• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Kent Hovind's ex speaks out!

A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, he is an example of a human. So what? I mean if you want to make a scientific theory of it, have a go. But as it stands, he is is a human like the rest of us.
Click to expand...
A human who professes A LOT of things of a "righteous" and "holy" nature... and then wallows around in the mud. If you want to add "like the rest of us" go ahead. In my experience in the reality we are presented here on Earth, there is genuine utility to knowing and understanding who is a hypocrite and can't walk to the beat of their own supposed drum to save their lives. It's good to know who you can easily ignore without giving a second thought to the crap they say that seems outlandish. Even if only the fact that such knowledge of them saves me time - that's enough to make it worth keeping mental record of who wears a hat made of buttocks like Kent does.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
A Vestigial Mote said:
A human who professes A LOT of things of a "righteous" and "holy" nature... and then wallows around in the mud. If you want to add "like the rest of us" go ahead. In my experience in the reality we are presented here on Earth, there is genuine utility to knowing and understanding who is a hypocrite and can't walk to the beat of their own supposed drum to save their lives. It's good to know who you can easily ignore without giving the crap they say that seems outlandish a second thought. Even if only the fact that that knowledge of them saves time - that's enough to keep mental record of who wears a hat made of buttocks like Kent does.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is subjectively useful.
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, that is subjectively useful.
Click to expand...
Precisely. And since my entire experience is subjective, subjective usefulness is important to me, and will remain so.

Complain all you want about the non-objectivity of anything and everything, and continue to try and deconstruct the universe all you like. None of that makes untrue things true, nor does it make subjectively (and inter-subjectively) obvious things any less important. I know you try... and it is as amusing to watch as it is frustrating, but I just feel compelled to let you know that you aren't changing the world. You're just making a lot of people shake their heads and/or shrug and eventually roll their eyes with enough exposure.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
A Vestigial Mote said:
Precisely. And since my entire experience is subjective, subjective usefulness is important to me, and will remain so.

Complain all you want about the non-objectivity of anything and everything, and continue to try and deconstruct the universe all you like. None of that makes untrue things true, nor does it make subjectively (and inter-subjectively) obvious things any less important. I know you try... and it is as amusing to watch as it is frustrating, but I just feel compelled to let you know that you aren't changing the world. You're just making a lot of people shake their heads and/or shrug and eventually roll their eyes with enough exposure.
Click to expand...

Well, I do subjectively believe in the objective, It just seems to have limits just as subjectivity.
We just apparently do it differently in some cases.
 
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, but that is neither here nor there as for science or religion as such.
Click to expand...

It surely speaks to the man's lack of integrity, and one is justified in drawing inferences from someone so consistently dishonest, I'd have thought.

There is no objective debate between the scientific fact of species evolution, and completely unevidenced archaic creation myths.

In the astronomically unlikely event that species evolution were reversed in its entirety tomorrow morning, it would NOT be evidence for, nor lend any credence to those creation myths, as they are based on naught but unevidenced superstition.
 
Last edited:
Sheldon

Sheldon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Well, I do subjectively believe in the objective, It just seems to have limits just as subjectivity.
Click to expand...

A little facile, as they are not limited equally in their efficacy at understanding reality, or else subjective opinion wouldn't be denying facts science has uncovered, it would be competing with science and discovering them as well. bearing in mind subjective beliefs and religions have had literally thousands of years, and the scientific method has had just a few hundred, the successes of science are beyond objective dispute, and the method has been improved over that period to be ever more rigorous in it's objective scrutiny of claims and ideas.

.....and no, that is not just my subjective opinion.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sheldon said:
It surely speaks to the man's lack of integrity, and one is justified in drawing inferences from someone so consistently dishonest, I'd have thought.

There is no objective debate between the scientific fact of species evolution, and completely unevidenced archaic creation myths.

In the astronomically unlikely event that species evolution were reversed in its entirety tomorrow morning, it would NOT be evidence for, nor lend any credence to those creation myths, as they are based on naught but unevidenced superstition.
Click to expand...

Yesh, but for my bolds, this is not science.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Sheldon said:
A little facile, as they are not limited equally in their efficacy at understanding reality, or else subjective opinion wouldn't be denying facts science has uncovered, it would be competing with science and discovering them as well. bearing in mind subjective beliefs and religions have had literally thousands of years, and the scientific method has had just a few hundred, the successes of science are beyond objective dispute, and the method has been improved over that period to be ever more rigorous in it's objective scrutiny of claims and ideas.

.....and no, that is not just my subjective opinion.
Click to expand...

No, that is a subjective opinion shared by other humans than you.
But you have so far only claimed and offered not actual description of how to replicate it as science.
So again: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
That is written by scientists and you can in fact test it. You just get a negative result when you apply science and it is how these are cased of what science can't do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top