Rev. David Rives — Astronomy? Astrology?

The tranquility of our Christmas day was shattered when the Retard-o-tron™ summoned your Curmudgeon with its flashing lights and blaring sirens. The device had locked our computer onto the website of WorldNetDaily (WND).

We were directed to the latest video by the brilliant and articulate leader of David Rives Ministries. WND’s headline is God behind the stars, not in them.

The rev knows how bewildering science can be. Astronomy, astrology … it’s so confusing! Which is which, and what should we believe? Where do we go for reliable information? Fear not, dear reader. The rev has the answers! The title of his video is Astronomy vs. Astrology.

He turns to the dictionary. Wow — the rev is a genius! In less than a minute and a half, the rev clarifies everything for us, and he shows where the atheists are wrong. You can’t afford to miss this one! Go ahead, click over to WND and take a look. Don’t be afraid. It’s on the WND website, so you know it’s reliable.

As we always do with the rev’s videos, we dedicate the comments section for your use as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. You know the rules. Go to it.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

41 responses to “Rev. David Rives — Astronomy? Astrology?

  1. @SC: You said “his video is Astronomy vs. Astrolotgy.” Did you mean “astrology”?

  2. Now that I’ve viewed the video, I give it a rating between “meh” and “thumbs down”. Two dictionary definitions and… that’s it. I guess he knows his audience. They probably cannot handle any more than that.

  3. Thanks, Gary. You saved me yet again.

  4. Typical Darwinists! You’re expelling us devout belivers in Astrolotgy!

  5. And BTW: Merry Christmas to the Curmudgeon and this happy band of readers!

  6. Alex Shuffell

    RIves is only quoting a dictionary and it is his best work. The intro and outro is the usual filler present in every other video of his, I can ignore that.

  7. In a universe of stupidity, the Rev is a quasar. A quasar, who as pointed out by Gary, knows his audience. Makes it easy for him to get his grubby paws on their Social Security checks.

  8. But didn’t Michael Behe admit under oath that ID was on the same “intellectual” level as astrology?

  9. He did. But you gotta admit that although he proved to be a total doofuss on the stand, Behe at least had the stones to testify. The rest of the Tooters ran away like school girls being chased by one of ol’ Hambo’s animatronic dinosaurs.

  10. So atheists in droves are relying on astrology? I really doubt it, he should look more to the fringes of his own Christian flock. The typical atheist has a strong streak of skepticism.

  11. I can’t believe this guy has the balls to say that if there are unanswered questions, the only alternative is to subscribe to to book of Genesis. The first definition of “flock” according to the Merriam/Webster dictionary is : a group of animals (as birds or sheep) assembled or
    herded together. You see? Atheists can read the dictionary too.
    I have a question: Isn’t a creationist scientist an oxymoron?

  12. @Troy: Exactly. Atheists are defined by their skepticism. It’s hard to imagine any atheist taking astrology seriously. Using “What’s your sign?” as a pick-up line maybe, but not putting any stock in horoscopes.

  13. retiredsciguy suggests using

    “What’s your sign?” as a pick-up line maybe

    That’s the full extent of our Curmudgeon’s imagination in approaching women–and in his case (as Olivia frequently attests), a sane woman declares, “My sign? It’s STOP!

    (I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the sign Olivia displayed for me when I first rescued her from our Curmy’s fell clutches; the first word was “Slippery”–but I must draw a discrete veil o’er the rest of the signage…)

  14. Megalonyx is in full fantasy mode. I asked Olivia if she had any astrological comment to make in response. She shuddered, as she recalled his final words, which he was shouting as she fled. He was ranting about his personal zodiac, and how he was guided by the Seventh Planet. “You mean … Uranus?” I asked. She nodded, and then gestured the memory away, whispering: “It was horrible. Horrible!”

  15. @Ingym: “this guy has the balls to say that if there are unanswered questions”
    I can’ wait for the Rev’s video on superconductivity at relatively high temperatures.

    @Troy: this pressing issue is also discussed here

    http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48344

  16. Whenever someone asks me “what’s your sign?” I always answer “Feces”.

  17. Pope RSG said: “It’s hard to imagine any atheist taking astrology seriously.”
    Wasn’t that the whole 60′s counter-culture thing? “Turn on, tune in, drop out”? They rejected the church of their parents, and substituted their own, whether it was astrology, Timothy Leary, whatever Tim Leary was smoking, rolling, or inhaling, or various combinations thereof. Plus, I’m currently visiting my family. They’ve just put up a new “organic-style” grocery store near here. The wife and I paid it a visit. Saw LOTS of hippy-types who probably will not profess any belief in a deity, but happily spend oodles of money on various quack homeopathic supplements. Color me cynical, but I’m not willing to automatically say “atheist = skeptic”.

  18. There was an opportunity to rate Rives’ video on the site – so far it has 2.07 out of 5 stars, based on 15 ratings.

    @Gary – Timothy Leary was about LSD. You’re right though, that being atheist does not automatically mean being skeptical. Atheists can be into alternative medicine, ancient astronauts… you name it. On the other hand, most religious folks that I know can be quite skeptical when it comes to things other than their specific religious beliefs. There doesn’t seem to be a direct correlation between skepticism about god(s) and skepticism about other things.

  19. Well, I guess Ol’ Pope RSG isn’t so infallible after all. As TomS pointed out on another thread, I was definitely wrong about Mother Teresa being Polish (she was Albanian, and I also misspelled her name), and now I have to admit I’ve seen some allegedly atheistic types inhaling some wacky ideas about medicine, nutrition, spirituality, etc. Or at least what I would consider wacky, since there seems to be no supporting evidence of effectiveness other than anecdotal.

    In a sense, though, they may be considered skeptical — skeptical of organized religion, skeptical of standard medicine, skeptical of “Big Pharma”, and even skeptical of “Big Science”, whatever that may be.

    Still, though, getting back to the original question — are atheists less likely or more likely to accept astrology? I still go with less likely.

    And happy Boxing Day to all those in the rest of the English-speaking world where you still spell “color” as “colour”; “honor” as “honour”; serve “draught” beer; pronounce the word as “shedule” instead of “skedule”; and play cricket.

  20. RSG, you left out “skeptical” as “sceptical”, “aluminum” as “aluminium”, “whiskey” as “whisky”, “esthetic” as “aesthetic”, “analog” as “analogue” and the infernally pervasive “-ize” eyesore. Forgive me my “caviling” (as “cavilling”) on this day of fisticuffs. ;)

  21. Yes, it’s enough to drive one into a sanitarium — or sanatorium, depending on which side of the Atlantic s/he lives on.

  22. If you find your preferred orthography is on the other side of the Atlantic and you need to cross that mighty ocean, please only do so by means of an aeroplane

  23. Megalonyx travels by aeroplane. And that reminds me of a tale of bi-cultural confusion. It was around the time the UK was switching to a decimal currency — about two centuries after the US had done so — that I first visited London. I had read about the new system, so I knew what to expect. A pound was no longer 20 shillings — it was now 100 pence. No problem for an American.

    But the Brits were in total confusion. When a cab driver made change for me, among the coins was one of those odd-looking, multi-sided fifty pence coins. It was the first I had seen so I must have stared at it. Thinking I was just another confused Englishman, and trying to be helpful, the cabbie pointed to it and explained: “That’s ten bob!”

  24. My beef with the Rev’s video isn’t that there aren’t atheists into astrology, it is the way he singled out atheists as those interested in astrology to no doubt fill that spiritual emptiness of not having religion (when as I pointed out it is much less likely). Using a buzz word like “atheist” essentially was the money shot of the video as a way to elicit donations with is of course why he makes the video. I’m sure the Rev gets annoyed at his speaking engagements with people always asking him about astrology. After all, they are church goers not astronomy enthusiasts, so that mistake is bound to come up a lot.

  25. Stephen Kennedy

    The nonsense that the rev pushes, young Earth creationism, is no more scientific than astrology is. The rev should also be informed that the vast majority of professional astronomers are atheists.

  26. Since I’m already guilty of taking this thread off-topic with the spelling differences between US and UK, I’m going to throw another bomb out there:
    isn’t it about time we streamline the entire English language and simplify spelling?

    Just think of the benefits. For one thing, we could use that time now spent in elementary schools teaching spelling to concentrate on more important concepts, such as science, math, history, literature, composition, and communication skills. It would be wonderful as a teacher to have more time to help students learn how to write clearly to get their point across rather than having to spend that time teaching spelling.

    Now, I realize the traditionalists will say we would be taking away much of the richness of our language by simplifying spelling. But would we really? It would have absolutely no effect on the spoken word; and all writers, young and old alike, could concentrate more on what they say than how they spell it. And this is coming from someone who is a pretty good speller.

  27. @RSG Possibly you’ve heard of this, but I’ll mention it anyway. I recall reading about a phonetically streamlined alphabet called Unifon.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unifon

    Along with other good ideas like the Dvorak keyboard, the dollar coin, and the 13 month/28 day calendar it’ll never get accepted, alas!

  28. Something else I wanted to say about the Rev. Why pull out the dictionary? Are you such a fundie that you always have to refer to some book?

  29. @Troy: Unifon won’t fly because everyone will have to learn the new alphabet. It would be like learning to read all over again, and would defeat the whole purpose of simplifying spelling to concentrate on teaching more important concepts.

    I was thinking more along the lines of codifying some of the things we’re already doing in texting — laff, lite, nite, fite, for example — and other simplifications such as always using an “s” for the “s” sound (instead of a “c”), simplifications of now-difficult words to spell, such as “battalion” (how about making it “batalion”?), and things like using “ee” for the long “e” sound instead of “ea”, “ie”, “ei” — well, you get the idea.

    And I really like the idea of a 13 month/28 day calendar. That comes to 364 days, so we add a holiday at year’s end that is not one of the seven days of the week and call it “Extraday”. Leap years would have a second Extraday, say in mid-summer. The beauty of this calendar is that the 1st of each month would always fall on Sunday, as would the 8th, 15th, and 22nd — year in, year out; and of course every date of every month would always be on its particular day. No need for a different calendar each year — or each month, for that matter.

    Some things are just too logical to be accepted, I guess.

  30. Pope retiredsciguy appears to be toying with a fresh encyclical to simplify English orthography, despite objections from

    the traditionalists [who] will say we would be taking away much of the richness of our language by simplifying spelling. But would we really? It would have absolutely no effect on the spoken word

    I would never presume to challenge papal infallibility, but I see problems with any such reforming schemes. While orthographic simplification would have “no effect on the spoken word”, the sound of the spoken word will no doubt continue to vary over time (and in different ways at different rates in different regions), so the ‘new’ orthography will eventually come to appear as adrift from spoken language as our current spelling is now. After all, much of our current spelling accurately reflects the pronunciation of Chaucer (“night” would have sounded much like “nicked” does today, &c.). Moreover, each wave of ‘reform’ renders previous archives even less accessible to future generations.

    And there is the additional problem, in any attempt to realign orthography with speech, in agreeing which standard of speech is to be adopted? It’s not even possible, within the range of spoken English across the globe today, to specify a one-size-fits-all system of alphabetic transcription that only marks phonemic differences while ignoring phonetic ones.

    That’s my two cents worth. Or do I mean my too sense…?

  31. Our Curmudgeon was understandably flummoxed by a British heptagonal coin worth “ten bob.”

    But it could have been worse. The cabby could have gone on to declare, “And Bob’s your uncle!”

  32. Megalonyx sympathizes:

    Our Curmudgeon was understandably flummoxed by a British heptagonal coin worth “ten bob.”

    I had to do a couple of mental backflips to figure it out. I arrived in England knowing that a pound had been twenty shillings, so it only took a moment for my youthful (but already Curmudgeonly) mind to grasp that the neat-looking fifty-pence coin was worth what had been ten shillings. But I didn’t know that a shilling was also known as “bob.” It took me a couple of seconds to figure out what the cabbie was saying, and then I faked it. I replied: “Ah yes, of course. Thank you.”

    But it now occurs to me that a monetary mystery still lingers. What happened to the “farthing”?

  33. Farthings (1/4 of a penny) had gone the way of all flesh around the middle of the 20th century–a victim of inflation, mostly. The halfpenny (‘ha’penny) coin survived decimalisation and persisted until about 10 years ago; again, the coin became obsolete when inflation meant it no longer had any purchasing power.

    Predecimal florins, worth two bob (two shillings) also persisted for some time after decimalisation; they were of course worth 10 new pence, though the coins themselves were labled ‘two shillings.’ Predecimal sixpence coins (1/2 shilling) also circulated for a while after decimalisation, with a value of 2 1/2 new pence.

    Strictly speaking, after decimalisation, ‘pence’ meant pre-decimal pennies (with 12 pennies to the shilling, and 120 pence to the pound), while their replacement were properly called ‘New Pence’, but its been long enough now the ‘new’ has been dropped.

    Crowns (5 shillings), Half Crowns (two shillings and sixpence), are long, long gone now, but–inexplicably–the price of race horses is still quoted in guineas (1 guinea = 21 old shillings, or 105 new pence). Go figure…

  34. Everybody’s getting snared in the spam filter. I don’t know why. I’ll approve comments as soon as I can. You know how it is — when you take the king’s shilling, bob’s your uncle.

  35. We haven’t discussed the impact of spelling changes on silly Englishknights.

    Now, go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

  36. Our Curmudgeon smirks that the

    UK was switching to a decimal currency — about two centuries after the US had done so

    Such smugness is wholly unbecoming–and nothing compared to the smugness that will be felt by Europeans when the US finally converts to the metric system…

  37. @Megalonyx: Don’t you just love it? Cent, scent, sent; cents, scents, sense, since… no wonder computer programmers have such a hard time getting speech recognition to work correctly. Not to mention there, their and they’re; one and won; cite, site and sight (and pretty close — sighed).

    Of course (coarse), spelling simplification wouldn’t help that. But where’s the logic of “cough”, “rough” and “slough” (as in “swamp”, pronounced “slew”)?

    Saying all that, I grant your point about reforms making archives less accessible. Speaking of archives becoming inaccessible — do you have any computer files on floppy disks? Good luck with that.

  38. @Megalonyx: You are so right about the metric system!! Oh, what fun I had teaching junior high science, helping 7th graders understand the benefits of the metric system. All it did was make a bunch of kids gain an aversion to science. Thinking back on it now, it would have made so much more sense teaching it in kindergarten.

  39. Pope retiredsciguy enquires/inquires:

    do you have any computer files on floppy disks?

    Indeed I do–including my magnum opus, The Definitive Proof that Darwin was Flat-Out Wrong About Everything, and that the Cosmos was Created by Pure Oogity-Boogity. The arguments contained therein are refutable–but alas, now totally unreadable for want of a machine and appropriate software to read an 8-inch 175kb floppy disk… :-(

  40. Megs bemoans, “…for want of a machine and appropriate software to read an 8-inch 175kb floppy disk…”

    I bet if you check with the NSA…