Ken Ammi, Enemy of Truth, Round Two

In a previous blog entry, I focused on the phony rhetoric of a Christian apologist named Ken Ammi. My attacks must have really bothered him, because he engaged in some desperate damage control in not one or two, but THREE blog entries about me in a row! I guess I should be flattered.

Here they are:

But clearly he is wary of direct criticism of him by others, because at the end of each blog entry is this disclaimer:

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.

That’s the sort of bull$#it only a coward would claim.

He also begs for money 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.

Too cheap to pay for all his own expenses like I do?

On the latter two blog entries, he insults my manhood by mangling my name, referring to me consistently as “Dale’s Husband”. I know the name Dale is one for females too, but….that’s just childish of him!

Ammi often claims that I failed to provide support for my assertions against him. But this is a case of me being asked to provide support for things that I always thought were OBVIOUS and common knowledge, like the errors and contradictions found in the Bible as well as the sordid history of the corruption and abuses of Christians and their institutions around the world. In this day and age, almost anyone can use the internet to look up references to almost anything; why should I have to prove things like the daytime sky is blue?

He tries at one point to charge me with hypocrisy:

There is a bit of discussion of the topic within the comments section and Dale Husband notes the following after agreeing with my research, “I have now identified that blogger above…What he seems to be is a pathological liar, bigot and hypocrite, like most Christian apologists tend to be. I will make a new blog entry about him later.”

Note another paining with a brush mere assertion: most Christian apologists tend to be pathological liars, bigots and hypocrites. Now, compare this to the statement made within Dale Husband’s “about” page, “Part of my being honorable is refusing to paint the members of any group, whether political, religious, or national, with the same brush” well then, this was less than honorable and I still eagerly await upon what ethical premise lying, bigotry and hypocrisy are being condemned.

This itself proves him to be a liar. I do not condemn ALL Christians for their religion, only those who tell lies about it and the Bible.
I defend Christians here:  UUs need to stop being anti-Christian

And I ATTACK Christian apologists here: Lying About History for the Bible

Here:  Lying About History for the Bible, Round 2

Here: The prophet Isaiah did NOT predict the coming of Jesus!

Also here: Insulting and Libeling Unbelievers

He also says:

Dale’s Husband also wrote, “What value is the kind of ‘freethought’ that results in someone claiming that the Earth is flat” which I certainly never have—in fact, the flat Earth is a secular myth (and a current online craze de jour),

My point was that if his “freethought” is based on the teachings of the Bible, then he CAN claim the Earth is indeed flat. I showed how here:  The Bible and a flat Earth

There is a footnote on the end of the second blog entry attacking me that is illustrative of why I utterly despise Ammi. His comments will be in red and italics and my responses will be in green and bold.

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?

The only reason he calls my assertion “un-evidenced” is because he himself denies the overwhelming and obvious evidence for evolution itself.

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.”

So here I am indeed stating the obvious. So what is his response?!

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.

This is an OUTRIGHT LIE! Something does not become irrelevant because Ken Ammi says so. It is relevant because it illustrates the ignorance of the writers of the Genesis creation stories; they were not in direct contact with God nor were they even credible scientists. They were priests and propaganda writers, much like Ammi himself is a propaganda writer.

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.

And how is illustrating that any real God would have written a more credible creation account a failing, Mr. Ammi?

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.

Another falsehood. This was a story about the very creation of the universe itself and claimed by some Christians and Jews to be the Word of God himself. If it was so, it would have been totally ACCURATE and it was NOT! Clearly, Ammi cannot deal with that, but that’s his problem; he needs to GROW UP!

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.”

So here I attempted to link one part of the Bible to another to show a problem with the Scriptures. That’s what credible scholarship does. And yet….

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.

I did not make any vague assertions and I did give reasons for my conclusions. Ken Ammi is in straight denial about the facts and seems to think that people will simply believe him without question just because he professes Christianity. And while sciences may have been dominated by theists centuries ago, since the Renaissance they usually did not allow their religious biases to interfere with their search for truth, then or now. The ONLY actual premises for sciences throughout history has been the search for truth about the universe and everything in it, whether a God or gods made it or not. Religious dogmas only hinder that search.

As an Honorable Skeptic, I always insist on EVIDENCE and not merely RHETORIC to support anything that I consider credible. And I have no tolerance for people who have the opposite attitude and are willing to lie about the matter!

Speaking of which, look at these from around a decade ago:
The Planets Won’t Cooperate, with CREATIONISM!

Was our Solar System Intelligently Designed?

A useless debate

The same sort of crap back then. Nothing has changed, really. I use facts and logic, my religious opponents use lies and fallacies and I should always expect as much.

5 thoughts on “Ken Ammi, Enemy of Truth, Round Two

  1. I also confronted the asshole here in the comments section of this blog entry:

    And he replied here:
    And again, he allows no comments on his own blog. So I will have to reply here:

    First, I do not need to read his book to know his agenda, because I have already seen enough of his writings to know it and how utterly bogus it is.
    Second, he claims that I seek to “promote [my] brand of secularism.”. This is a distortion. I am actually more interested in promoting Unitarian Universalism, which is why I wrote my own book about the Baha’i Faith, to compare the two religions.
    Perhaps Ammi is afraid of mentioning UUism? He’d rather try to depict me as a atheist bigot, which I certainly am not.

    He finally sez, “Dale has managed to discredit himself to a large extent because while his criticism of Baha’ism is not diminished because of his secular worldview, the fact that he is judging a book via ad hominems speaks volumes.”

    No, hypocrite, you discredit me by proving me wrong with logic and evidence. Neither of which you have.

    • And for the record, one cannot engage in “reasoned discourse” as Ken Ammi demands while he himself embraces a belief system (fundamentalist Christianity) that is irrational on its face.

  2. Pingback: The Ultimate Punishment | Dale Husband's Intellectual Rants

  3. I made a final attack on Ken Ammi here:

    {{{“your comment is a classic textbook example of the ad hominem logical fallacy.”

    That claim, like so many you make, is an outright lie.
    My point was always that you are a known Christian apologist and thus you attack the Baha’i Faith with ulterior motives, to entice Baha’is to convert to YOUR religion instead. That’s not a fallacy at all, just a logical deduction one can get from reading your own dishonest writings about religion in general, as detailed on your own blog:

    If I’m wrong, the obvious way to discredit me would have been to say right after I attacked you, “No, I do not care if anyone that leaves the Baha’i Faith becomes Christian; you are clearly mistaken, Dale.”

    At least I am honest about wanting former Baha’is to convert to Unitarian Universalism.

    You also lied here when you said this absurdity:
    “I also asked you “upon what premise do you condemn lying [or hypocrisy]?” and you ignore it because you know that your worldview only allows you to reply that it is because you feel like it.”
    No, unlike you, I have enough respect for REALITY to make sure my statements and my ethical behavior fit it and are consistent and not only fit my personal desires. The fact that you lay verbal traps for me and then attack me later for not falling for them shows your duplicity. Yet you claim I somehow discredited myself first? LOL!

    Your religion has no truth in it at all and even your own God is a hypocrite. And here is damning (pun intended) proof of that:

    Let’s see you dare to copy and paste THAT on that blog entry of yours. I’ll bet you won’t!}}}

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