Crazy Ken Ham has learned about the Atheist Convention in Melbourne, and he has written his confused, garbled version of what it’s all about. He’s also done his typical cowardly routine of complaining about the convention and also, by the way, about me, but refusing to mention any of us by name, let alone linking to us. He can’t have his readers actually seeing what the other side has to say, after all; the world must be filtered through the benevolent and opaque lens of the Maximum Leader, you know.
At least it’s fascinating to watch a weak mind struggle to grasp something he doesn’t understand…mainly because what he accomplishes is to reveal his own ignorance and bias.
Imagine–listening to a meaningless talk at a meaningless conference held on a meaningless planet in a meaningless universe! Now, that would be an uplifting conference!
From their worldview, wouldn’t atheists see this meeting as a meaningless waste of time? Of course, they would claim they have some purpose and meaning–but it would be all constructed subjectively according to their own determinations! All because they shake their fist at God–but why?
Yes, it is a meaningless universe; the universe doesn’t care about us, doesn’t love us, and is mindless and indifferent. That’s simple reality. What we human beings do is wrest meaning for ourselves from a pitiless, uncaring background, and I think that’s wonderful, grand and glorious — it’s the process of finding purpose that is our accomplishment, not the imposition of an inhuman goal by a cosmic tyrant. This meeting will be a small part of everyone’s ongoing struggle to learn and grow — so yes, it will be uplifting. It will also be fun and constructive.
Shouldn’t it be obvious to Ham that his caricature of atheists is false? After all, we aren’t all just gloomily digging our graves, lying down in them, and waiting for death, so it should be clear that we aren’t a bunch of despondent nihilists. We’re living and active. What could possibly be driving us?
The Scripture tells us they “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1). Basically it comes down to the fact that they don’t want to have to answer to anyone–they want to set their own rules. They generally want to abort babies if they want or make marriage whatever they want to make it to be (or reject it altogether). They want to do what is “right” in their own eyes! Thus, a Creator who owns them, to whom they owe their existence, and against whom they have rebelled, is anathema to them!
Ah, that must be it. Atheists are just out to murder babies and mate with anything that moves. Or stops moving. Or something.
Again, since most atheists are productive and cooperative citizens of their communities, it should be obvious that we aren’t self-indulgent anarchists, either. We do think there have to be rules, a social contract, that helps tie together the diverse people of our culture and permits civilized interactions between us. The difference is that we believe those rules should be developed by humane principles that recognize the equality and interdependence of all people, rather than being rules contrived by priests to perpetuate their power by inventing arbitrary ultimatums from imaginary superbeings.
We don’t believe in a creator god, so we reject the notion that we are ‘owned’ by one, but you can’t say that we find such a creator anathema — we don’t believe it exists! What’s repellent are self-styled prophets and priests (who are real) demanding that we follow their antiquated dogma.
It baffles the mind as to why these atheists even bother to try to aggressively convert people to their meaningless religion–after all, what’s the point? The only reason they would even bother is if they are engaged in a spiritual battle. Otherwise they wouldn’t care. They know in their hearts there is a God, and they are deliberately suppressing that, as the Scripture so clearly tells us.
Man, we can’t win an argument with a person that stupid. We don’t believe in gods, plain and simple. Ham says we do. How does he know? Because he has an old book that says we do. That’s the problem right there: that rather than actually paying attention to the evidence, talking to people and recognizing what they actually say, the devoted relidjit would rather trust a book written a few thousand years ago that claims to be able to read the minds of 21st century people.
Don’t worry. We’ll have a fabulous time in Australia. I know that some small part of the conference will be spent laughing at Ken Ham.
Oh, yeah, that part where he talks about me. Of course he doesn’t refer to me by name, or mention the blog, or include a link to the article he found objectionable, he just talks about that atheist professor in Minnesota who hates Christians and mocked Kent Hovind. Here’s what I wrote about Hovind’s recent online writings:
By the way, Kent Hovind is still putting up bizarre dialogs on his CSE blogs. He’s been having conversations with God, dead Egyptian priests, and Christian saints, who all reassure him about how clever and smart and good he is, despite being in prison for tax evasion. It’s pathetic and sad. There has to be a word for this: it’s a kind of mega-sockpuppetry, in which it isn’t just random strangers on the internet mysteriously popping up to back him up — it’s God and the saints and heroes of history who are all appearing as voices in his head to validate him.
Now brace yourselves and aim a fire extinguisher at your irony meters, because what Ham wants to argue is that I didn’t realize Hovind’s conversations with saints and deities was metaphorical.
Basically, Hovind created an imaginary dialogue with Potipherah (Genesis 41:45, 50) to point out that modern America has the same problem the Egyptians had when Joseph oversaw the years of plenty and famine. It’s pretty obvious this post is designed to be understood as metaphor. The same is so for the posting with the dialogue between God, Stephen (Christian saint), and Hovind. Any Christian reading Kent Hovind’s post would understand what he’s doing with these writings. The atheist blogger would also have to say that C.S. Lewis talked with the devil and his fellow demons in order for Lewis to write the Screwtape Letters, if he follows the same logic! Is this atheist that ignorant of literary techniques or just deliberating suppressing the truth?
Uh, what? So Ham is accusing me of believing that these phantasms of Hovind’s mind literally appeared to him in his jail cell? This is weird. I’m an atheist — I don’t believe in gods or long-dead people manifesting in living conversations. Of course I see Hovind as playing a game — he’s revealing nothing but his own sad perception of himself as a hero in these imaginary conversations, and that’s precisely what is so pathetic about it.
The funniest part of it all, though, is Ken Ham lecturing me on how I ought to recognize that a religious man writing down what he claims are the words of God is so clearly just a metaphor and a literary exercise…when he refuses to recognize the same status of the books of the Bible that he insists are literally and absolutely true and of divine origin.
It’s pretty obvious the book of Genesis is designed to be understood as metaphor. It’s Ken Ham who demands that it be regarded as the product of a conversation between ancient scribes and his god.