Hambo Reveals How To Debate Atheists

When you consider all the bogus arguments used by creationist, you can’t really laugh — you just slowly shake your head in amazement. How many creationist arguments can you name? There’s “Were you there?” and God of the gaps, and “Consider the odds,” and … well, the list goes on.

Today we encounter something along those lines — where creationists simply assume they’re right, and demand that you prove they aren’t — that is, they put the burden of proof on the person asserting the negative, which is the opposite of where it should be. It comes from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

He just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Watch the Premiere of Amazing Atheist, Exclusively on Answers.tv. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

What happens when two atheists are pressed to defend their beliefs? Well, you’ll find out in a brand-new documentary from our friends at Living Waters [link omitted], Amazing Atheist.

“Living Waters”? If that sounds familiar, you know what’s coming next. Hambo says:

This documentary features my friend Ray Comfort interviewing two atheists, Justin and John, and pressing them about what they believe and why.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Everyone knows who Ray Comfort is. The former street preacher is best known for his starring role in Ray Comfort’s “Banana video”. If you want some amusement more recent than that, take a look at A Collection of Clunkers from Ray Comfort, which we posted last year.

But let’s get back to Hambo. He’s telling us about the Banana Man’s new video:

Amazing Atheist is premiering Friday, May 15 at 7 p.m. ET, only on Answers.tv [link omitted].

There’s some kind of video embedded in Hambo’s post. It’s titled Amazing Atheist, but it’s probably a trailer to encourage you to watch Comfort’s “documentary” when it “premiers” on 16 May.

The next couple of paragraphs are just Hambo promoting subscriptions to Answers.tv. Oh wait — he adds this right near the end:

As Ray interviews two atheists, you’ll see what they believe, why, and how they attempt to justify their faith. [Their faith?] You’ll also hear a bold and loving proclamation of the gospel by Ray.

That’s it. If you want to amuse yourselves (other than by watching Hambo’s video trailer) you might add to the brief list of creationist epistemological clunkers with which we began this post. Let’s see how many you can come up with.

Copyright © 2020. 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

16 responses to “Hambo Reveals How To Debate Atheists

  1. Creationist clunkers ? Its gotta be that pi equals three. If not, HERETIC !

  2. Dave Luckett

    This is actually a favourite tactic that Comfort has been using for years. What the drooling audience doesn’t get to see are the non-theists – atheists, agnostics, humanists, materialists, whatever – who are able to defend their views on the classic grounds well familiar to all here, and (horrors!) are even able to counterattack.

    Comfort goes on a ramble on likely ground – a college campus, a street in the entertainment district, a rally for any vaguely liberal cause, whatever. He asks a few questions of random strangers to determine if they are pigeons, and moves on if they are not. Sooner or later – in fact, always soon – he finds some hapless twenty-something or less who hasn’t really thought about it, and is only echoing the attitudes that are fashionable in their set. The rest is simplicity itself, if the mark is like that. But the beauty of this procedure is, if the mark turns out to be a tough cookie after all – maybe a sleeper, maybe simply someone who can think on their feet – no problem. The “debate” is abruptly terminated and the material just disappears, poof! Gone. Nobody ever beats Comfort. Not on record, anyway. Ray doesn’t “debate” people who know what they’re doing.

    You have to remember, the object is not really apologetics – the defence of the faith. Comfort and Ham wouldn’t know Aquinas, let alone Spinoza or Kirkegaard from bars of soap. Everything they have to say was countered and debunked centuries ago. They’re not about reality, they’re about appearances. They aren’t interested in the arguments, or in anything substantive. What they’re interested in is looking good to a demographic that is as ignorant of their own faith as the pigeons Ray plucks are of the tenets of their espoused views. In fact, to Comfort and Ham, both groups are pigeons, useful for different purposes.

  3. “you can’t really laugh”
    That’s a crucial difference between you and me, dear SC. The worse the joke, the harder I laugh – especially when the joke is unintentional. The only exception I make is when vulnerable people are at the targets; ieg I can’t laugh when a 10 years old kid parrots creationist nonsense.

    My favourite creationist clunker is “I love science, but ….” It’s not exclusively creationist though. You can be sure that anyone who uses this phrase is going to reject a scientific conclusion he (she is much rarer in my experience) doesn’t like.

    More about the video:


    Also I’d like to remind everyone of the principle that creationists are lying until proven otherwise. In this case it means

    1. we should not assume that Justin and John (sounds like a tenth rate comedy duo) are atheists indeed;
    2. if they are atheists we should not assume that their views are represented honestly;
    3. instead we should assume that the Bananaman has used all propaganda tricks invented by Joseph Göbbels plus several of his own. Because in the Name of The Father, the Son and the Holy Spook everything is permitted – falsehoods become truths.

  4. @Dave Luckett
    Among the people that are not heard from are the theists, who accept science, history, philology, …. and logic.

  5. There are, I fear, atheists as keen to sniff out the sin of accommodationism as any Inquisitionist ever was to sniff out heresy. I have even heard one such expressing a preference for YECs over theistic evolutionists, on the grounds that YECs interpret their sacred texts more logically. Sad

  6. How depressing. No comments. NeedGod.com

  7. @PaulB: unbelievers are not by definition or a priori more rational than believers. They can suffer from the same tribalism and all its nasty symptoms just as well as anybody else.

  8. Yup I went to NeedGod.com and checked it out. Raised in a Lutheran church I’m always interested in denominational disputes. I agree with Anonymous. The NeedGod.com site is really sad. And ill. I took their quiz .. The “lake of fire” figures dominantly for those who give the “wrong” answer. Sick, sick, sick. I love the first question. have you ever told a lie. If yes, its the “Lake of Fire” for you !!!! And it goes downhill from there.
    Thanks for posting this anonymous. Fascinating stuff.

  9. @FrankB, true, but for no good reason it upsets me a lot more when you get this kind of thing coming from prominent members of what I regard as my own team.

    There’s also the tactical point that it plays directly into YEC hands, by denying the existence of any intellectually respectable middle ground

  10. As long as the creationists decide who is on the two teams, I guess we have to
    be good team players, right?
    Or can we try to make it a matter of ideas rather than personalities?

  11. Jim Roberts

    @TomS, I am that theist and it sure is a thing. Occasionally someone will “take me on,” but they never speak of it afterward, and if they do, they cast it in a dramatically different light.

  12. I just happened to read Voltaire’s entry on Sect in his Philosophical Dictionary.
    “When you say that the blood circulates, that the air is heavy, that the sun’s rays are pencils of seven reframgible rays, you are not either of the sect of Harvey, or the sect of Torricelli, pr the sect of Newton; you merely agree with the truth as demonstrated by them, and the entire world will always be of your opinion.”

  13. Michael Fugate

    It is interesting how relative “objective truth” can be.

  14. Michael Fugate

    The Nicene Creed is a succinct statement of Christian belief, yet Ham would tell you it is not enough. It is necessary, but not sufficient. While the creed would seem to unify, Ham seeks to divide – maybe it is the legacy of the reformation to continue carving up Christianity. Look at fracturing of Catholicism going on as political and social conservatives attack the current Pope.

  15. Karl Goldsmith

    I have already said on a youtube account. “I have a f@%&#ng big problem with this, it’s being used commercially by a third party.” Ken is saying pay me and you can watch this video.

  16. Karl Goldsmith

    This is how part of one of the conversations went,

    Comfort: Oh so God told Joshua to kill the Canaanites, so God exists then
    GE: No, it’s what the Bible says
    Comfort: So God didn’t tell Joshua to kill the Canaanites…
    GE: I’m just saying the STORY in the Bible says that, not irl
    Comfort: So God didn’t tell Joshua to kill the Canaanites because God doesn’t exist, God didn’t do anything