to replace the state, but the goal would still be achieved: no state and all things would become privatized.

Ebonmuse says:

"While no one likes force, we recognize that it is not going to go away. No political system has any viable means of eliminating it, especially not poorly thought-out anarchist pipe dreams. The best realistic option is to live in a society that respects the rule of law and gives democratic representation to the individual. That way we as a people can have a rational conversation over how to best harness that power and direct it to good ends, as opposed to leaving it up to the whim of whatever gang or tyrant manages to claw their way up to the top..."

"And the sun is the number one source of sunburns and skin cancer, but that doesn't mean we'd be better off without it."

Another horrible example of attempted rationality. True, but I've never said we can totally eliminate force, however, the greatest perpetrators of it (the government) would be gone. The sunburn analogy is absurd. We have ways of protecting ourselves from the sun. We do not, most times, with the government. If you try to defend yourself against a cop using excessive force the pig can charge with with resisting arrest, even if it's unlawful. Or he can just shoot you dead - most times with no repercussions. The government swoops in and steals your money and there is nothing you can do about because they are too powerful.

A remark by Samuel Skinner I find just plain ludicrous:

"For the record I think the government should have alot more power, but only if it is more transparent and we can trust it."

As I stated above, any more power allowed to this beast would be foolish. Even the "founding fathers" opted for a smaller government because they knew what would happen if it did get too big.

André Phillips said:

"I'm just wondering what determines a victim and a perpetrator if there's no system and no law."

Another moron... Sorry I'm being harsh in this instance but this is truly a dumb question. In fact, I don't even think I'm going to waste my time trying to answer it.

Stargazer1323 replied to a comment of mine:

Sorry, but this one is just silly. There are many purely volunteer fire departments and other services. In fact I learned that, I think it's the Scottsdale, AZ fire department that is run purely by volunteers.

"Sorry, but this comment is actually the silly one. There is a reason why there are volunteer fire departments, but not volunteer police forces. Fire fighters exist to solve a specific problem, they exist to help people, but they do not have the power over the lives or liberty of the people in the community where they work in the same way that the police do. Fire fighters do not carry guns, they do not have the authority to deprive people of their freedom - in other words, they are nothing like the police."

Actually, it's this guy's comment that's the silly one. As I've shown before there can be privatized security patrols. The guy also missed my point. My point was the fact that security patrols, etc. can be privatized and can protect people if they wish. I just used that one real world example of a privatized fire department as evidence that things can be privatized and workable without government intervention. In an earlier post (Censorship is Bullshit) I provided examples of many privatized services that do not require any government intervention.

The ignorance of André Phillips once again:

"I don't understand where these rights come from? If there's no codified law, then what rights are you guaranteed and who decides them? If you just say we all need to live by the golden rule, or we all need to work together, then someone stealing isn't a violation of any rights, it's simply someone choosing not to live your way. It seems to me that true anarchy is deciding that anyone can do whatever they want, whenever they want, and nobody can tell them not to. All you can do is protect your own. By the way, if the solution to looting and theft is that every family hires their own 24 hour protection, imagine the kind of world that produces. I'd rather pay taxes."

The first half is a somewhat decent question, but how in the world is saying "The government grants rights" different from "Our rights are derived from god?" There is no difference and both are arbitrary. That's why we have so many laws that are pointless: drug laws, seat belt laws, etc. To read more about this, please view this.

The rights come from the fact that our innate morality seems to have given us some kind of yard stick to judge morality by, of course in various parts of the world there are variations upon the theme and some things are considered immoral that in another place it's considered proper. However, my point is that in general, people care for one another and help one another, and all live by the rules and guidelines that their society has set. If one breaks said guidelines then the social contract has been broken and something can be done about it. This is done in accordance with whatever the society has determined whether it be a purely restitution based system or a punishment based system.

Oftentimes, instead of actual arguments they choose ridicule because they cannot argue my points:

I had said about the fact that we do not need money:

Government doesn't need to be in charge of printing money if that's what people chose to use. People run those money printing machines, what makes you think someone else couldn't?

André Phillips (in another display of idiocy) replied:

"Seriously? Do all these printers get to set the value of their money at whatever they choose? Can I say my fiver is worth your fifty? You know, I might be OK with that actually."

I feel ashamed that this guy is an atheist; a fellow "rationalist" (in this case I use that term very loosely).

I think that's about all I will post. I think I've responded to them in a much better manner (mostly by linking to other things I've since written) and if anyone has any questions or comments please don't hesitate to leave a comment.

However, I will leave you with one last silly comment. I had stated:

And since we were discussing it - about law and order. As I said before there would be no punishment because what does it achieve? One cannot stop all crime; the victims are left with their lost property, money, etc. while the state prosecutes the criminal. Now, what about the victim??? With this system, I can understand the deep seeded urge for revenge, however, according to a poll I gave earlier people's urge for revenge would be reduced if they would get some compensation.

Alex Weaver replied:

"Will you make up your mind? Does the system have to stop all crime to be worthwhile, or doesn't it? And again, HOW IS YOUR SYSTEM BETTER? It won't stop all crime either, and there are numerous severe problems with any attempt to implement it without government that you have utterly failed to address."

I have no clue by what he means by making up my mind...

I never said a system had to stop all crime to be "better." There is no such system. What I'm talking about is fairness in compensating victims and using our resources to focus on that. And I've already addressed the privatization which can be implemented without any form of government. Hell, think about it. Half of the time government uses private companies for it's services anyway. And what happens in business when we cut out the middle man? Things become more reliable and cheaper, which is exactly what we find with most privatized services (see the post Censorship is Bullshit).

There. Your complaint has been addressed.

I also find it funny that hardly anyone even attempted to argue against my paper (The Tyranny of the State, Part 2) I posted in order to prove them wrong about the state stopping crime to a worthwhile degree. After I began to do more research about anarchism and the institutions that can replace the government I found the answers to most of the questions they sought. All the guy did was cherry pick the data as I showed in an earlier post.

I suppose I shall reiterate my case with the following.

I declare the government to be the greatest threat to humankind (more so than religion) and I think I have successfully argued my case regarding that fact.

I agree with my detractors that there are some unknowns and I certainly do not have all the answers, but the point is this: Who's to say we cannot find an answer? An answer that is morally fair and right for everyone?! That is the entire point. An answer where no one is "above the law" so to speak, like the government, and it's henchmen (pigs) often are.

That is what I propose. If people want to look down upon me for that, then I think they have some serious issues with their thinking.

As I've said before, power corrupts, and to sum up my case, other than fairness to all, anarchism would also mean true freedom because, to quote Rose Wilder Lane, "...a grant of liberties, no mater how extensive, is not full recognition of the fact of individual liberty."

That is the essence of anarchism.

Freedom.

Ignorance Abounds

Washington, D.C. May Become A Police State

On the local website camerafraud.com they expose that mayor Adrian Fenty is proposing a massive speed and redlight camera campaign (these also may be used to spy on innocent people).

Washington, D.C. Declares War on Drivers

Faced with a massive budget deficit, the mayor of the nation’s capital, Adrian Fenty, is dialing American Traffic Solutions (ATS) for help. ATS has the perfect business model. Need cash? ATS will set up a massive ticketing operation that can be adjusted to fit the needs of any big-spending bureaucrat. In Fenty’s case, the motorist pain threshold will be set to maximum. Check out what he’s proposing — many of these ideas will surely be coming to a city near you:

Mobile red light cameras to create deadly traps for drivers just like in New Carrollton, MD. These portable scameras can be set up anywhere, meaning drivers won’t be able to avoid dangerous red light camera intersections any more. The scheme is sure to cause surprise, panic reactions and more rear-end collisions.

Turn red light cameras into speed cameras. This gives a speeding ticket to a driver who needs to accelerate to make it through Fenty’s intersections that have been set with dangerously short yellow times. The District has had “speed on green” in the city’s enforcement contract for several years, but now is the time to cash in.

Speed cameras in every tunnel using laser instead of radar.

"Gridlock enforcement" which means drivers will get a photo ticket if they are trapped in an intersection during heavy traffic.

Overweight vehicle tickets. A new ATS scamera will guess your weight as you drive past. If the machine thinks your vehicle is too heavy, you get a ticket in the mail. In other words, don’t have that extra donut before driving to work.

Insurance tickets. According to Fenty’s budget proposal, “Other new initiatives include… making use of real-time access to insurance.” That means you’ll get a hefty scamera ticket if the D.C. insurance database thinks you’re late on your insurance payment. D.C. isn’t exactly well known for the accuracy of its computerized information services. But don’t worry, you’re guilty until proven innocent with scamera tickets. Just pay and everything will be ok.

Combine the above with D.C.’s plan to use federal “stimulus” dollars to take away lanes of traffic from automobiles so the city can run a money-wasting trolley boondoggle, and it’s clear that D.C. has declared war on the motorist.


----------------------------------------



If this proposal becomes a reality, this will likely be chaotic. As I've shown in other posts red light cameras and speed cameras are two very dangerous technologies that actually cause more accidents (and make accidents more likely) than not (forget about the "big brother" aspect of it all).

Other states should do what Arizona has and pass a law which makes them illegal, though these cameras are still operative here but I've seen a lot less of them. I've also seen a large decrease in the mobile speed cameras on the interstate too, which is a relief.

But the fact is that these unfair and unsafe technologies are still around and they can still pose a danger. A little poison can still kill someone...

Washington, D.C. May Become A Police State

Still Think Religious Beliefs Aren't Potentially Dangerous?

At thedenverchannel.com they posted the following story:

Gunman: 'If You're Not A Christian You're Going To Die'
Authorities: Eldora Gunman Targeted Non-Christians

POSTED: 10:37 am MST January 8, 2009
UPDATED: 8:32 am MST January 9, 2009

BOULDER, Colo. -- A 24-year-old ski lift operator who fatally shot the general manager of the Eldora ski area was determined to kill co-workers who weren't Christian, according to court records obtained Thursday.

The documents, filed Wednesday in Boulder District Court, said witnesses told authorities that Derik Bonestroo walked into a building at work, fired a gun into the ceiling and said: "If you're not Christian, you're going to die."

General manager Brian Mahon was shot and killed Dec. 30 at the ski area west of Nederland, Colo., in Boulder County.

Witnesses said when Bonestroo asked Mahon's religion, Mahon said "Catholic" and Bonestroo shot him twice: in the chest and head. Mahon is believed to have died instantly. Other employees ran out the back door of the ski employee's meeting area and fled into the woods, describing an additional four to five shots being fired.

Boonestroo fled the ski area in his car and then was intercepted and chased by a Boulder sheriff's deputy who happened to be in nearby Nederland when the 911 call came in. Boonestroo fired at the deputy's vehicle, hitting it several times, and finally pulled over on Highway 119 and began firing out his driver's side window.

The deputy, a Boulder SWAT officer, returned fire after taking cover behind his vehicle. Authorities say Bonestroo was hit multiple times by the deputy's assault rifle before he fatally shot himself while sitting in his car, a few miles from the ski area.

Chris Fiegel, a sheriff's detective, interviewed employees who were at the ski area's pump house for a staff meeting. He also interviewed other area residents who were confronted by Bonestroo.

Bonestroo's "demeanor and tactical style clothing" indicated that he planned the showdown, according to court documents.

Investigators said Bonestroo had a "drop-down magazine holster" strapped to his left thigh and a "drop-down gun holster" on his right thigh. They said he was clutching a Glock semiautomatic handgun in his right hand.

Among the list of items confiscated from Bonestroo's apartment were medication and a dead cat that was stabbed several times, Pelle said. The cat was believed to be Bonestroo's pet.

Interviews with friends and family member indicated Bonestroo recently had been suffering "significant emotional distress," but Boulder County Sheriff Joe Pelle said privacy laws prohibit him from discussing details of Bonestroo's mental state.

Still Think Religious Beliefs Aren't Potentially Dangerous?

The Lucifer Effect - Special Edition

I'm going to post this "special edition" of The Lucifer Effect because a reader sent this story to me. It's been all over the news, this very sad abuse of power and stupidity by this pig. Below the story are two videos of the incident.

Thanks for another story, Jay!

From www.wfaa.com:

DPD officer in Moats incident suspended

11:39 PM CDT on Thursday, March 26, 2009

By REBECCA LOPEZ / WFAA-TV

DALLAS — Racing to see his dying mother-in-law at a Plano hospital, an NFL player found himself delayed by a Dallas officer as her life ebbed away. It's a story that has sparked outrage across North Texas and generated interest around the country.

Dallas police Chief David Kunkle faced reporters Thursday afternoon to express his embarrassment over the incident and to publicly apologize to the family. He said the officer involved failed to use common sense. Officer Robert Powell, a three-year veteran, has been placed on leave facing internal charges of misconduct.

It all started in the early morning hours of March 17. With his wife and another woman in the car, Ryan Moats — a running back for the Houston Texans — sped his car toward Baylor Regional Medical Center of Plano. But when the Moats arrived at the emergency room parking lot, they were stopped by Officer Robert Powell, who reportedly drew his service revolver on the concerned family members.

Dashcam video from the Dallas officer's patrol car captured the incident.

"Get in there," Officer Powell yelled out to Tamishia Moats, Ryan's wife, as she exited the car. "Let me see your hands. Get in there. Put your hands on the car."

"Excuse me; my mom is dying," Tamisha Moats replied.

She and the other woman ignored Officer Powell's commands and rushed inside the hospital to her dying mother as Ryan Moats and Officer Powell went back-and-forth over insurance paperwork the NFL player was unable to locate.

MOATS: "I've got seconds before she's gone, man."

POWELL: "Listen: If I can't verify you have insurance..."

MOATS: "My mother-in-law is dying!"

POWELL: "Listen to me."

MOATS: "Right now, you're wasting my time."

POWELL: "If you can't verify you have insurance, I'm going to tow your car. So, you either find it or I am going to tow the car."

As they argued, the officer got irritated.

POWELL: "Shut your mouth. Shut your mouth. You can either settle down and cooperate, or I can just take you to jail for running a red light."

"I certainly hope anybody who saw the videotape immediately understood how serious the misconduct is," Chief Kunkle said Thursday afternoon. "I don't know how you train for these circumstances other than to hire people with good common sense and people skills."

In a telephone interview, Moats said the clash with the officer was totally unexpected. "For him to not even be sympathetic at all, and basically we're dogs or something and we don't matter — it basically shocked me," he said.

No compassion was indicated in the police recording of the incident. "I can screw you over," Officer Powell said. "I would rather not do that. You obviously will dictate everything that happens; and right now, your attitude sucks."

"My understanding is that Officer Powell — even after he saw the videotape — believed he had not acted inappropriately," Chief Kunkle said, a view that was underscored by Assistant Chief Floyd Simpson, who reviewed the tape with Officer Powell on Wednesday.

"His belief was simply that he was doing his job," Chief Simpson said. "It did concern me that it just seemed that the compassion was not there."

The hospital twice sent nurses to try and get the officer to release Moats.

"We're blue-coding her for the third time," a nurse said on the police videotape.

A Plano police officer stopped to make a plea for the officer to let Moats go. "Hey, that's the nurse," the Plano officer said. "She says the mom is dying right now, and she wants to know if I can get him up there."

Finally, after a 20-minute delay, the officer ticketed Moats for running a red light.

By the time Moats made it up to the emergency room, his mother-in-law was dead.

"I went up after she passed and held her hand, but she was already gone," Moats said in a telephone interview.

Dallas police have launched a review of the incident.

“When it came to our attention, we immediately called for an internal investigation to be done,” said police spokesman Lt. Andy Havey.

"The essence of being a police officer is common sense and discretion," Chief Kunkle added. "I can't imagine a worse circumstance."

WFAA.com has received over 1,000 comments comments about the incident since the story first aired on Channel 8 Wednesday night.

WFAA.com staff editors Marjorie Owens and Walt Zwirko contributed to this report.

E-mail rlopez@wfaa.com

Below is the dashboard camera of the cop's car and a news report on the incident:








If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. All these damn cops can see is that this guy 'broke a law' trying to see his dying mother in law. This pig was on a major power trip. The guy clearly said he made sure no one was coming before he went through the red light. Then the cop threatens to charge him with parking in a restricted zone! What an ass. And all this while he's trying to get to his mother in law. The other thing that bothered me was the cop's statement that he wasn't driving an emergency vehicle through a red light, that he wasn't "authorized." So what?! He's supposed to just stop and wait for a light to stay green while his family member is dying? As long as no one is put in danger who cares how many lights the guy went through? It's insane. Just as a recent post demonstrates, cops do not care what "law" you break even if nothing comes of it; no one is harmed whatsoever. After all, that's what laws are there to do in the first place; to protect people. In this instance what danger was there to protect someone from? None at all!

The Lucifer Effect - Special Edition

Apologists, Lies, and Book Reviews

I was trying my hand at coming up with a catchy title for this post. I tried to model it after a movie that, for some reason, I always thought had a catchy title. It's the 1989 film Sex, Lies, and Videotape, but mine just doesn't seem to have the right ring to it no matter how many times I switch the words around.

Maybe some people are tired of my writing about that slimy christian apologist David Marshall (even I'm getting a little tired!), whose book I had been arguing with him about for almost a year before giving up, but as I've said many times this blog is about exposing lies and this one of them. He never once admitted his errors that had been pointed out to him; some minor, and some major, but he still insists that I, nor anyone else at the amazon.com forums, have found any genuine errors!



My guess is that it's his apologist defense mechanism. If all fails, 'deny, deny, deny, and maybe people will actually take me seriously again after all my errors have been laid bare.' For my not finding any, Marshall never could respond to my critiques of his book and point any errors out; he wasn't able to prove his very biased opinion that Richard Dawkins thinks kids should not be taught religion; that atheism, and lack of religion, was the cause of communism, and he for damn sure has never showed to me why his views on evolution are correct. If those do not count as errors in Marshall's distorted view of the world, then I'd sure as hell like to see him actually admit to an error he makes just to see what it might take! Maybe an act of god??? Who knows...

As for Marshall saying he "almost always knows what [he's] talking about," that's just funny. A guy with nothing more than a high school diploma (yours truly) showed this guy up whose got a Master's degree (I think that's correct. I'm not positive what his credentials are). No wonder he's so pissed and humiliated; he's actually got to say things like this in the forums to puff up his own torn down ego.

It honestly pisses me off when people lie and distort things, especially when it's about me. I thought about going to defend myself from these attacks, but I'm just burnt out from arguing with this jackass (and his illogical sidekick J.R.) and if I reply, I know I'll get sucked into the same old argument, with the same old insults and putdowns from them, and I don't want to deal with it. After a year of arguing there's clearly nothing that will change this guy's mind about the errors he makes.

As I said at the end of my critique of Marshall's silly document 160 Errors, Gross Exaggerations, and Highly Dubious Claims of Richard Dawkins' The god Delusion, Marshall is very delusional. The above screenshot just makes this even more obvious.

You know, I'm still waiting for someone who thinks they can point out any errors of my review of Marshall's book. After placing my review at the feet of the very author himself, and other chrisitan apologists, I've only gotten one mistaken guy who complains about my definition of atheism, and no one has even attempted to point out any errors. I'm still waiting....

UPDATE - 3-29-09

Well, it looks like Marshall is once again talking shit about me in a recent amazon.com forum discussion.


My lack of rationality? He must be kidding. If anyone is irrational it's him! How many times do I have to point out how wrong he is? It just never seems to sink in with him! And some call christianity a "mental disorder"...

In this case I'm inclined to agree.

As I said before, Marshall has never once pointed out one error of mine and half the time, during our debates, Marshall just up and leaves the discussion and in his place is his moronic asshole buddy J.R., where he spews his hatefulness and insults at me like an infected pustule. Seems to me that Marshall ends up not being able to handle debating me so he has J.R. jump in instead. Talk about pathetic and is another example of hypocrisy from this guy. I'm not even there and he's still talking shit about me!!! Talk about "pettiness"..... stupid asshole.

Apologists, Lies, and Book Reviews

"No, You're Wrong!"

I was surfing the web and came across the picture to your left. I thought it was funny because it kind of reminds me of myself. In fact there have been a few times when I've told my wife I wasn't coming to bed just yet: I've got to stick it to some idiot online somewhere or on my blog.

This kind of thing seems to be very common on the Internet; there must be millions of blogs pointing out errors made by this or that person and the ones I pay the most attention to are the blogs/websites related to the entire atheism/theism argument.

Sure, the entire idea of arguing on the net has a history. I've heard an old saying taking jabs at those who argue on the Internet; it goes something like this:

"Arguing on the Internet is like competing at the special Olympics; even if you win, you’re still retarded."

The picture above is another example of a cartoonist creating a joke out of this Internet phenomenon.

I agree that most arguing is pointless on the Internet, but like all other social outlets that humans have, there are bound to be disagreements about sports, politics, history, etc. but I feel that the arguing and debate that goes back and forth (at some level anyway) about religion is good. It exposes the lies of the other side (the theists') and educates people about the facts of evolution, science in general, and history. In a sentence, some arguing on the Internet is important. It's important to educate those who speak out about evolution because of their ignorance, it's important to speak out against those who oppose stem-cell research (which the ban on it has just recently been lifted by newly elected president Barack Obama), global warming, and other pointless attacks upon science.

This is truly a battle for peoples' minds and with the battle clearly showing the scales tipping in favor of us freethinkers, at least according to various studies in 2007 and even currently, with a very recent CNN poll [see video below], it seems that our efforts have had an impact. From the CNN report they stated the following:

"America is a less Christian nation than it was 20 years ago, and Christianity is not losing out to other religions, but primarily to a rejection of religion altogether, a survey published Monday found."



With such books as The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins; The End of Faith, by Sam Harris, and God is Not Great, by Christopher Hitchens, many theists have gone on the counter-attack in their own books with their attempts at apologetics, and in many cases outright lying about the "New Atheists" or repeating old and discredited creationist arguments.

One unfortunate side effect of speaking out about the truth and telling a whole bunch of people they're wrong is they will obviously react negatively and feel persecuted at some level, but I wouldn't say this reaction is appropriate at all.

Some silly theists have made a reputation upon the use of this tactic in claiming the atheists are nothing but some "hate group" when many of these theists make the exact same remarks, if not outright displays of intolerance - a direct contradiction to their claims, not to mention completely hypocritical.

Truth is something that I care about very much - as do many others - and the Internet is a perfect place for us to spread our message of truth. I would never call it "hate speech" when a group of people condemn others for spreading falsehoods. You don't see the Flat Earth Society or Holocaust deniers claim they're being persecuted by some "hate group" when people laugh at their silly beliefs, or call them ignorant, do you? No. I think this is just another attempt by theists to discredit their detractors, just as they've used other fallacies in trying to smear atheists in trying to connect us to the Communist atrocities.

In some circumstances I think arguing on the Internet is a worthwhile activity. Of course then it's just a matter of whether or not you will get through to those who read your blog, website, or your videos posted on YouTube. Judging by the recent polls and studies the last several years it looks like we're winning, but only time will tell for sure what the future will hold.

"No, You're Wrong!"

Richard Dawkins and "Child Abuse" Part 2

So....

You still think Richard Dawkins is wrong for calling it "child abuse" when their religious parents force beliefs on them that they are too young to understand? Beliefs that can sometimes be bigoted, illogical, and hateful?

Unless you're a hateful, bigoted asshole I seriously doubt any truly loving parent would want to see their children wearing these t-shirts....






I can't explain how sorry I feel for those innocent children.

If you are not convinced this is "child abuse" then maybe you will consider this, from a 2001 TIME magazine article, child abuse?


Freedom of Religion or State-Sanctioned Child Abuse?
By Jessica Reaves Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2001

It's the middle of the night. Your baby suddenly spikes a high fever. For a while, he cries hysterically, and then suddenly he's eerily calm, whimpering every once in a while. His temperature is still climbing. What do you do?

For most parents, the only response would be to call the pediatrician and rush the baby to a hospital. But for parents whose religious beliefs eschew medical care in favor of prayer, there is another, equally indubitable choice: Do nothing but pray.

It's a practice that ignites fierce controversy every time another child dies from a lack of medical care. And in Colorado, three deaths in the past 24 months have propelled the issue back into the spotlight.

At the center of controversy are Congregants of Church of Christ, Scientist, along with members of other, smaller sects, including the Followers of Christ Church and the General Assembly and Church of the First Born. All are staunchly opposed to medical intervention in the case of illness, preferring instead to depend upon prayer to do the healing. Their devotion to what they call "God's will" has, according to their critics, led to the deaths of more than 172 children between 1975 and 1995 — all because their parents refused to seek medical treatment for their children's illnesses. According to autopsy reports, many if not most of the children could have been saved easily with simple antibiotics.

In 1998, then-Texas based critical-care pediatrician Seth Asser told TIME's David Van Biema, "Kids die from accidental deployment of air bags, and you get hearings in Congress. But this goes on, and dozens die and people think there's no problem because the deaths happen one at a time. But the kids who die suffer horribly. This is Jonestown in slow motion," Asser said. The American Medical Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the Academy of American Pediatrics and a growing number of local and state legislators agree with him.

For its part, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in twice on the topic; first in 1944, when it ruled that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves, it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The Court ruled similarly in a 1990 case.

And while the SCOTUS opinion did little to clarify the various rights and responsibilities of parents and prosecutors, it did identify one crux of the argument: Actively refusing available medical treatment for yourself is one thing, but presuming to impose your beliefs on another person — especially if that person is a child who may not have formed any religious beliefs at all — is something altogether different.

So why does the legal protection derived from so-called individual "freedom of religion" cover these injuries the devout inflict on others — including family members incapable of making informed consent? In all but four states (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nebraska and North Carolina) parents can use their religious ideology as a shield against prosecution for withholding medical treatment from their children.

Part of the answer lies in the ambiguity of the SCOTUS ruling: The Justices do not provide a compelling ruling for law enforcement agents looking for a prosecutorial green light. And for the rest of the answer we turn to the wonderful world of political action committees. The Church of Christ, Scientist, whose members are fiercely opposed to medical intervention, is a powerful voice on Capitol Hill as well as in local town halls; the church's lobbying efforts have kept reforms at bay in most states for years. And even for the reform-minded, there are public relations hurdles to overcome; secular challenges to the autonomy of Chuch teachings are often successfully depicted as a threat to freedom of religion.

That approach may, however, be losing steam, especially in states like Oregon and Colorado, where juvenile death rates have risen along with membership in anti-medical sects. State legislators are energetically sponsoring bills that would end the ban on prosecuting parents whose religion compels them to withhold medical treatment.

Richard Dawkins and "Child Abuse" Part 2

100 Years in Jail for Providing Medical Marijuana???

You read that right. The seemingly very kind and compassionate Charles C. Lynch, former Managing Caregiver for the City Sanctioned Dispensary in Morro Bay California, is facing an unbelievable (make that insane) one-hundred year jail sentence if convicted on all the charges. And what did this man supposedly do to cause all this mess? Give medical marijuana to a sick 17 year old with cancer who recently had to have his leg amputated to stop the spread of cancer, and all this with his parents' permission and a doctor's prescription. Even more bizarre...actually let me call it what it is - fucked up, is the fact that the state and local laws allow for medical marijuana but the federal laws against it still apply. How the hell something can be both "legal" and "illegal" at the same damn time is anyone's guess, but because of a dickhead sheriff, who invited the DEA to shut down Lynch's Dispensary, because he didn't like the fact that medical marijuana was "legal" in his state, they raided Lynch's Dispensary and his home and he is currently on house arrest awaiting trial. Below is the story from donttasemeblog.com:

100 Years of Jail Time for Providing Medical Marijuana to a 17 Year old Amputee?
By Phil Leggiere on July 20, 2008 1:56 AM


The Friends of Charles C. Lynch report.

Charles C. Lynch is the former Managing Caregiver for the City Sanctioned Dispensary in Morro Bay California. The Dispensary opened in April 2006 and operated without incident until it was raided by the DEA and the local Sheriff's Department on March 29, 2007. Lynch was not arrested during the raid. Upon return to the dispensary Lynch and his employees found a message from Law Enforcement saying 'All Hippies Die'.

The Dispensary later reopened after the City reissued Lynch's business license, but was once again shutdown after the landlord received notice of possible foreclosure by the Federal Government if the Dispensary was allowed to continue operations. The Dispensary permanently closed in May of 2007.

Lynch was later arrested on July 17, 2007 and taken to the Federal Detention Center in Los Angeles where he spent 4 days and 3 nights in Federal custody. His loving and trusting family posted $400,000 bond to free him on July 20 2007. Lynch was arraigned on August 6th 2007 and pleaded Not Guilty to Federal marijuana charges. Lynch is currently out on bail wating for trial at his home in Arroyo Grande, California.

July 20, 2007 Charles Lynch was released from Federal Detention after his family posted a $400,000 bail. He was placed under house arrest and could only leave the house during 1-5pm Monday through Friday. He was also required to wear an Electronic Monitoring System and spend two hours a day charging the bracelet. Also he was subject to surprise house searches and intensive drug testing by the Federal Pre Trial Services Department.

On December 12, 2007 Charles Lynch was placed on House Detention where he was allowed to leave the house between the hours of 6am and 10pm. He was still required to wear the Electronic Monitoring System and to spend two hours a day charging the bracelet. Also he was still subject to surprise house searches and intensive drug testing by Pre Trial Services.

On April 29, 2008 after 9 months and 10 days the House Arrest and House Detention of Charles Lynch was ended. He is still subject to surprise home searches and intensive drug testing where he has to call in everyday to see if he is required to report to drug testing the next day. Also he must report to Pre Trial Services twice a month in LA and call twice a week.
On June 11, 2008 www.reason.tv aired a documentary on Lynch's case [see below for video - Ken]. The documentary is narrated by Drew Carey and features one of Lynch's patients, Owen Beck. Owen was seventeen when he and his parent's came to Lynch's dispensary for services. One of Lynch's conditions for his business license from the City of Morro Bay stated that no one under 18 years of age is allowed in the dispensary unless accompanied by a parent. Owen was 17 when he visited Lynch's dispensary and suffered the amputation of his leg due to cancer. Under federal Law anybody under 21 is considered a minor. The government has charged Lynch with Distributing Marijuana to minors for cases similar to Owen's.

Charles Lynch's Trial is set for July 22, 2008 in Los Angeles, CA. Click here for directions to the Federal Court House. Supporters are encouraged to attend the trial.


Here is Drew Carey's documentary:

100 Years in Jail for Providing Medical Marijuana???

Who the Hell Is Joe Hinman?

Joe Hinman (also goes by "Metacrock") is a member of the silly christian apologist group Christian CADRE, and has a (according to his current Blogger.com profile) master's degree in theology. It seems to me that this nobody (since I had never heard of him before several months ago) has had his brain damaged by all that theology he's studied because he clearly has a very bad case of the Persecution syndrome and is extremely hot-tempered and will hurl insults at people who try to talk some sense into him (I'm assuming that's the crotchety old man aspect of his personality coming out. His blogger profile says he is currently 52). Of course, this idiot ends up acting completely hypocritically by saying he'll ban me from his blog (I'm real scared now...) for giving him a dose of his own medicine; something he started to begin with! It's clear this guy has some serious mental issues. Maybe I'm right about his brain damage... Would sure explain a lot.

Anyhow, I wasn't going to bother with this dipshit but I figured what the hell. Every once in a while I leave a message at his silly blog at atheistwatch.blogspot.com. Well, he's written a little piece about me, spreading all manner of nonsense so I shall go through and correct his gross errors. My replies will be in bold after Hinman's quoting me and his replies.


Monday, March 16, 2009
Hate group atheism at it again

I am using this thread to give Arizona Atheist one final chance to prove he can muster actual arguments and do more than name call. failing that he's history.


AA: The very fact that your god has never been proven puts the burden of proof squarely on you to prove its existence. Your continuing insults and ignorance is pitiful, really.

Meta: No it doesn't. Why should I have the burden of proof? How can you have a burden to prove something which already say can't be proved? I can only have a burden of proof if I'm trying to convince someone.

Why should you have the burden of proof? You're serious, right? And this guy says I'm illogical...yeah, sure. I'll humor this sorry old guy and tell him why. You are the one making the claim that your god exists, and acts within the world. I said that these arguments you've put forth attempting to prove your god are nothing more than "god of the gap" arguments (as I have explained in more detail here) and you say they're not "god of the gap" arguments yet never explained why.

Meta: "that make him a big man? that make you feel real tall hu? listen little one I was a sociology major. I know far more about social sciences than you ever will.."

AA: If I actually attempted to study that subject in depth maybe you'd know more, maybe not, but that has nothing to do with the topic of natural selection and innate morality. Clearly, if anyone is trying to act like a "big man" it's you.

You brought it up. You made the statment that I don't know about human behavior. Well what do you think sociologists study? Social stcutrue but also human behavior in social structures.

You created a strawman. I was referring to the fact that natural selection crafted our innate morality, which is not something you would have studied in your field of research. I was referring to the fact that scientists are studying how the brain seems to create rules of conduct (though vague ones) which help in the moral decision making process and seem to be done unconsciously. And since you supposedly are trained in human behvaior I'd think you'd know of the many tribes that act perfectly moral even without any kind of belief in god; in fact some cultures have no religious beliefs, per se, at all, and they get along just fine and are very moral people. Proof right there that no god is needed for morality.

Meta:"there is no proof for genes of morality. That's a lie"

AA:Very good, precise scientific argument. Where did you learn it? One of those many discredited christian diploma mills? Like I said, you badly need to read up on the subject.

You are not making yourself seem clever wtih that tone. Any number of atheists here will tell you are not making a fool of yourself. I made my argument now answer it. Stop trying to show how clever you are by making a childish wise cracks and say something that matters.

btw everyone knows my Ph.D. was in a secular universtiy. If you do't bleieve go ask John Lofuts on Debuncking Chrsitiantiy. The big atheist author remember? I proved that he studied with Craig and he proved that I went to a secular department as a Ph.D. student in history of ideas. I studied the hsitory of science.

And you still haven't given any argument (other than "it's a lie") about our innate morality. What the hell are you talking about regarding Loftus and your schooling? Just because you supposedly got this degree doesn't mean it allows you to reason any better. In fact, with your poor grammar and attitude you seem more like a pissed off 16 year old.

"Any number of atheists here will tell you are not making a fool of yourself."

I think you may have meant that 'atheists will tell me I'm making a fool of myself' but you're right, I'm not making a fool of myself. You are.

Meta:"I never said that either. It looks you are willing to believe wild rumors and you don't check out the facts very well."

AA: ) Funny stuff. I know that's a lie. I have proof, but you go ahead and say you didn't. Bigot.

bring it. let's see?

I remember a time when I was angry and I considered weather nor not to argue for that. But I never actually got around to pushing it. Baning not killing.

It's right on my blog...

But you admitted to being a hateful bigot (not to mention a hypocrite for calling me and other atheists Nazis since you wish to make us illegal and in effect force us out of society like Hitler did the Jews.) so my point has been made.

AA:Old (not to mention hateful and bigoted) man with your ever increasing anger in your replies I think it's time for your nap.

you are doing the very same things. why is it not hateful and bigoted when you do it?

Well, it's been uneducational, but interesting. Like I said, you might want to crack open a few books and learn more before you make yourself look silly again.

It's not hateful and bigoted because for one, I've never said that I wanted to make christians illegal; you are the one who started with the insults and I'm simply responding in kind; verbal self-defense if you will, which to me, is completely justified. I don't take shit from assholes like you. Especially ones who talk a big game but never back up their shit.

and you made a complete fool of yourself. you proved that you can't make a logical argument. you can't respond to a logical argument in a decent manner. you can' understand complex argumetns. You can't take part in a civilized discussion.

you still have not made a single logical argument against my God arguments.

i will give you one more chance. make a logical argument and behave like a civilized person and discussion without insults or you are banned.

I don't think it's wise to allow childish hate mongers who are just out to prove they are superior in the most childish way to take part in a real discussion. They will ruin it every time.

i'll give you one more chance.
Posted by J.L. Hinman at 6:57 PM 0 comments

One more chance??? For what? You seem to be unable to recognize a logical, reasonable argument when it's presented to you. Otherwise you wouldn't have said something so stupid. Go ahead ban me, asshole. You're the one who started with the insults to begin with so I think it's a little ironic that you're going to ban me for something which you started and then bitch at me about. Hypocrite.

By the way, I am superior to you. Get used to it.

As far as your silly god arguments, as I said, they don't prove anything, they're all "god of the gap" arguments. As I explained already (and you obviously could not comprehend) these arguments you presented point to some "gap" in our knowledge, as with the Anthropic Principle, origins of the laws of physics, religious experience, what you call "Cosmological Necessity," etc. The others are just logical blunders, such as your "Everything Has to Have a Reason" nonsense. Who says there has to be a reason for something?

Sorry, but your arguments are just as pathetic as every other I've ever come across. The burden of proof is still on you. That is an obvious and clear rule of logic but you disregard it because you know you cannot prove your god, so you attempt to shift the burden of proof. Shame on you.

So, after all this, who is Joe Hinman? Hmmm... Clearly a delusional individual; doesn't make use of any form of reason, and is a bigoted asshole. I think that answers the question.



UPDATE 3-20-09

I thought I'd go ahead and reply to Hinman's last smearing attempt from a few days ago. As with the last piece my comments to him will be in bold, while when he quotes me, I'll put what I said to him in quotes. Hopefully that won't get too confusing.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Lessons in Ideology

The Arguments in the two previous articles (made Arizona Atheists) are Prefect illustrations of what I call the "ideology of hate group atheism." Just to be clear what I maintain: I am saying that the atheist community is spread out on a continuum. It goes from reasonable knowledgeable thinkers to "fundamentalists" much as Christianity or any other community. The atheist "fundies" or "Dawkamentalists" are extremists who basically exhibit many of the same characteristics of a hate group found in the FBI profile of hate groups.


AA contuied to insist that his arguments were logical and mine are not, and that I know no logic, even though he failed to name a single law of logic that I violate. Some of his arguments were actually logically construed, but they were not arguments about logic. So when it came time to give examples of why he thinks my logic is bad. all he ever did was insist that it's so. Never did he give a single argument other than his original assertion that all God arguments are God of the gaps arguments. I went through ten of my arguments and showed that none of them were God of the gaps. He never answered a single one but continues to assert that it must be the case and that I know nothing of logic.

AA exhibited perfectly circular reasoning and other fallacious assumptions. He argued from analogy, which is a fallacy. He used circular reasoning. Consider his final parting face saving attempt:

"I'm the hateful one?! Now I know you're nothing but delusional. I'm not the one who said I wanted to make christians illegal. One more chance for what? To prove what a dipshit you are? No thanks. I'm not doing the same things you are; I'm responding to your asshole behavior."

First of all, Hinman seems confused because the quote he used of mine has nothing to do with what he was talking about. And I did point out why his arguments were all "god of the gaps" arguments; it's just he doesn't want to see it. On the contrary, it was he who did not give me any examples of why his arguments were not just attempts to fill the gaps of our knowledge. I don't know what he's talking about with arguing from analogy... Maybe it's when I was trying to explain how when someone looks at the sky they can easily see it's blue; there's proof that it's blue (at least when I'm looking at it right now) and that it's obvious what you're looking at is the truth, referring to the fact that his arguments are all god of the gaps arguments. They each simply point to something we don't know and say "god did it." And it's false that I gave no examples (which he never addressed!). Here is a quote from one of my comments to him from the day before, the 16th, so it's an outright lie I gave no examples:

Since your entire reply was just silly I'll just respond to one thing. I'll show you a "law of logic" you violate....

It's called argumentum ad ignorantiam, or "argument from ignorance" which is what each of your reasons for belief are. You don't understand how nature crafted our morality, so you think god did it; you want to believe god created the universe instead of think critically about the fact that even if it's found that the universe did have a beginning (which is debatable), that's no proof of any god, and a christian is still in a precarious position because how can they prove it was their god that did it? There are other gods that are in the running; other gods of creation, according to other creation myths. You want to claim that "mystical" experiences are proof, but there is much evidence that all these are explained through natural processes and events occurring in the brain. Once again, not that any of this will do any good. You will no doubt view it as "whining" when I'm trying to talk some sense into you, which I think is a lost cause.

But remember I didn't say that. He didn't quote me. He claimed to have proof but never showed it. What he originally said was "I heard that you said this." So then I denied it so then he asserts that I did. Here we see the ideology at work. The stubborn insistence that I must be illogical and his views are the standard of logical thought, despite any ability to demonstrate any knowledge of logic or to refute my arguments in any way. The "don't confuse me with the fact" attitude, and the insistence that I must be the hateful one despite the fact that I resisting any personal insults until the last exchange when he had just gone so far over the top I couldn't hold back any more. He resorted to insulting my intelligence. I did not resort to call him names such as "stupid" until well after he called me that several times. His speak was loaded and peppered with hateful tones and innuendos. I was truly trying my best not to resort to personal remarks. But of course he doesn't take any of that into account.

He is referring to the misstep I made about mistaking what he said, though not that it matters. He has still acted like a hateful bigot and continues to claim I continuously insult him, when he has always thrown the first punch in each and every discussion I've tried to have with him.

"Just because you're unable to recognize a logical argument when it's presented to you doesn't mean I didn't make one."



Of course he doesn't demonstrate any knowledge of logic at all. He made no attempt to analyze the logic of any argument I make. He didn't use any terms of logic or talk about any rules of logic. One wonders if he is even aware that logic has a special vocabulary. It's clear that all he's really doing is comparing what I say to the ideological slogans that he thinks in and then since what I say fits the criteria for the hated target and doesn't match that of the ideological slogans, then I must be illogical because that's the way ideologues see the world.

AA has demonstrated far better I could have just why I think there is a hate group at the extreme end of the atheist spectrum. Some part of the atheist community is motivated by the need to feel superior by creating a scape goat among religious people especially Christians. Like the Nazis that segment of atheists use Christianity as the scapegoat on which to pin all the ills of society. That explains the bogus social science approach such as the "Paul study" which tires to say (my misreading statistics) that Christians are morel likely to go to prison. Clearly AA derives a sense of supiriority form his venting of hate and insult. When mocking and derision of others is the basis of one's self esteem we know that one is bound to suffer a miserable life. I do not hate these people, I pity them.

For his own good I pray that AA will find the basis in self esteem based upon the concept that he is loved rather than the ability to mock and deride scape goats. That's the true power of the Gospel. It's based upon the assertion that God is real and God loves each one of us, rather a false sense of supiriority that comes from putting others down.

Posted by J.L. Hinman at 6:25 AM

I don't demonstrate any knowledge of logic??? Wow, another empty claim with no evidence by the guy who believes in magic men in the sky....

Once again another lie:

"He made no attempt to analyze the logic of any argument I make."

Bull. I clearly stated that his arguments were an "argument from ignorence" which he never demonstrated how this wasn't the case.

There he goes again with his Nazi bullshit....

As I said this guy's persecution syndrome is off the fucking charts. Put others down??? I do not put others down; he insulted me first in each discussion I attempted to have, and then he brings out this stupid "atheist hate group" crap that I've already obliterated from another moron (who used to be a member of the christian Cadre, who went by the name of "M") a little over a year ago.

And once again, instead of giving any examples of why I'm wrong about anything, he sits there at his computer making up this "hate group" crap when he continously insults me without provocation and never answers any of my arguments.

My earlier assessment of Hinman stands firm.


Update 3-25-09

Well, well, well... It looks like Hinman mentioned me at his other blog (http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2009/03/outrage-and-incredulitythe-athiest.html) he has, though he conducts himself in a much more professional and coherent manner than I am used to, but his arguments still fail.

Here is his blog post with my comments after in bold. Because he goes after other atheists' comments, like John Loftus, I'll only focus on what he said about the comment I had left on his AtheistWatch blog.


Sunday, March 15, 2009
Outrage and Incredulity:The Athiest Assertion of No Evidence.


What is all this stuff really about? It never ceases to amaze me how passionate atheists can be about nothing. I mean by that, atheism is suppossed to be nothing more than an absence of belief, right? Yet so many times I see them full of fire and arrogance, blowing their little minds just because someone holds a view they don't like. Why? Consider this tirade by Arizona Atheist on Atheist Watch:


Arizona Atheist



Faith is bullshit. Your claiming it's "complex" does nothing to solve your problem. Theists have no evidence for their beliefs and that's that. All "arguments" are simply "god of the gaps" arguments and nothing more. Due to the tremendous lack of proof/evidence for all theistic claims it's all based on "blind faith." So, yes Loftus is correct. Faith is nonsense.

Clearly outraged by belief, but why? The major thinkers in Western culture have been religious, only a tiny handful of great thinkers throughout history have been true atheists, yet to look at such comments (which are a dime a dozen) one would think that belief was the most idiotic thing anyone ever thought of. One of the things that really strikes me as absurd is their insistence that "there's no evidence at all..." This is bound to strike me the wrong way when I have 42 arguments for the existence of God (of course we all know the importance of the number 42). No evidence, except these 42 arguments! Why the histrionics? here I will argue two things: (1) The reason it seems that there is no evidence is because atheists value only the methods that give them the answers they want, they do not accept evdience for God because it has to come from the wrong methods, and they reject the methods becasue they are mining their data. (2) They are angered by the concept that other methods may be valid because would imply that they are only looking at the surface of the issues. Why that should I alarm them so I'm not sure. I think it's a cultural thing, the hate group derives some sense of superiority from deriding the target (according to the standard FBI model).

As I have pointed out numerous times, belief in God is not merely adding a fact to the universe. The question of God is not a question about just the existence of one more thing. It's a question of orientation to being as a whole, especially to one's own individual being. If God exists then all of reality is something other than we think it is. If God is real then I am more than myself I am a creature of God. Atheists and theists live in two different worlds. Thus no amount of empirical data is valid as an answer. So the kinds of answers that would count cannot be sought though scientific evidence alone. The atheist approach is to see this as a limitation or an indication that there is no God. That approach obviously fist what they want to see in the first place. Now many of them wills ay "I was a Christian for 20 years." None of them ever follow that up by saying "I scored real high on the M scale, i had mystical consciousness and union with Christ and Baptism of the Holy Spirit and then I realize it was all false and delusion and made up.The only people who come to this conclusion are those are didn't have it in the first place.

I'm not arguing that they weren't "saved" or they weren't "real Christians." Being a "real Christian" and having Baptism of the Holy Spirit, or "mystical experience" are three different things, they are not three different names for the same thing. Nor am I saying that strongs Christians can't give up their faith. Bu strong Christians tend to give up their faith because they fall into sin, they outgrow their milieu and don't go on to higher understanding, or they suffer grave disappointment (such as death of a spouse) and never work through it. No one that I know of ever gave up belief in God just because soem intellectual argument was hard to answer, or some body of work intimated that it wasn't true, and here I am speaking of those who had the advanced personal experinces. Those sorts of experinces indicate that it is real. These are such deep confirmations in the heart of hearts that they cannot be easily denied or given up. Of course atheists don't even value this form of knowledge. Deeply fearing the subjective, they just ascribe it to "psychology" and for them that term is as good as saying "lie."

The difference in these two ways of thinking is striking. But the atheists can offer no evidence or arguments to invalidate the phenomenological approach. Faith is an existential response to an phenomenological apprehension. This means that faith is personal individual response, not one formed by education or trained through oporent conditioning; it is a response of the individual although course cultural and learning and even genetics come into it. It is a response to the apprehension of sense data apart from the organizing principles impossed upon sense data by genetics, culture, trainnig, psychological pre disposition. It's a response to the suggestions made by the phenomena themselves as we apprehend them. By "existential" it is fundametnal to our existence and within the moment of perception. What exactly is being perceived? That we can't know, but it veries from person to person. Or I should say the vehicl of it veries from person to person. One person may find that a full blown mystical experience is what brings them around, anohter may be expossed to just one prhase or one image and find that merely a pang of the heart is all that is needed.

Atheists draw such a hard and fast connection between science and the world. One could easily get the impression that the world comes with little labels on rocks and trees that say "naturalistic." If religion was true the lables would say "trees by God." But when I aruge my Transcendental Signifier argument they will say that we are just impossing meaning. That's one thier standard respones. Human brain sees pattern and imposes meaning upon pattern it's just ink blots. The world is a big ink blot. But they don't apply that to science. They seem to think scinece is just straight foward and litterally true and unlmited in its ability to know all of reality that ever be. We derive the kind of certainty from scinece that we do because it's dealing mainly with things that can be observed. These are realtiviely easy questions. No one thinks a question like "where did the universe come form" is easy. Atheists seem to infer that it is easy and if challenges that sense of certainty they become irate. I often wonder why certainty is so important to them. But have totally obsrued the truth of scinece, that it is cutlurally constructed and not absolute. Ther ire is such that when I argued this on CARM once one of them said "you are scum!" Of course they pronounce the basis of knowledge (epistemology) to be 'bull shit" because it's philosphy, but they never try to undersatnd the philsophical basis to their empricism. They take that as absolute proof beyond question.


Science is a relative cultural construct. It is not absolute knowledge, it is not progress based upon cumulative effects. It works by paradigm shifts, with each shift the whole ground changes. Every time it changes we start over. It is not linear or progressive.


I would agree that science is progressive, but that's because science builds upon any new, legitimate knowledge already acquired. The reason science discounts Hinman's supernatural approach is simply because there is no evidence of the supernatural! Even still, Hinman's "42 arguments" aren't really arguments for god, but simply reasons he believes. These "god of the gap" arguments (of which many I debunk in my paper Against the Gods: Arguments Against God's Existence linked to above) are not any form of evidence as I've explained elsewhere.

Go ahead, go to his page where he lists this supposed impressive list and they are nothing more than proposing his god to fill the gaps in our knowledge: http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/listGodarguments.html


Hinman said:

(1) The reason it seems that there is no evidence is because atheists value only the methods that give them the answers they want, they do not accept evdience for God because it has to come from the wrong methods, and they reject the methods becasue they are mining their data. (2) They are angered by the concept that other methods may be valid because would imply that they are only looking at the surface of the issues. Why that should I alarm them so I'm not sure. I think it's a cultural thing, the hate group derives some sense of superiority from deriding the target (according to the standard FBI model).

It's actually theists who only pay attention to the methods that give them the answers they want. They parade near death experiences, supposedly answered prayer, etc. around as if it's some kind of "evidence" of the supernatural, and in turn, their god. As I showed in my paper Evidence Against the Supernatural there is an abundance of evidence showing that these supposedly "supernatural" phenomenon is actually naturally caused and these causes can be studied.

There is no other reliable method of fact finding than the scientific method. By which "methods" does he propose to prove his god? Logic? Nope. Science? HA! Nope.

As for his number two argument he proposes his done to death "hate group" crap that I demolished above.

Hinman said:

" No one that I know of ever gave up belief in God just because soem intellectual argument was hard to answer, or some body of work intimated that it wasn't true, and here I am speaking of those who had the advanced personal experinces. Those sorts of experinces indicate that it is real. These are such deep confirmations in the heart of hearts that they cannot be easily denied or given up. Of course atheists don't even value this form of knowledge. Deeply fearing the subjective, they just ascribe it to "psychology" and for them that term is as good as saying 'lie.'"

First of all, he really has to learn to use spell check...

Second, these experiences prove nothing, as I have shown in my paper (linked to above) Against the Gods: Arguments Against God's Existence.

Hinman said:

"Atheists draw such a hard and fast connection between science and the world. One could easily get the impression that the world comes with little labels on rocks and trees that say "naturalistic." If religion was true the lables would say "trees by God." But when I aruge my Transcendental Signifier argument they will say that we are just impossing meaning. That's one thier standard respones. Human brain sees pattern and imposes meaning upon pattern it's just ink blots. The world is a big ink blot. But they don't apply that to science. They seem to think scinece is just straight foward and litterally true and unlmited in its ability to know all of reality that ever be. We derive the kind of certainty from scinece that we do because it's dealing mainly with things that can be observed. These are realtiviely easy questions. No one thinks a question like "where did the universe come form" is easy. Atheists seem to infer that it is easy and if challenges that sense of certainty they become irate. I often wonder why certainty is so important to them. But have totally obsrued the truth of scinece, that it is cutlurally constructed and not absolute. Ther ire is such that when I argued this on CARM once one of them said "you are scum!" Of course they pronounce the basis of knowledge (epistemology) to be 'bull shit" because it's philosphy, but they never try to undersatnd the philsophical basis to their empricism. They take that as absolute proof beyond question."

Well, not one person I've ever encountered thinks that one should find labels proclaiming god's handy work. After all, if there was actually evidence for their beliefs, they wouldn't need faith!

Actually, if anyone thinks a question like "where did the universe come from" is easy it's theists: "god did it!"

No need to explain just how they know this, they just know, or maybe because of their bible they say the answer is right there, but they then make an enormous error where they actually believe a book written by these ignorant people thousands of years ago can tell us answers to questions that even our most advanced science to date can't answer for sure yet.

It also might be a fact that science will never be able to answer "where" the universe came from (if it even did in the first place..it might just be a brute fact - it just exists), but I don't see how Hinman can claim that to atheists "certainty is so important" to us. It's not, actually. I, and many others, calmly admit science might not answer everything, but unlike atheists, theists are not content with not knowing, so they invent reasons, like their god. If anything, Hinman is clearly projecting here...

Hinman said:

"As I have pointed out numerous times, belief in God is not merely adding a fact to the universe. The question of God is not a question about just the existence of one more thing. It's a question of orientation to being as a whole, especially to one's own individual being. If God exists then all of reality is something other than we think it is. If God is real then I am more than myself I am a creature of God. Atheists and theists live in two different worlds. Thus no amount of empirical data is valid as an answer. So the kinds of answers that would count cannot be sought though scientific evidence alone. The atheist approach is to see this as a limitation or an indication that there is no God. That approach obviously fist what they want to see in the first place. Now many of them wills ay "I was a Christian for 20 years." None of them ever follow that up by saying "I scored real high on the M scale, i had mystical consciousness and union with Christ and Baptism of the Holy Spirit and then I realize it was all false and delusion and made up.The only people who come to this conclusion are those are didn't have it in the first place."

There are so many problems with this statement that my mind is beginning to hurt trying to figure out how someone can be so illogical.

First of all, god is not a "fact." Despite all the reasons for their beliefs they have never proven anything. Second, I agree that atheists and theists view the world differently and that each side chooses different methods of interpretation of the facts and events of our world, but as I explained here a person can either accept or deny reality and theists clearly reject evidence and deny reality when it suits their preconceived beliefs.

It's not as if theism has some "other" way of knowing; you either know or you don't. You either know the state of the universe (was it "created" or is it eternal?), or you don't. If you don't know then saying "god did it" is a pretty dumb answer because it actually doesn't answer anything!

As I said before, Hinman is an ignorant moron and that's that. There is no evidence of his god and that's that.


UPDATE 4-2-09

I wanted to get screenshots of Hinman's insults towards me when I first began posting on his blog to avoid his bogus claims that I had insulted him first. The very first comment I ever posted on was called "Don't be a sucker, man part 2" from January 18, 2009 (http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/dont-be-sucker-man-part-2.html):


In reply to my first comment above he is actually civil, but when I reply to another post about Zuckerman in a post titled "Zuckerman, part 3" from January 20, 2009 (http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/zuckerman-part-3.html) is when Hinman starts with his insults by calling me an idiot. As can be seen below I simply say his arguments were silly, not him, which is in no way a personal attack. I guess Hinman isn't aware of that fact...

My Comment:



Hinman's Reply:


Finally on January 23, 2009 in a post Hinman titled "Atheist defense of Zuckerman is Lame" [in which he is referring to me] (http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/atheist-defnse-of-zuckerman-is-lame.html) I point out his insulting behavior and he tries to defend it by claiming I was rude to him first. As I said, Hinman clearly needs to learn what a personal attack is.




As I've just shown, it was actually Hinman who started with all the insults and I simply fired back. This entire issue seems to be rampant within this debate because theists seem to love spewing out insults instead of giving arguments.


UPDATE 4-16-09

It has recently come to my attention that Hinman is afflicted with dyslexia, which is why his grammar is so poor, so I wish to withdraw my above comment in which I said the following, mocking his writing:

"In fact, with your poor grammar and attitude you seem more like a pissed off 16 year old."

I apologize for making fun of his writing, since I was under the impression his grammar was due to his temper and his pounding of the keyboard and not paying attention to spelling. Being a person who has a disability myself (I've got a prosthetic leg) I can actually understand Hinman and respect him for his persistence in writing as much as he does despite his condition. However, that still does nothing to explain his rude and immature behavior. It also may account for his very poor arguments (maybe he could not read, thus fully understand, some of the arguments I made) but even still, he is wrong factually, and that doesn't change even if he has trouble with reading and writing (or typing). So, even though I respect him for his accomplishments, I still think he's an asshole.

Who the Hell Is Joe Hinman?