• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Eric Hovind "interviews" Dr. Phil Mason (Thunderf00t)

Questioninggeller

Illuminator
Q
Joined
May 11, 2002
Messages
3,048
Eric Hovind "interviews" Dr. Phil Mason, researcher at Cornell and Thunderf00t on youtube at the Reason Rally:

Thunderf00t Vs Eric Hovind (full video)


Below are videos Eric Hovind posted with titles, including "Eric Hovind & Thunderf00t (part 1): Reason Rally 2012 - Atheists Deny Reality" and "Athiests believe in God" (sic). These have better audio:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5
 
Last edited:
I cannot believe what a sleazy and dishonest mind Eric has. He actually seems to think you cannot present a hypothetical argument without actually adopting the hypothetical position you are hypothesizing. He cannot understand a person can pretend to look through the eyes of another person without agreeing with those people.

And then he attacks someone else for dealing in a world of absolutes while arguing that probability is not a factor of science? He denies that intellectual honesty hinges on degrees of probability rather than binary possibility.
 
Halfcentaur said:
I cannot believe what a sleazy and dishonest mind Eric has. He actually seems to think you cannot present a hypothetical argument without actually adopting the hypothetical position you are hypothesizing. He cannot understand a person can pretend to look through the eyes of another person without agreeing with those people.

And then he attacks someone else for dealing in a world of absolutes while arguing that probability is not a factor of science? He denies that intellectual honesty hinges on degrees of probability rather than binary possibility.
Click to expand...

Compounded with a complete lack of knowledge of basic philosophy, not even to mention basic epistemology, Hovind goes on to "explain" things without even thinking about it. As this exchange was quite telling:

Mason: I just told you God doesn't exist.

Hovind: And what you did was you gave up atheism in order to do that.

Mason: No.

Hovind: ... because atheism says we don't know.

Mason: No, no, no. I just told you God doesn't exist and here you are...

Hovind: ... and you had to give up atheism to do that because you said you could be wrong about everything.

Mason: Well, actually I would have said that's more of about practical models on the utility of reality, but this is completely redundant. I've just 'proved' to you that you're wrong about asserting that God exists.

Hovind: and you gave up atheism in order to do that.

Mason: No.

Hovind: because atheism says we don't know.

Mason: No. no. no. I've just told you that I know God doesn't exist and here you are...

Hovind: and you had to give up atheism to do that because you could be wrong about everything.

Mason: Let me get this straight. Are you actually saying to a man who has told you, 'I know no God exists' that you're not an atheist.

Hovind: [pause] Yeah, because just a minute ago...

Mason: Do you understand what an atheist is?

Hovind: Someone who says God doesn't exist.

Mason: I have just told you I know that God does not exist and you just said [waits for Hovind to repeat his previous statement.]

Hovind: Right after you said you don’t know anything.

Mason: You said? [waits for Hovind.]
Click to expand...
 
It's just pure childish "gotcha" tactics. What's hilarious is when you call him on what he did, he sees the error in your summation of his own logic and instead of recognizing he was wrong, he denies he even said it in the first place and claims he said something else.

I don't think he even agrees with the things he is saying, he is just so confident of his own position he thinks he can say anything he wants as he goes along.

Or he realizes the people back at church that he takes this video back to will all agree that if this silly atheist claims there's no way to be certain that reality exists beyond an assumption then he must be crazy.

Just like Ben Stein seemed to rely on how silly the idea is that aliens could be out there creating life when he interviewed Dawkins, as if it wasn't more probable that we were designed by other life forms than a deity given what we can deduce. Meanwhile, we know life exists and that we can bio engineer life forms, but aliens are just inherently kooky so that's all you need to claim victory over Dawkins.

Anyone who thinks reality aint' real gots' t'be a pot smokin' loon! Look at his long hair and how frizzy it looks in the rain! Even his 7 year old daughter knows reality is real!
 
Last edited:
Why did thunderfoot even talk to him? i would have asked about his incarcerated father and ended it there.
 
It's too bad Hovind doesn't take comments or questions on his blog. That's the kind of sparring I enjoy and wouldn't mind tripping through his rhetorical games for some fun.

In general, I am not pleased by the common misuse in the media of the "interview" as a way, not to get the interviewee's opinions, but to air your own.
 
Why did thunderfoot even talk to him? i would have asked about his incarcerated father and ended it there.
 
ThunderChunky said:
Why did thunderfoot even talk to him? i would have asked about his incarcerated father and ended it there.
Click to expand...

Well, Thunderf00t interviewed (or debated, or whatever) Ray Comfort, so... Why not? It's not like he could lower his standards any further. If he wants to do it, why not?
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Well, Thunderf00t interviewed (or debated, or whatever) Ray Comfort, so... Why not? It's not like he could lower his standards any further. If he wants to do it, why not?
Click to expand...

...as well as an interview (of sorts) with Phelp's daughter at the CBC in Topeka. Unfortunately, Thunderfoot's forte is video (and presumably the written word) with lots of time for consideration and reflection; he's not extraordinarily good on his feet for active debate. What he is extraordinarily good at is amateur astronomy, touring and describing natural finds and flying remote controlled planes with cameras over them, as well as biochemistry and off-the-wall science.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Well, Thunderf00t interviewed (or debated, or whatever) Ray Comfort, so... Why not? It's not like he could lower his standards any further. If he wants to do it, why not?
Click to expand...

If he's doing it for his own personal enjoyment, then okay...personally, I didn't find it all that entertaining and I wish he made jokes about Kent Hovind being in prison.
 
shadron said:
...as well as an interview (of sorts) with Phelp's daughter at the CBC in Topeka. Unfortunately, Thunderfoot's forte is video (and presumably the written word) with lots of time for consideration and reflection; he's not extraordinarily good on his feet for active debate. What he is extraordinarily good at is amateur astronomy, touring and describing natural finds and flying remote controlled planes with cameras over them, as well as biochemistry and off-the-wall science.
Click to expand...

Indeed. He seemed unable to do much but arbitrarily hold on to several rotating points of contention while Hovind slipped and slithered as fast as he could into every nook and cranny he could glimpse.
 
Eric Hovind with James Randi

Eric Hovind with James Randi and DJ Grothe at the same event.



Interviewer: If I say God exists because God exists you would have a problem with that.

Randi: I have a problem with that because I don't see evidence.

Interviewer: What is the evidence your reasoning is valid?

Randi: (Laughs) We are talking in circles. This is very juvenile and I don't get in juvenile arguments.
Click to expand...
 
Oh, yeah, the false positivist inadequacy.

"Statements about the world ought to be supported by evidence."
"But where's the evidence for that?"

What they fail to notice is that it is not, in and of itself, a statement about the world.
 
shadron said:
Unfortunately, Thunderfoot's forte is video (and presumably the written word) with lots of time for consideration and reflection; he's not extraordinarily good on his feet for active debate. What he is extraordinarily good at is amateur astronomy, touring and describing natural finds and flying remote controlled planes with cameras over them, as well as biochemistry and off-the-wall science.
Click to expand...
That's not a problem with any individual commentator, but rather it's a foundational error in the concept people have of debates in a scientific context. The type of debates people think of when they think of debates are POLITICAL debates, intended to use rhetoric to sway the audience one way or another. In such debates slippery tactics and half-truths are frequently very effective--as evidenced by the fact that they've been used since Athens was a cultural hub. Unfortunately, these debates, including informal ones, are anethema to the scientific process. Science requires, as cost of entry, that any statement about the universe or any subcomponent be supported by evidence. This naturally leads science to much longer-term discussions involving large amounts of research and examination of the background data prior to commenting. In the scientific arena doing this makes you look....well, frankly it only makes you look like you have some justification for entering into the debate in the first place. In a political debate it makes you look stupid.

No scientist can debate a Creationist in a political-debate style and come out ahead. The nature of the debate forbids it, because a scientist must necessary provide evidence for their claims, while Creationists are required (because their position is flagrantly false) to either lie or quote lies. And you can quote a whole lot more lies in five minutes than I can disprove.
 
This is Kent Hovind's kid right?

Imagine him as your dad.

I think I've finally found something to thank God for.
 
Questioninggeller said:
Eric Hovind with James Randi and DJ Grothe at the same event.

Click to expand...

"It's my position as a Christian that without God we actually can't know anything."

So Eric Hovind doesn't know anything. Unsurprising.

When Hovind asked if God was impossible I wish Thunderfoot or James Randi had asked "which god? Vishnu? Ra? Krom?" Hovind's debate tactics are so juvenile and transparent yet he sounds incredibly smug and assertive. I'm a little dissappointed that he wasn't engaged more effectively.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom