Ken Ammi, Enemy of Truth

Years ago, I discovered a blog which contained some criticism of the Baha’i Faith  and I eagerly copied a blog entry from it to support my own case against the Baha’i Faith, only to discover that the author was a hard-core Christian who was not nearly as critical of his own religion as he was of other faiths, a clear sign of dishonesty and bigotry. This was confirmed today when I found the new version of his blog and read its About page. I will post parts from that page here in green and italics and my responses in blue and bold.

True Freethinker presents my writings. My name is Ken Ammi, I am an Argentinean-American , a Jewish-Christian, an essayist and lecturer.

While I was raised in a 100% secular manner, I did attend private Jewish school and had my Bar Mitzvah in Israel (only secular Jews may be able to understand this oddity). I was also involved in the New Age Movement and was a practitioner of Reiki, Tai Chi Chuan, Chi Kung and the I’Ching.

Seems like an open minded person, right? Nope!

The True Freethinker website consists of a combination of a few different blogs that I was authoring; the main ones were the Christian Apologetics blog Life and Doctrine and the contra atheism blog Atheism is Dead. The concept of freethinking is deeply rooted in the Bible itself as in the Bible, we find firm belief, we find doubt, we find skepticism, we find rebellion, we find every facet of human reactions towards, and against, the divine. Some people label themselves “skeptic” when they really mean “cynic.”

Right there is where Ammi starts being blatantly dishonest! The Bible does contain references to skepticism, doubt, and rebellion, and it condemns all these things and even depicts people who have these traits being put to DEATH by God himself! Also, considering the many, many, MANY atrocities and incidents of infighting, outfighting, upfighting, downfighting, forwardfighting, backwardfighting, and all around fighting among people of various religions and creeds throughout history, only a profoundly ignorant person would NOT be a cynic about religions in general, let alone Christianity in particular!

 I, for one, became a true and honest skeptic upon finding out that the Teeth Mice, Argentina’s equivalent of the Tooth Fairy, were not real; my parents had told me a quaint story about them leaving money for my teeth. At a very young age I found out that they were not real and that my parents, with good motives, had deceived me and I became furious. How pleased I was to find, decades later, that the Bible enjoins true and honest skepticism:

“‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18), in the New Testament the Bereans are considered more noble (or more “fair minded”) for double checking everything that Paul told them (Acts 17:11), Thomas asked for the evidence which the others had seen and had merely retold to him (John 20:24-30), Jesus stated, “Love the Lord your God with all your…mind. This is the first and greatest commandment” (Matthew 22:36-38).
We are clearly called to discern, test, and judge, prophets, spirits and all things:
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1st Corinthians 14:29).
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is “discerning of spirits” (1st Corinthians 12:10).
“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1st John 4:1).
“Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil” (1st Thessalonians 5:19-22).
“you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly” (Deuteronomy 13:14).

Did it ever occur to Ammi that the worst liars are the ones who assert the loudest they are telling the truth? And using the Bible to prove anything in the Bible is classic circular reasoning, of course. What value is testing anything if the standard you use for testing is NOT reality itself, but something that itself has never been proved valid by comparing it with reality?

Circular reasoning


Much of what passes for “Freethought” and “Freethinking” today is, in reality, atheism wearing a very thin disguise. The first section of the parsed essay Freethought Without Forethought? serves as evidence of this. In that case, it is clear that what is meant by Freethought is adhering to absolute materialism.

There is a perfectly good reason why freethinking = atheism and it is not disguised: One of the basic concepts of Abrahamic religions is that God created the universe, therefore it should reflect his glory. But when scientists view the universe with a critical and objective eye, they see NO evidence of a creator behind it. Indeed, science has already completely discredited the creation stories in the Bible.

If a Judeo-Christian cannot be a freethinker then freethought is not freethought but demands adherences to certain restrictive parameters. Yet, since the Judeo-Christian can think beyond, for example, materialistic parameters we can be true freethinkers.

WHAT???!!! How is insisting on using only reality itself to judge spoken or written claims restrictive? Oh, because it does not allow for ANY delusions? What value is the kind of “freethought” that results in someone claiming that the Earth is flat, at the center of the universe and/or less than 10,000 years old and assuming that is somehow worth defending against those who understand those are lies? Truth is meaningless in that case!

Atheists who have commandeered the term Freethought complain that Christians cannot be Freethinkers because they adhere to the Christian worldview. Yet, they commit the same alleged fallacy by adhering to atheism in disguise (or openly). Certainly, there are true and honest Freethinkers on both, and many other, sides of the issue. It is to these that this website is dedicated.

I think I understand why some atheists wish to redefine atheism to discredit a claim like that above. See this for more details:
It is indeed dishonest to claim atheism is a worldview as dogmatic as Christianity, because atheism is NOT based on any man-made scriptures that are beyond questioning. It is simply the conclusion that God does not exist. The dogma only comes from atheists when they assert “there is no God” as a response to the Christian claim “there must be a God somewhere”. But the two claims are not equally valid or invalid, again because no scientist has ever found clear evidence to support the theist assumption. Ammi is lying outright there!

Need I go on?


14 thoughts on “Ken Ammi, Enemy of Truth

  1. More lies from Ken Ammi:
    {{{Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor run the Freedom From Religion Foundation which was established in the USA; a country premised on the concept of freedom of religious expression.

    While his claim to fame is his claim to be an ex-preacher he consistently demonstrates a ubiquitous lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts.

    The Freedom From Religion Foundation is quite taken with filing lawsuits and thereby playing the lucrative role of victimhood martyr.

    Barker and Gaylor are positive atheists as they have variously affirmed God’s non-existence via a statement to that affect that was penned by Annie’s mother, Anne Nicol Gaylor, which has become a maxim of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.}}}

    Need I point out that you cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion too? And why does Ammi dismiss Barker’s being an ex-preacher as merely a “claim”? Can he prove that Barker never preached in a church or never had a theological degree? Also, how can he justify his own claim that Barker lacks knowledge of the Bible when it is available to read by anyone almost anywhere? Since he cannot, Ammi merely committed libel, of course!

  2. More proof of Ken Ammi’s irrational biases:
    {{{Biblically speaking, it is the followers of Jesus Christ (as described within the pages of the New Testament) whom were and are called Christians, yet the tide is turning. There are cults, which are now attempting to turn the table and claim that they are the true Christians and that it is biblically orthodox Christians who are the cults.

    Let us offer a practical definition of what a cult is: a cult is a group which has gotten far enough away from its origins and the foundational orthodoxy from whence it came that it is no longer recognizable. Thus, there are four major groups that are technically defined as pseudo-Christian cults and these are The Church of Jesus Christ-Latter Day Saints a.k.a. Mormons; The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society a.k.a. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Science.}}} (Emphasis mine)

    FOUR? I counted only three in that sentence. Either this guy cannot count or his editing really sux, or maybe both.

    BTW, it took centuries for various church councils to both assemble the canon of the New Testament on which most Christian dogmas are based and to define those dogmas themselves. The implication above that Jesus himself must have defined the limits of all those scriptures and dogmas is a lie. Since he did not, it is unfair to label as outside Christianity groups like the Mormons or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both of whom clearly affirm their allegiance to Jesus!

    Luke 9:49-50
    {{{“Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”
    “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.”}}}

  3. Pingback: Spiritual Orientation | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  4. Ken Ammi attempts some damage control after discovering my direct criticism of his nonsense.

    Since I have ripped into both the Baha’i Faith and Christianity with equal force by exposing their falsehoods and fallacious claims, I would expect any genuine skeptic to do the same. I have NO SACRED COWS, unlike Ammi.

    But the most damning thing against him is a disclaimer at the end of both blog entries of his:

    {{{Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.}}}

    Ammi, you really ARE a shameless coward and hypocrite!

    Even more despicable of him is asking for money to keep his blog online, sort of like a televangelist would:

    {{{A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.}}}

    YOU WON’T CATCH ME DOING THAT! I pay my own expenses, always.

    • Also, he can’t even get my name right, consistently referring to me in the second blog entry as “Dale’s Husband”, perhaps out of anger at me after he finished the first blog entry where no such misspelling occurs. I simply cannot take such childishness seriously!

    • Oh he wrote a third blog entry against me too:

      And there he also misspells my name.

      I suspect he is going to pick a direct fight with me in the future. I say: BRING IT ON!

      He already attempted to post a comment about the Baha’i Faith on one of my YouTube videos, which I rejected and then blocked him in disgust.

      I then retaliated by commenting on his channel:
      {{{Don’t ever try to post a comment on any of my videos again, you contemptible fraud!}}}

      And I am not the only one that finds him to be that if the other angry comments made there are any indication.

  5. Ammi’s claim that I failed to provide support for my arguments against him is undermined by his response to my actual attempt to do just that in one case.

    On the second blog entry attacking me, he says the following as a footnote:
    {{{1. You will note from the very title, It’s not just evolution that discredits Genesis!, that it begins with the un-evidenced assertion that evolution discredits Genesis. But if not just evolution then what? Well, Dale’s Husband writes that “It’s modern astronomy as well, as this one verse makes painfully clear: Genesis 1:16 – ‘God made two great lights – the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also’” the comment to which is “Of course, one looking at the night sky with no knowledge of modern astronomy would assume that the stars are nothing more than a decoration to add to the light provided by the Sun and the Moon. But in fact, many stars are far bigger and brighter than the Sun and ALL stars are also suns, greater lights in their own star systems.”
    This is not only irrelevant but confused: the Bible does not refers to stars as mere decoration, it also does not deny that they add light but only that there are “two great lights” from our perspective (which is the contextual perspective), the relative size and brightness of stars is irrelevant.
    A further comment is, “Had that Bible verse been inspired by the true Creator of the universe, it might have been written: ‘God made billions of great lights, one of which we call the Sun that rules our days, and also made a lesser light to rule the night.’” Now, Dale’s Husband is playing theologian and makes a very, very typical Atheistic argument which runs thusly: if God was then God would __________ (and they fill in the blank with their subjective preference which is always something they know does not happen) and since God does not then God is not.

    It is hermeneutically (and historically) inappropriate to demand that a text tell us something which its own context and/or genre was not meant to convey.

    Dale’s Husband then writes, “Ironically, in another part of the Bible, we read: Psalms 19:1-2: ‘The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge’” the comment to which is “If that is true, then clearly we need to toss out the references to the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in Genesis, since they fail to ‘declare the glory of God’ and also fail to ‘display knowledge’ like the heavens are supposed to do according to the 19th Psalm.”
    Note the typical Dale’s Husband’s modus operandi: make a vague assertion and move on as if the case is closes. It is asserted that they fail but not told how or why. In fact, sciences such as astronomy, cosmology and cosmogony were premised upon beholding the heavens, discerning a created design and seeking to understand the created design.}}}

    Quite simply, it really does not matter if I was to provide a thousand different citations to support every little point I ever made against Ammi; he would respond by using rhetoric (not evidence) to deny every one of them. THAT’S WHAT LIARS DO!

  6. Pingback: Ken Ammi, Enemy of Truth, Round Two | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  7. The Bible contains all sorts of stories and parables that illustrate what we all, as humans, go through in a lifetime! That includes skepticism, questioning God, crises of faith, love, loss, redemption, murder, rape, incest, romance, hate, you name it. It is not a book of limitations; some would say, much like the Tao te Ching, some “common sense” life lessons. But you have to read it without bias or don’t read it or comment on it at ALL! You cannot come from a place of truth or understating in this matter if your raison d’être is to prove all things wrong contained in the Holy Scriptures. You don’t have to believe one word of it. That’s your choice. Between you and God.

    • {{{The Bible contains all sorts of stories and parables that illustrate what we all, as humans, go through in a lifetime!}}}

      I would never claim otherwise.

      {{{But you have to read it without bias or don’t read it or comment on it at ALL! You cannot come from a place of truth or understating in this matter if your raison d’être is to prove all things wrong contained in the Holy Scriptures. }}}

      Conversely, you cannot be honestly seeking the truth about anything if you assume in advance that what you are reading is absolute truth. It is you that is far more biased than me. I do not seek to discredit the Bible; the Bible actually discredits itself once you start reading it for what it says rather than what Christian apologists claim it says.

      {{{You don’t have to believe one word of it. That’s your choice. Between you and God.}}}

      All I do is compare what I find in the reality God supposedly made with what is written in the Bible. Man makes up books and calls them the Word of God, but only God can make a universe and what we find in it. If they do not match, I accept that the Bible is wrong. Those who do otherwise insult God himself and might as well be idol worshipers.

  8. Ken Ammi is a science Illiterate brain washed fool whose uneducated mind accepts everything in the Bible as fact. Does Ammi believe that a ghost could impregnate a woman? How about a flat Earth supported by pillars with a solid firmament or dome overhead? This fool believes in talking snakes, talking donkeys and bushes. He is a fool that dismisses Judaism and tries to combine it with Christianity thus creating his own religion. This idiot belongs in the Dark Ages. He mocks the Science Club of Long Island without a clue of what science is. My sources tell me he was invited to a debate in the Science Club of Long Island but this coward refused and hid under his bed. The books he writes are complete garbage, He talks about giants in the Bible. These giants never existed and no evidence of their existence has ever ben found. This clown lives in a fantasy world and is in serous need of therapy!

    • Yes, he is a fraud, just like Ken Ham and those other creeps that infest Christianity. And increasing numbers of people know it!



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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s