Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I met Haggard about 3 years ago when I was doing some construction work in the Springs. He scared me then, and he scares me now, not because of what he himself believes, but because of all the people who stand behind him and believe the same things, and because a man like his has a direct line to the top of the U.S. government. There is no more separation of church and state, and until we can get back to a point where there is, we are lost as a country.
Gaydar definantly is getting something here.
Geez, SN, why don’t you tell us how you really feel?
I was disappointed by this simply because there wasn’t much meat to it; Ted spent most of his time trying to avoid having any serious discussion.
What is notable is that he spent much of that time positing equivalence between “points of view” — do you suppose he’d have admitted to being a relativist, however?
considering the passionate responses to other post on Haggard I call flame bait on this one 😉
comment at your own risk
BTW an Atheist making a documentary about Christianity? Isn’t that like a Democrat making a documentary about Republicans? LOL
Also quite notable is the fact that he submitted to an interview in the first place without final editorial approval — hasn’t he ever watched 60 Minutes?. I have to say that my big “knock me over with a feather” moment was when I saw his interview live on CNN, and watched him admit on camera to having committed a felony drug purchase. That may have legal consequences.
Let’s all pray really hard for Pastor Ted.
“BTW an Atheist making a documentary about Christianity? Isn’t that like a Democrat making a documentary about Republicans?”
No more so than Christians making documentaries about Atheists (and being a Christian, and raised in a Conservative Christian home, I saw a LOT of those :-P)
An interesting video.
Haggard’s immoral behavior is indefensable, but using this video to attack him doesn’t carry much weight. I never really heard of him before, but I don’t think his expertise is in defending creationism. I have heard people who DO specialize in that and they can pretty much stand up to any ‘fact’s you throw at them, or at least offer a convincing case to the contrary. Even some leading scientist who were once evolutionist are convinced that intelligent design had to be a part of “creation” (while still rejecting Christianity). My point is that this is a pretty un-convincing where they seemed to ambush the guy, got him on camera for a few minutes, and then made a smear campaign out of it. Of course I’m not surprised to come across it here as Dvorak is obviously militantly anti-Christian.
…Dvorak is obviously militantly anti-Christian…
Nah, he ain’t. The REST of us are.
I feel sorry for this guy. Not for what he did, or for what he’s going through. I feel sorry that he is so conflicted with himself that he ever got into this situation. I also think he’s a big douchebag.
#8 Max, speak for yourself! I’m not militant unless you’re passin’ out the hardware, pal 😉
Militant?
Like in The Unsalvation Army? NOT 🙂
Otto raises a good point – Christians/creationists can be as guilty of shutting down opposing viewpoints as evolutionists. James also has a good point in that Dawkins is a leading evolutionary scientist, whereas Haggard is(was) just a pastor (albeit with an enormous congregation), not an expert on the subject of creationism in particular – and as to the question of multiple viewpoints – I would say “scientifically prove that science can prove everything” – Dawkins is an atheist, and his atheistic views come out strongly in this clip – Haggard might just have a point about him being intellectually arrogant in dismissing all “non-scientific” (read, having some element of faith) views out of hand.
Both of them are nuts.
Lets be open about it everyone…
I don’t like how religion has so much power over people in this country
Is it the “churches” fault No! It is the “people’s” fault.
We really need better education in this country!
I have beliefs but I don’t like to impose them on this pluralistic nation… to each his own , you know. I want the same respect for my “non-belief” or non-practicing way.
I stopped being “weary” not so much at the government but at the people who choose to believe so much crap and end up voting, or believing this crap.
I defend atheists over religious ones!
I’m a biologist, so I may be biased! And I hate how “stupid” people think of smarter ones as “arrogant”. That is just plain silly and shows envy.
Anyways, peace you all. If I believe in something, is that being nice to each other seems … nicer than the other options!
:Devil of outside, the content of the angel, return hesitant what? game
Dawkins hinted at one intriguing aspect of churches. What gives the pastor/priest any more interpretation power over the common individual? Why should anyone follow the pastor’s interpretation of the bible when the individual can interpret the bible themselves? If their god wanted everyone to follow the same beliefs, wouldn’t their god make the bible understandable by all without a middle man?
The comparison of atheist/christian to democrat/republican is wrong. Democrat and republican are both political whereas atheist and christian are not both religion. Christian/islamic to democrat/republican is a better comparison. This comparison should be on the SAT test.
How factual can faith be? I am thinking not much.
OFF TOPIC
This reminds me of RBG’s comment #1, on this post:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=7873#comments
…do you find yourself preferring to read the text story when both text and video items are simultaneously offered on news web sites? I find I don’t have the patience to sit through a story that doesn’t allow me to quickly scan for relevant details.
I feel the same way, when trying to watch this video…
#17
The video is a portion from part one of two, about 45 minutes episodes from British Television, I think.
I watched them both, and thought they were pretty good. So maybe watching just the part isn’t giving it justice?
Makes me wonder how some watch movies tho. Watch the first 5 minutes, then FF until the revealing moment of the movie appears. Yeah. That’s a lot of fun 😉
Gaydar? Maybe. Attack piece? I suspect this was only part of a larger piece, maybe the 45-minute clips in the “virus of religion” series.
So it’s out of context. But still interesting and not such an ambush as some people think. He did okay for himself – lots of cool soundbites he can pull out for his own editorials.
I loved that Pastor Ted waited until there was no chance of a real confrontation, then chased the evil scientists away. Get thee hence! Bet he had his own cameras on that one. 😀
What alarms me is the arrogance of the atheists. Where do they get off saying there is not some force beyond ourselves that gives our lives challenge and purpose. How can you come to that conclusion there is no afterlife when science itself says 95% of the universe is made up of energy and materials beyond our ability to measure. The rampant stereotyping and judgemental-ism displayed in this video about Christians and their beliefs makes me ill. But then when it comes to religion, liberals swim with delight in stereotyping and judgementalism.
How can someone be an expert on something that is not even a legitimate subject of study?
Just because you do not believe in God does not mean that he does not exist. If you are right, I have nothing to lose. If I’m right I have nothing to lose. Looks like you are the only loser in this situation. By the way, I do not know what this guy did that is up to him and God and maybe the courts.
Stick to technology John. Your whole blog is becoming an anti-religious forum. This is an area that I do not consider you an expert.
The theory of evolution vs the second law of thermodynamics.
Anyone know the difference between a theory and a law?
#22 The god gambit is based on the assumption that there are two states of being when the body dies, death and life-after-death. If there is no life after death then nobody wins anything because there is no claiming victory after death. You are just dead. If there is life after death then the winnings are unknown. In the after life, you might find out there is no god. Life after death does not guarantee that god exist. If there is no god in the after life, does that mean a believer of god looses?
If you want something to really ponder on, ask yourself if there is only two states you can be in after your body dies.
The theory of evolution vs the second law of thermodynamics.
Anyone know the difference between a theory and a law?
theory
Definition:
In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws.
second law of thermodynamics
Definition:
1. All of the chemical and physical processes in a closed system tend to drive that system toward maximum entropy.
link
Clue: the Earth is not a closed system.
he got what he deserves and the rest of this christain movement we get theirs if they continue to believe that they have a moral authority over the rest of the nation.
when you make yourself out to be a moral person
MAKE SURE YOU ARE
I watched it and I gotta say, although there is no doubt that Dawkins is right on evolution still I thought his performance was pathetic. What kind of reaction do you think your going to get when you tell the guy that his sermon reminded him of a Nuremberg ralley and then he compares Haggard to Goebbels? Why feel so threated by a guy like Haggard that you have to be so offensive. Why not just state your position calmly. Had he done so Haggard would have been babbling in a short while. But no he want to provoke him so that he could put that on television. It was gratuitous provocation and all these blogs stating that Haggard lost his cool are being unfair IMO. True Haggard is doing a disservice to education in this country but this performance helped not at all.
It was obvious by Dawkins performance that he himself is a true believer – that is in his unswerving CERTAINTY that there is no God. Look, neither theism nor atheism holds water because neither can prove their case. The most honest position that one can hope for, at least at present, is agnosticism, wherein one reserves judgement pending more data either way. Dawkins is a missionary of atheism.
As a Bible believing Christian with a preference for intelligence and intelligent design, I must say that I have the utmost respect for Richard Dawkins and nothing but contempt for Ted Haggard.
#22
> Just because you do not believe in God does not mean that
> he does not exist. If you are right, I have nothing to
> lose. If I’m right I have nothing to lose. Looks like you
> are the only loser in this situation. By the way, I do not
> know what this guy did that is up to him and God and maybe
> the courts
The first rule of economics, the study of scarcity, is, “There are no free lunches.” Every decision has a cost. So, you may very well have quite a lot to lose.
First, if this god in which you believe does not exist and you believe in him/her/it anyway, how many other things have ascribed belief which do not exist? How much time and energy have you wasted? How many resources have you wasted?
Secondly, if this god does exist, how do you know that you are providing the proper homage? For all you know, skepticism and thurst for knowledge are the true ideals desired by this deity and not blind acceptance. If this deity is a punishing sort, for all you know you are living the exact opposite type of life that you should. Without knowing the real desires of your deity and instead relying on subjective interpretation for which you have no idea of its accuracy at the expensive of your money and time could cost you quite a bit in the long run.
Well put, Thomas.
It doesn’t matter what you believe, as long as you’re moral. If there is a god, he won’t have good people burn in hell, and if he would, he/she/it’s not worthy of worship in the first place.