Hambo Explains the False Religion of Atheism

We are sometimes overwhelmed by the wisdom of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. This is one of those times. At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry, he just posted Why Is Atheism a Bankrupt Religion? Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Whenever I call atheism a religion, I immediately receive backlash from atheists, who claim they have a “non-belief.” But what’s their non-belief? [Yeah, what is it?] It’s a belief there is no God [Gasp!] and all life (and matter in the universe) is the result of naturalism. [Yuk!] So, they have a religion, a worldview, through which they filter everything.

Those hell-bound atheists don’t know what they believe, but Hambo knows, and he explains it for us. He says:

And they have beliefs as well: right and wrong are relative; everything evolved by chance through random processes; the universe began with a big bang; and more. [It’s madness!] And these ideas must be accepted by faith (a blind faith). Actually, it’s a faith that lacks credibility. Their faith is in a bankrupt religion.

Even a fool would be convinced at this point, but that’s not all. Hambo tells us:

Atheism can’t answer the fundamental questions we all ask: Who am I? Why am I here? What happens when I die? [He’s right!] Sure, atheists attempt to answer these questions, but it’s not an ultimate or authoritative answer — it’s just someone’s opinion. Without the Bible, there’s no ultimate answer to these questions. And atheists can’t explain where the laws of nature and laws of logic came from. What they call “natural processes” can only be explained by an intelligent designer.

Ooooooooooooh! An intelligent designer!

The rest of Hambo’s post is a promotion for a video he’s selling. It begins like this, with his links omitted:

Mark Spence, VP of outreach at the Living Waters ministry [That’s Ray Comfort, a/k/a “Banana Man.”], recently sat down with Billy Hallowell, the host of PureTalk, a Pure Flix interview program (you can find this show on Facebook), to answer this question . . . and discuss how to reach atheists with the gospel message.

Okay, that’s enough. Now it’s up to you, dear reader. Are you going to cling to your false religion of atheism, and suffer the inevitability of eternal torment, or will you embrace the message of ol’ Hambo? It’s up to you.

Copyright © 2019. 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

22 responses to “Hambo Explains the False Religion of Atheism

  1. Exactly what I’ve been waiting for my entire life! A brilliant thinker like Ol’Hambo explaining what I think and feel!

    “It’s a belief there is no God”
    Almost right. It’s not believing that there is a god.

    “all life (and matter in the universe) is the result of naturalism”
    Again almost right. It’s being convinced that the only valid explanations are natural ones.

    “they have a religion, a worldview, through which they filter everything.”
    Again almost right. All religions are worldviews, but not all worldviews are religions. Or is Ol’Hambo saying that stalinism was a religion too? Then he can’t blame my worldview anymore for the Gulag as I can blame his for the pogroms during the Middle Ages. Still for some reason I suspect that Ol’Hambo wants to have it both ways.
    But let’s not quibble. Let me accept a wide and hence less useful definition of belief, so that I’ve non-religious beliefs.

    “right and wrong are relative;”
    Correct. All the evidence (naturalistic by definition) suggests this.

    “everything evolved by chance through random processes;”
    Wrong. Natural selection is not random.

    “the universe began with a big bang.”
    Correct. All the evidence suggests this.

    “Actually, it’s a faith that lacks credibility.”
    Yeah yeah, Ol’Hambo only thinks evidence and inductional conclusions derived from it credible when they confirm his predetermined conclusions.

    “Atheism can’t answer the fundamental questions we all ask: Who am I? Why am I here? What happens when I die?”
    Huh? FrankB, because my parents had sex about nine months before I was born, “dust to dust, ashes to ashes” and nothing more.
    Ah well, leave it to Ol’Hambo to commit the sin of bearing false witness and to not repent. He prefers to easy, broad path to the small, thorny one:

    “it’s not an ultimate or authoritative answer”
    Half correct. Unlike Ol’Hambo I’m aware that I’m not perfect in these matters. So no, I’m neither pretentious nor arrogant enough to claim ultimate answers. However I do have authorities at my side. For instance the Dutch government agrees with me on the answer to “who am I?”

    “— it’s just someone’s opinion.”
    Ah – documents that confirm that I’m FrankB only reflect an opinion, unless Ol’Hambo’s god (via Ol’Hambo himself, I suppose) confirmed.

    “And atheists can’t explain where the laws of nature and laws of logic came from.”
    Eh yes. They came from scientists and mathematicians who formulated them. Archimedes’ Law for instance came from Archimedes.

    “It’s up to you.”
    I’ll consider “embracing the message of ol’ Hambo” as soon as he admits that he has committed the sins of bearing false testimony and vanity plus has publicly repented for them. I won’t hold my breath.

  2. What they call “natural processes” can only be explained by an intelligent designer.
    OK, enough empty claims. Give us an explanation by intelligent design for a natural process.
    Keep in mind that:
    1. There are plenty of examples of would-be things which have been designed, but never existed. (Space elevators. Utopia.) Design is not enough. What was the implementation of the design?
    2. Design is always a response to a unwelcome situation. What was the unwelcome situtation which the design of nature was a response to? (What was the cause of that unwelcome situation? How long did it last before the design process was begun? Is nature now, after beng re-designed, perfect?)

  3. “right and wrong are relative;”
    When God kills almost all humans, that’s OK, it’s relative to who does it.

  4. “The rest of Hambo’s post is a promotion for a video he’s selling.”

    And in that sentence lies the truth of the matter — Ken Ham is a self-styled modern-day Elmer Gantry, out to take the rubes for everything he can get. He promotes the idea that one is not a “True Christian” if one hasn’t made the pilgrimage to either the Creation Museum or the Ark Encounter — or better yet, both. Also, one must avoid attending a non-Ham endorsed college lest one’s mind is corrupted by being told it’s ok to be independent in your thoughts. And on it goes.

    Here’s a thought to ponder — what percentage of Ken Ham’s followers do you suppose also support Donald Trump?

  5. Looks like I missed the mark on my closing of italics. May I beseech the Great Hand to correct? Thank you Oh Mighty Hand! I will promise to proofread more carefully.

    [*Voice from above*] I stretched forth my mighty hand, and behold! All is well.

  6. Karl Goldsmith

    It’s sad when you know your position is so absurd that you have to lie and need to reduce everyone to the same level of absurdity.

  7. You have to remember who this hambone preaches to!! They basically believe that mythic fairy tale is real and not a delusion. So they buy into this crap with as little thought as they put into their beliefs!!!

  8. Michael Fugate

    “Atheism can’t answer the fundamental questions we all ask: Who am I? Why am I here? What happens when I die? Sure, atheists attempt to answer these questions, but it’s not an ultimate or authoritative answer — it’s just someone’s opinion. Without the Bible, there’s no ultimate answer to these questions.”

    Without his interpretation of the Bible there is no answer – Ham just declares everyone else an atheist.

  9. chris schilling

    Someone who believes in miracles like a Virgin birth and resurrections has no business appealing to laws of nature — that’s having your supernatural cake, and eating it, too — nor invoking “laws of logic” to which he manifestly can’t adhere.

  10. Theodore Lawry

    Why is it people like Ham think they can convince skeptics and atheists by appealing to the Bible? If they believed that the Bible was the Word of God, they wouldn’t be skeptics or atheists! Is that so hard to understand?

  11. Dave Luckett

    See, this is why when you take your oath in court, whether you say “So help me God” or not, you swear or affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Long, long ago, before even teenagers learned to talk, people were aware that telling part of the truth was the best way to tell a lie.

    Ham’s a past master of the partial truth. Atheists mostly do not assert that there is no god. Partial truth. They assert they don’t believe there is one. The difference is subtle, true, but the first is a statement about knowledge, the second one about credence. Evolution is not chance. Partial truth. It is selection among the results of chance events. Atheists do not necessarily assert that right and wrong are relative. Partial truth. They are nearly always prepared to say that there are absolute rights and wrongs. It’s just that everything is not so easily classified as authoritarians think.

    When partial truths are told for what they don’t say, they’re lies. I said “Ham’s a past master of the partial truth”. That is, Ham’s a master liar. I don’t believe he’s a son of Satan, but that’s what the man he says was God called him. Follower of Christ? Sure, but Ham would be the bloke behind Him with the dagger.

  12. “ Who am I. Why am I here? What happens….”

    I think Samuel Butler answered these questions best:
    “All of the animals except for man know that the principle business of life is to enjoy it.”

  13. Steve Gerrard

    What they call “natural processes” can only be explained by an intelligent designer.

    I was not aware that Hambo was an intelligent design fan. I would expect him to say “by God,” not “by an intelligent designer.” Has something changed?

  14. @SteveG: of course Ol’Hambo is. Always has been. He’s even a fan of mainstream apologetics, with one modification: only his interpretation of the Bible is correct. Thus he’ll even accept Thomas Nagel’s arguments for dualism if it suits him.

  15. Michael Fugate

    Great quote on the Bible from Kit de Waal:
    “My earliest reading memory
    The Bible, particularly Proverbs because they are little nuggets of advice. When I was bored in church I would open it and try to relate one of the scriptures to my life. I don’t believe the Bible is the word of God, but I do believe it contains, along with some very dodgy bits, some love and poetry.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jul/05/kit-de-waal-books-that-made-me

  16. I have been driven to the understanding that many people are just unable to understand the written word.
    As God surely understands his creatures, why would he choose to communicate in such a mediuim?

  17. Congradulatons to USA soccer!

  18. If “these [naturalist] ideas must be accepted by faith (a blind faith)”, then why does Ham feel the need to go out of his way to disprove the scientific reasoning behind them? He could just treat Science like he treats other religions (which he largely ignores) and get on with proselytising.

    But rather, he spends millions in building a pseudoscientific cargo cult to get rid of science. With which he acknowledges that science is definitely more significant, and more dangerous, to him than just “a faith that lacks credibilty”.

  19. Techreseller

    It is up to me. Yes, yes it is. Sorry Hambo. Not buying it. Not taking it for free.

  20. Eric Lipps

    Whenever I call atheism a religion, I immediately receive backlash from atheists, who claim they have a “non-belief.” But what’s their non-belief? [Yeah, what is it?] It’s a belief there is no God [Gasp!] and all life (and matter in the universe) is the result of naturalism. [Yuk!] So, they have a religion, a worldview, through which they filter everything.

    Groan. This again: “atheism is a religion.”

    The Hamster gets away with this (or tries to) by conflating “religion” with “worldview.” By that standard, capitalism is a religion. Somehow, though, I don’t think Ham would accept that.

  21. I went to the Hamster’s web site. I was shocked–SHOCKED, I tell you!–to discover that comments weren’t allowed.

    Who knew that Christians didn’t appreciate open dialogue?

  22. Only christians? Maybe you should look around a bit on your own Patheos (Galen Broaddus or whatever he’s called)) or test the banhammer of Jerry Coyne.