Kent Hovind Vs Science – A Drunken Peasants Debate 

This is not a post meant to advertise the debate.

It will have that effect. But it was more meant to explore problems with the arguments DP aimed at Aron Ra (lodged in a video he put out in reply to a request that he be the debater of Kent Hovind)

It all started a month or so ago when Hovind was released from prison and begun to get back in the game. These days, that means hopping on youtube and creating videos. 

After covering one of these videos in a past Drunken Peasants episode, Ben and the crew jokingly told the audience to all email Kent and ask him to come on the show for a debate. There was no denying that the audience WOULD respond in droves (its brought on many good guests before), but this seemed about as possible as attracting President Obama.

That was until Kent put out a video and took them up on the offer (im sure I am not the only one that was surprised). But as is common with these people, there was a whole lot of strings attached. No foul language, the prison thing is off the table, each debater will get equal time to present (but with no interruptions), the Hovind camp gets to pick the moderator (and likely more to come). Its something that seemed a bit unreasonable (who’s venue are we in again?), but its conditions that were accepted (they have suspended the normal free format of the show to accommodate the politically correct before). 

So, barring unforeseen circumstances, this debate (or whatever will transpire) is likely going to happen. Though the representative of Science/Secularism is yet to be determined, its figured that it will be either Thunderf00t or repeat guest scientist JF (who has been in previous debates, also representing Science/Secularism. I don’t recall his name. Just that its french canadian, and easier abbreviated). 

The reason for this post was DP’s reply to Aron Ra. 

Though the podcast did not reach out to him directly, many of the fans must have, because he made a video acknowledging it. 

I watched the video before, and did not find anything overtly disagreeable with what he said. In fact, I was a bit surprised at the tone, being that I assumed that he and TJ (one of the 3 drunken peasants) hated each other. Namley because they lay squarely on theopposite  side’s of the great atheistic divide. Aron seems to be on the Atheism+ side (Atheism+Feminism, “If your not a femenist, than you are a bigot” basically), while TJ is with everyone else that sees the combination as unessesarily dogmatic. Keep in mind that this is MY interpretation. The only thing that is positively backed is the quote associated with Aron (I have heard him say that in the past).  

Though they seemingly occupy 2 different sides, I enjoy both their work (and podcasts). Tj and DP tend to be good for entertainment (with some educational value), where as Aron and RAman (his podcast) makes good educational material. Either podcast makes doing boring housework and other tasks more interesting (whoda thought that one would look forward to cleaning the house!). 

But enough ass kissing. 

As stated in his video, Aron was not totally against the fact that DP was planning a Hovind debate, but he cautioned against it, just because of the publicity it was going to stir up for Hovind (along with the fact that he was going to milk it for every penny he could). Its here where I think that Ben, Scotty and TJ misunderstood his point. And it is here that I think MANY atheists do not realize the problem they feed into. This is a criticism that I have had for a long time against the secular (and particularly the atheist) community. 

The problem of christian fame by way of secular mockery. 

One examle of this is Ken Ham. 

Before he took on Bill Nye, he was known as the nutjob in that museum on Religulous.  Even after the movie, he was absent from the limelight. That is, until Bill Nye put him there, after which he has been floating in and out of it since (on account to saying stupid shit). 

Than there is Josh Feuerstein. 

Though apparently an established preacher somewhere, he also was rightfully unknown and out of the limelight. Until his first evolution debunked video made the rounds, and people shared the hell out of it. 

Though my mind is currently blanking, there are likely more high   profile examples that I am missing. 

Not to long ago, Eric Hovind (son of Kent) was starting to release crazy shit as well, so I was afraid that he was also going to rise due to the Ken Ham / Josh Feuerstein effect. Fortunately enough, that does not seem to have happened. But that is not of much consequence if his dad ends up taking his place instead. 

Now, many reading this may be thinking “What the hell are you talking about? How are WE causing ANY problem?!”.

Good question. 

The answer lies in the way that the Atheist / Secular community behaves on social media. When it comes to people with stupid and/or silly ideas and conclusions, many tend to share them as a form of viral mockery. Some may retort with legitimate criticisms. But retorts usually equate to “LOL Is this guy serious?!?!”.  Both because, that is the nature of social media (typicly an antidote to intellectual advancement), and because, sometimes its all you can do. Whether its Ham saying crazy shit about aliens, or Feuerstein cruising around a Walmart spouting off batshit conspiracy theory . . . . sometimes humour is all a work is good for. 

And therein lies the crux of the problem. If an argument is good for little more than a laugh, why is it legitamized with publication? If I were sent a dvd with the content of many of these videos stored on it, I would not show all of my friends for a laugh. I would throw it in the trash. 

When it comes to social media, its easy to just mindlessly share without giving much thought to clicking the button. I used to be just as bad as many others, but not so much anymore (I try to be a beacon of information or amusment in a sea of herd mentality). Along this same line, many within the secular community could be prone to such behaviour. Hell, in many  cases, the platforms actively encourage this thoughtless posting. 

Facebook pages and groups do not even have forums anymore to start conversations. Just a timeline that is equivalent to a bulletin board in a busy lunch room. Twitter is so character restricted that little can be accomplished there either. Than there is the youtube comment section. Though no obvious character restrictions exist, not much is to be expected from this medium. Because if your watching a video, chances are that your mind is made up. No matter what your stripes. 

But feeding into a lack of substantive conversation is only one issue. Another, is playing into a  persecution complex (whether the given person plays it up or not).

To us, its all a joke. Obviously. But to  (shall we say) the ignorant, these actions will only reenforce what they already know . . . That their beliefs are under attack. 

This is why I denounced all the organizations and individuals putting out “Cosmoron” videos and articles back when the show first debuted. These consisted of random stupid tweets (and other posts) collected for the purpose of mockery. 

I get it that the tweets are insulting  to the oh so advanced intelligence of the atheist (dropping God means a lot to this crowd). But there are other ways to deal with crazy and (often) misled people than public ridicule. For one thing, this is likely to only STRENGTHEN their faithful delusion. But more importantly, how are you the better person by refuting stupid and misled ignorance with “AHAHAHA what a moron!”. I have to call out myself here, since there are times when reason just would not cut it. But you should not ENTER a conversation from that perspective. Because if that is the substance, than why bother speaking at all? 

I treat the cosmos detracters a bit differently than the loudmouth idiots of theism. I have a bit more compassion, since many likely were just tweeting their mind, never expecting atheist youtuber A or alternative news platform B to exploit them for clickbait. I understand that anything posted and visible publicly IS technically in the public domain. But its still underhanded. 

As for the loudmouth idiots of theism, they WILLINGLY put themselves out there, so as such, they have to deal with what comes with it. However, them making themselves easy pickings is NOT a good reason to share their posts till they are viral. 

Sure, its good for a laugh within the esoteric secular environment.  However, fans of the figure in question just see people persecuting their false idol. And more importantly, people that are NOT fans (or even familier!) with the person in question may find themselves driven to them, because of the whole persecution from nasty atheists thing. 

This is why Ken Ham still has a business. This is why Josh Feuerstein has over a million likes on facebook. 

We may have shared, thinking we were helping to crush their non-sense. But all we did was broaden their audience. 

Now, I know that the Drunken Peasants regularly feature many videos from the names previously listed. And I know that this entire post is essentially me advocating NOT to have the debate. But this is merely my opinion (and my assumed understanding of the point Aron Ra was making). I am not one of the many in your audience that DEMAND you to do this or that (its your show). 

I just hope that you keep what is good for the secular movement in mind when it comes to the debate, and furure segments. I know that ripping on the ignorant and stupid is popular . . . But there has to be something better. Even if that sort of content is only occasional filler. 

My only demand is . . . . more Galen. 

He pisses off the sheep, and its hilarious every time. Especially when they try and blackmail his absence out of you guys with their patreon money. 

2 thoughts on “Kent Hovind Vs Science – A Drunken Peasants Debate 

    1. Uh, no . . .

      He see’s it as both pointless and detrimental. Or at least that is how I read it, having seen quite a bit of his stuff.

      Also knowing the DP/TJ prospective helps explain their reaction. But I still don’t think they truly understood what he was talking about. Possibly because it would be a bit self indicting (they profit from mocking such people and pandering to the crowd that likes that sort of thing).

      Thats their choice (how they choose yo run the show). But I still thin they are misunderstanding Aron.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.