Creationist Sentenced to 8,658 Years

Does anyone here doubt that modern conmen such as Adnan Oktar and Ken Ham are liars who gain people's money and amass personal fortunes by telling them their religious bigotries and dogmas are true?

Sure not all liars for dollars are guilty of committing crimes such as Adnan Oktar is, but in the case of fleecing the rank and file believer of their dollars to amass personal fortunes by reinforcing the bigotries and dogmas of the rank and file with lies they are all morally culpable surely.

In my opinion.

danieldemol said:

Does anyone here doubt that modern conmen such as Adnan Oktar and Ken Ham are liars who gain people's money and amass personal fortunes by telling them their religious bigotries and dogmas are true?

Sure not all liars for dollars are guilty of committing crimes such as Adnan Oktar is, but in the case of fleecing the rank and file believer of their dollars to amass personal fortunes by reinforcing the bigotries and dogmas of the rank and file with lies they are all morally culpable surely.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

In the Western secular humanist tradition that can also be the case for the idea of a good, healthy and productive life. The difference is that that cult is not a cult. It is the main dogma which most people don't question and which nonetheless can lead to harm.

Left Coast said:

Instead of focusing on the title, let's focus on a child predator being behind bars.

Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be of much interest to many here who appear to be more interested in people not reading that he is a creationist. Tell us he's a creationist, or tell us he's a criminal, but not both even if he is both. Why? It's a smear to note that he is both. Not if it's a fact.

But I understand. People who still respect religion and want to be respected for being religious don't like seeing religious failure in the news. It diminishes the status of religion and the religious outside their circles. But that's just how it is today, with modern media capability.

Revoltingest said:

"creationist" isn't the most salient feature in the context of his crimes.

Click to expand...

Creationist isn't the issue. Being a militant creationist (if I can borrow language from the theists to reflect activism), a propagandist, and "cult preacher" who attempts to persuade people while feigning that he should be trusted when he should not is.

That's a recurrent theme in the news of the last several decades. These people are notoriously frauds, hypocrites and criminals, like Bakker, Falwell, Hovind, Jeffs, Swaggert, Jones, Koresh, and the Roman Catholic Church. How many prominent creationists haven't been exposed as one or more of these?

Let each decide for himself what is salient here, or how many salient points should be included in a story. I would consider omitting this man's CV covering up. Which militant creationist hasn't been exposed as a liar, fraud, or criminal? We wouldn't know that about these people if all we knew was their crimes and not their ideologies, which are antithetical to humanism. I consider that very relevant and a problem. It's why I'm anti-theistic and opposed to organized, politicized, faith-based, anti-humanistic ideologies.

So, being criminal isn't salient at all except to those he harmed with his criminality. There's nothing there of any interest to a non-Turk

Quintessence said:

classic smear agenda

Click to expand...

You see creationists being smeared, but not Turks or men. Weren't they all mentioned? Was "cult preacher" also a smear to you? It seems like more of a smear to me than creationist, but nobody seemed to mind that. How about anti-scientific, religious propagandist and cult leader rather than creationist?

Quintessence said:

In other words, you are drawing attention to a criminal conviction who happens to be a Turkish creationist for the expressed purpose of undermining creationism in the eyes of others

Click to expand...

No. It's to undermine being Turkish:

Jose Fly said:

It's effectively eternity!

Click to expand...

He is up for parole after 2,472 years. He has that going for him.

Let me make a few things clear, given the objections from @Quintessence and @RestlessSoul ....

First, as several have noted already, the practice of headlining an article like this is fairly common, especially in the context of specific interest areas. For example, it's not unusual to open the sports page of a newspaper and see a headline like "Ex-NFL Player Convicted" or "Former Dallas Cowboy Arrested". Of course, no one sees those as any sort of smear campaign against football players or Dallas Cowboys players. It's simply a news item that's of significance to people who frequent the sports section. Similarly, Harun Yahya's conviction and sentencing is of note to people who frequent the evolution v. creationism section of this forum (as mentioned before, his material has been posted here). Kind of a "remember this guy?" thing.

However, with that said, I fully acknowledge that like @Subduction Zone I have a fair bit of schadenfreude here. This guy made much of his living creating books, articles, videos, and websites to spread lies about science and scientists, including smearing biologists like myself. IOW, this wasn't merely some random person who just happened to believe in creationism. He was the habitual and unrepentant author and spreader of a great deal of lies and slander against the scientific community. So yeah, him finally getting his comeuppance is quite satisfying.

Finally, I understand that some folks aren't going to agree with this and may even be offended. But honestly.....I don't really care. Go ahead, be offended and tell me how terrible I am. That's your right, just as it's also my right to shrug my shoulders and move on. That's life. Your being offended does not give you veto power over what I say or think.

Dan From Smithville said:

He is up for parole after 2,472 years. He has that going for him.

Click to expand...

He'd better eat healthy! I hear Turkish prisons are well known for their excellent cuisine.

The best descriptor I can think of for the perp in the OP
is "Turkish televangelist". Its merits....
- Tis a broader class than just "creationist", a mere subset.
- Alliteration, which is always a good thing.

Headline: "King Charles III accused of tax evasion" (Not true!!!!)

RF poster: "Hey, are you accusing all Kings of being tax evaders! How dare you?"

Revised headline: "Charles Windsor, currently residing at Buckingham Palace, London, accused of tax evasion".

RF poster: "That's better".

Alien826 said:

Headline: "King Charles III accused of tax evasion" (Not true!!!!)

RF poster: "Hey, are you accusing all Kings of being tax evaders! How dare you?"

Revised headline: "Charles Windsor, currently residing at Buckingham Palace, London, accused of tax evasion".

RF poster: "That's better".

Click to expand...

Nah.
"King Charles" is a name.
Without either "King" or "Charles" it would signify no one in particular.
"Charles Windsor" doesn't even tell me he's "King Charles".
(We gave the royals the boot long ago, so we're less familiar with other names.)

Revoltingest said:

Nah.
"King Charles" is a name.
Without either "King" or "Charles" it would signify no one in particular.
"Charles Windsor" doesn't even tell me he's "King Charles".
(We gave the royals the boot long ago, so we're less familiar with other names.)

Click to expand...

It’s Charles Saxe-Coburg Goethe

RestlessSoul said:

It’s Charles Saxe-Coburg Goethe

Click to expand...

Not to me.
He's "Prince Charles Tampongate".

Jose Fly said:

First, as several have noted already, the practice of headlining an article like this is fairly common, especially in the context of specific interest areas. For example, it's not unusual to open the sports page of a newspaper and see a headline like "Ex-NFL Player Convicted" or "Former Dallas Cowboy Arrested". Of course, no one sees those as any sort of smear campaign against football players or Dallas Cowboys players.

Click to expand...

That's fair, though in a case like this I'm deeply skeptical of the motive for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier (that is, first impressions count and headlines play a disproportionate role in framing a story). Impressions especially count for groups that are routinely subject to social stigma, shaming, or marginalization.

The comparison here to talking about sports players is not a fair one with respect to understanding why I have the concerns I have here. Sports players are not groups that share widespread stigma, shaming, or marginalization. Creationists on the other hand, are routinely mocked, shamed, and maligned (more importantly, this happens here). That's a significant contextual difference that changes the optics for me.

Personally, I don't really have a horse in this race, except I've seen this sort of thing done against my own religious demographics so it sets off red flags (also, raised by a media specialist). I get that humans take pleasure in watching people they hate burn in fire. Though it's rather unsightly, it is what it is. Sorry if I'm being a curmudgeon about this as in spite of not having a horse in this race I'm really sick to death of creationists being whipping targets.

Quintessence said:

That's fair, though in a case like this I'm deeply skeptical of the motive for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier (that is, first impressions count and headlines play a disproportionate role in framing a story). Impressions especially count for groups that are routinely subject to social stigma, shaming, or marginalization.

The comparison here to talking about sports players is not a fair one with respect to understanding why I have the concerns I have here. Sports players are not groups that share widespread stigma, shaming, or marginalization. Creationists on the other hand, are routinely mocked, shamed, and maligned (more importantly, this happens here). That's a significant contextual difference that changes the optics for me.

Personally, I don't really have a horse in this race, except I've seen this sort of thing done against my own religious demographics so it sets off red flags (also, raised by a media specialist). I get that humans take pleasure in watching people they hate burn in fire. Though it's rather unsightly, it is what it is. Sorry if I'm being a curmudgeon about this as in spite of not having a horse in this race I'm really sick to death of creationists being whipping targets.

Click to expand...

If Muad'Dib were here, "creationist" would be a killing word.
(Nerd joke.)

Revoltingest said:

Not to me.
He's "Prince Charles Tampongate".

Click to expand...

I’m afraid, sir, I cannot tolerate so gross an insult to the Crown from a colonial upstart such as yourself…choose your weapons, and meet me on the Heath at Dawn.

RestlessSoul said:

I’m afraid, sir, I cannot tolerate so gross an insult to the Crown from a colonial upstart such as yourself…choose your weapons, and meet me on the Heath at Dawn.

Click to expand...

I know neither Heath nor Dawn.
And I plan to mount neither.
Besides, we already beat & sent packing, your swishy powdered
wig wearing red coated Nancy boy miserable excuse for soldiers
with their primitive smoothbore muskets.

Quintessence said:

That's fair, though in a case like this I'm deeply skeptical of the motive for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier (that is, first impressions count and headlines play a disproportionate role in framing a story). Impressions especially count for groups that are routinely subject to social stigma, shaming, or marginalization.

The comparison here to talking about sports players is not a fair one with respect to understanding why I have the concerns I have here. Sports players are not groups that share widespread stigma, shaming, or marginalization. Creationists on the other hand, are routinely mocked, shamed, and maligned (more importantly, this happens here). That's a significant contextual difference that changes the optics for me.

Personally, I don't really have a horse in this race, except I've seen this sort of thing done against my own religious demographics so it sets off red flags (also, raised by a media specialist). I get that humans take pleasure in watching people they hate burn in fire. Though it's rather unsightly, it is what it is. Sorry if I'm being a curmudgeon about this as in spite of not having a horse in this race I'm really sick to death of creationists being whipping targets.

Click to expand...

I have seen creationists rightfully mocked and shamed, but never maligned. Do you have any examples?

The sort of science denial that creationists promulgate is harmful to others. We saw this with anti-vaxxers during the pandemic. Politics is tied to this too and there were significantly more deaths in Trump counties than in Biden ones. I may not like Trump supporters but I never advocated for their deaths. Ironically this is something that they did to themselves.

If a person wants to deny reality that is their right. But I will raise a variety ice in protest if they try to take others with them.

Subduction Zone said:

If a person wants to deny reality that is their right. But I will raise a variety ice in protest if they try to take others with them.

Click to expand...

The above is a neat trick. It changes the
subject from how disagreement is addressed
to a sly suggestion that reality is denied.

Revoltingest said:

Nah.
"King Charles" is a name.
Without either "King" or "Charles" it would signify no one in particular.
"Charles Windsor" doesn't even tell me he's "King Charles".
(We gave the royals the boot long ago, so we're less familiar with other names.)

Click to expand...

"King" is a title. It distinguishes "Charles" from people named Charles who are not kings. (And I should have added III, the third, to nail it down exactly). I think "Charles Windsor who lives in Buckingham Palace" is closer to definitive, though there could be a janitor names Charles Windsor I suppose.

What you say is my point though. We add "King" to make it clear which "Charles" we are referring to, not to suggest that all kings evade taxes.

Alien826 said:

"King" is a title. It distinguishes "Charles" from people named Charles who are not kings. (And I should have added III, the third, to nail it down exactly). I think "Charles Windsor who lives in Buckingham Palace" is closer to definitive, though there could be a janitor names Charles Windsor I suppose.

What you say is my point though. We add "King" to make it clear which "Charles" we are referring to, not to suggest that all kings evade taxes.

Click to expand...

You limeys...always making names & titles so complex.

Revoltingest said:

The above is a neat trick. It changes the
subject from how disagreement is addressed
to a sly suggestion that reality is denied.

Click to expand...

Not a trick. Reality can be demonstrated. Creationism cannot be.