Quantcast

«

»

May 01 2013

Those vicious, vicious atheists!

Aww, Ken Ham has his tighty whities in a twist. You know what I have to say to that?

tb078f5_GrumpyCatGood

So I suppose you’ve all seen that mind-numbingly horrific and awful 4th grade Christian “science quiz” that’s been making the rounds on Facebook? The one that’s totally real, and that makes anyone operating at higher than a room-temperature IQ see red with rage for the way it’s poisoning children’s minds with miseducation that qualifies as outright intellectual abuse?

Well, of course, to the microcephalics at Answers in Genesis, always looking for a chance to play the martyr, this is just more horrible abuse of Christians by those mean old intolerant atheists. The usual litany of cretinous, projection-heavy self-pity ensues.

These secularists want to impose their anti-God religion on the culture. They are simply not content using legislatures and courts to protect the dogmatic teaching of their atheistic religion of evolution and millions of years in public schools. There is something else on their agenda: they are increasingly going after Christians and Christian institutions that teach God’s Word beginning in Genesis.

Well, since you idiots already went there, fine, I’ll play. You’re damn right I’m intolerant. I’m intolerant of ideological lies being passed off to children in the guise of education, stunting their development and limiting their opportunities for the future. I’m intolerant of anyone who would shut down the natural inquisitiveness of a child’s wonderful mind with the corrosive ichor of dogma. I’m just as intolerant of what you teach as I would be if a child was taught Holocaust denial, or flat Earth “theory,” or the idea that ancient astronauts genetically engineered Adam and Eve from cosmic pixie poop…and for exactly the same reasons: it’s false, and stupid, and stupidly false!

Stop filling kids’ heads with pernicious lies, and smart people will stop attacking you. Because you aren’t getting any attacks you haven’t richly earned.

(PS: And isn’t it no surprise at all that Hammy tries to use this latest manipulative martyrdom ploy to solicit funds for the “school” in question?)

55 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    grumpyoldfart

    No need to worry, the American politicians will never let this state of affairs to continue. As soon as the teachers complain the whole thing will be brought to an abrupt halt and the school will have to start teaching real science again. That’s the beauty of the US system. It simply will not allow cheats and charlatans to thrive and prosper.

    1. 1.1
      Martin Wagner

      Well, the thing is, this is a private Christian school, so it doesn’t have the oversight that a public school would have.

      1. julian the apostate

        I think grumpyoldfart was being sarcastic. The politicians most definitely will not be shutting this down because this is where future Republican voters come from.

    2. 1.2
      LykeX

      Hah! Good one!

      That was a joke, right?

      1. Leeor Dicker

        It would be a joke… if it wasn’t true.

  2. 2
    John Morales

    “anti-God religion”? “atheistic religion”?

    Someone is very, very confused — one definitionally cannot be against something they don’t believe exists.

    (I’m amused by how he shies from the concept of an irreligious person)

    1. 2.1
      Jasper of Maine

      I think technically, cliche Satanism could qualify as an anti-”God” religion… as long as they’re on the other side of that set of mythologies.

      … but I think that more goes to the point that he has a warped understanding of who we are.

      1. Leo Buzalsky

        This may be true for some but I think others may have convinced themselves that the existence of their god is so blatantly obvious that it is impossible for someone to not believe in it — you can only lie about not believing, but in your heart of hearts (or something) you do believe. Still warped, though.

    2. 2.2
      L.Long

      Actually the REAL definition of religion is ‘automatic tax exempt status by gov’mint’
      We don’t get that, which is why our charities cost more to operate.

    3. 2.3
      Jed as well as any other

      You haven’t been keeping up on the “discourse”, have you? You see, Christianity is not a religion. Others, like, say, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Wiccan, Fyrnsiduism, Paganism, Catholicism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc., are all man-made, whereas Christianity is beamed directly into our hearts by The Big Guy in the Sky His Capitalized Self; they’re religions, it’s not. And that’s how you get to be a member of The Union of Professional Projectionists.

      1. Matt Gerrans

        Yeah, Christians like to say Christianity is not a religion. I think the best way to refute that is to call their bluff, have it codified and remove their tax exempt status. I dare say they might have a change of heart, despite what’s written on it.

  3. 3
    Joseph Kemetmüller

    I’d be really interested to hear peoples thoughts on how Christians might justify using fundamental elements of their belief system (that it is a religion, a belief system, that it is dogmatic) to describe those who subscribe to scientific enquiry and don’t subscribe to Christianity.

    1. 3.1
      Lord Narf

      It’s all a con game, to attempt to do an end-run around the first amendment. We get creationism thrown out of school, because teaching it with public funds is a governmental endorsement of religion and a violation of the first amendment. So, their goal is to get atheism considered a religion, in the eyes of the public, with evolution as its creation dogma.

      The courts are a long way from being sufficiently full of ignorant judges (there are plenty of ignorant judges but not enough) for this sort is stupidity to fly, but Hamm is playing for public support, not legal support. If he can get unconstitutional shit passed into law for a few years, before it gets shut down by the courts, he considers it a victory, I imagine. Then, he gets additional material, preaching about the evil, godless ACLU.

      Perhaps he thinks that he can eventually get a constitutional amendment passed reversing the religious clause of the first amendment. Hell, the fucking idiots in the state legislature, in my state, think they can pass an official state religion. It’s not even close to passing, but it’s scary that people are trying it.

  4. 4
    James Kujawa

    Mr. Hamm, I know EGGSACTLY what you are trying to accomplish. Your teachings will not be OVEREASILY when these children reach adulthood. The BEACON of common CENTS that you are teaching these children will not shine BRIGHTSLY in their eyes. IT’S ALL GREEK TO MEMES that these children are being mentally abused.There is a BREAKFEST yearly that will get bigger and stronger with TIME.(BREAK-FEST/REASON RALLY).

  5. 5
    mond

    “They are simply not content using legislatures and courts to protect the dogmatic teaching….”

    Projection ?

  6. 6
    Justin Zumwalt

    I like that logic and reason are being accepted more and more as we move into the future. There is still a lot of social stigma related to “calling idiots out on their dumbass ideas” but as we become more vocal we are forcing those bad ideas out of the public realm.

    Great article as always Martin!

  7. 7
    Akira MacKenzie

    Remember, according to their strawman of liberalism, anyone who espouses “tolerance” is required to respect all opinions and beliefs without judgement, regardless of how vile, hateful, or just demonstrably wrong they seem. The moment you point out their bigotry and supersticion, you are being intolerant of their intolerance, making you a hypocrite and thus invalidating all you stand for.

    1. 7.1
      Houndentenor

      I hate that word. tolerance. It makes me want to throw up. I want equal protection under the law. If you don’t like me you can go f*** yourself for all I care but you won’t legally deny me the same rights as everyone else. I don’t aspire to be tolerated. That’s sad if anyone does. I expect equal treatment. Tolerance is a strawman created by the right to beat up on liberals who dare criticize someone for their bigotry.

      1. Martin Wagner

        Tolerance isn’t so bad, it’s the way the word is used: by thugs who seek to avoid accountability for their actions by adopting the language of those they victimize (e.g.: Christian homophobes who scream “anti-Christian bigotry” every time they are called out on their homophobia), and/or by simpletons who cannot accept the fact that some people in the world have opinions different from their own, and will express them.

        1. Jasper of Maine

          That, and I think it’s a misconception that liberals want “tolerance” across the board. There are things that should be tolerated, and things that shouldn’t.

          Murder – do not tolerate.
          Someone who’s only crime is being different than you – tolerate.

          It’s just that we are more likely to be open to cultural and personal differences, instead of cultivating an “us versus them” mentality… and we, backfiringly, simplistically state “we like tolerance”, without any recognition of the nuance.

  8. 8
    andybreeden

    Speaking of tighty whities, I think that is the perfect label for Christian fundamentalists: Tighty Whities.

    1. 8.1
      changerofbits

      The GOP may also have some claim to that label…

  9. 9
    richardelguru

    “millions of years in public schools”

    They take that long to graduate!?!?!?!?!!!!

    1. 9.1
      Lord Narf

      Heh heh heh heh heh. Good interpretation of the text.

  10. 10
    Lord Narf

    Going after Christian institutions? What is he talking about, the attacks against the unconstitutional school voucher programs that are giving money to private, Christian schools?

    So, I don’t understand what he’s saying is an attack, anyway. Is the posting of this insane quiz an attack on the school that gave the quiz? I don’t get it.

  11. 11
    sosw

    Wow…just yesterday the snopes article was still “unconfirmed,” but now it’s been updated to “true.”

    I really hoped it would’ve turned out to be false.

    1. 11.1
      Lord Narf

      Nah, man. I’ve seen several schools that teach this sort of thing. There’s always the question of the authenticity of a specific sample, but I wouldn’t doubt for a second that it was representative of something actually going on in some of the fundie private schools.

  12. 12
    Akira MacKenzie

    It’s considered an “attack” because it is holding up the sacredword of their deity to ridicule and lampoon. That’s a big no-no because their beliefs are so super-special that they should never be critized.

  13. 13
    John Kruger

    Help! Help! They are being oppressed! Never mind that the information in the “quiz” is staggeringly and demonstrably wrong, everyone needs to stop the oppression first! They need to be able to express the right to – uh, take advantage of the ignorance of children to push their ideology, without criticism! I am sure Jesus put that in the Constitution somewhere.

    Seriously though, “were you there?”. They must be joking. Jesus died for my sins, huh? Oh yeah? Were you there!? No wonder they have to shovel this tripe out to young children, it likely stops working by the time someone is at a high school level of education.

    1. 13.1
      julian the apostate

      I’m beginning to think ‘were you there?’ is about to become my glib stock answer to any and all Christian claims.

      1. Lord Narf

        I’ve been using it for years.

    2. 13.2
      Martin Wagner

      Here’s a hilarious comeback I’ve heard to the whole “were you there” shtick.

      YOU: (says something factual about science)
      MORON: Were you there!?!11!
      YOU: Why yes, Moron, I was there.
      MORON: What!? You couldn’t possibly have been there!
      YOU: How would you know? Were you there?

      1. Leo Buzalsky

        Yes, you beat me to it! Mano Signham had pretty much suggested the same thing on his blog recently…yesterday, I guess.

      2. John Kruger

        Awesome sir.

      3. changerofbits

        I love it! Turning their dishonest rebuttal of an evidence based fact into a spectacular self goal of rational epistemology that completely contradicts their faith based biblical worldview (not that they would realize or admit it).

      4. hoary puccoon

        You can do this a little less snarkily and use it to introduce uniformitarianism, too. As in:

        “Were you there?”
        “How do you know I wasn’t?”
        “Well, people just don’t live that long!”
        “That’s true. But look how you are using a rule you’ve developed in the present to tell you something about the past. That’s exactly what scientists do to find out things like how old the earth is. Only, they use the age of radioactive particles. And they know much, much more about particle ages than you know about human ages.”

        1. LykeX

          Very nice. Wouldn’t work with the hard-core idiots (then again, what does?), but for an honest, but misinformed person, it might be just the thing.

  14. 14
    busterggi

    No surprise, fundies need the bible to be literally true or their whole religion collapses.

    No creation then no Eden, no Eden then no Adam & Eve, no Adam & Eve then no fall of humanity, no fall of humanity then no need for a redeemer, no need for a redeemer then no Jesus.

    it must really secretly bug them that they have to rely on Jewish scripture since Jews are not believers in their Jesus.

  15. 15
    hausdorff

    Thanks for the link to the snopes article. I find the conversation about dinosaurs with his daughter fairly terrifying. I hope that when I have kids I can pass on my love of science and head this type of thing off at the pass, but it’s hard to know what can happen at a school. I’ll definitely have to be particularly vigilant about what they learn in their science classes.

    The paragraph from the snopes article:

    “The Commercial starts out, “After 65 million years, the dinosaurs have returned …” She commented immediately that it was only four thousand years ago. When I corrected her, she snapped back, “Were you there?” I have since taught my daughter differently, but I am sure she is confused now and plan to make sure she understands that teachers are people too and can be factually wrong.”

  16. 16
    Kevin

    Well, I suppose being a vicious atheist is better than being a viscous atheist. Which is what I read the first time I saw the post.

    My mind took me … well … not going there.

  17. 17
    Raymond

    I don’t even know what to feel about this. On one hand it’s disgusting that something like that test can be allowed, and it blows my mind that any thinking adult can support it. On the other hand it is amazing to see that these types of situations are getting the public criticism they deserve. It almost feels as though we are entering a transitional age where silly, illogical beliefs are losing ground in a major way. It’s exciting to be alive for this period. I only hope that I will still be alive when the religious become the minority.

  18. 18
    left0ver1under

    That “test” looks like it was ripped off from a North Korean “re-education camp” and reworded for christianity.

    Answers Ingenuousness lives down to the name, once again.

  19. 19
    changerofbits

    Oh, thank you Ken, for being such loving Christian. Thanks for turning our humanity, the care for the education of all children, into a piece of propoganda to raise tax free money. Thank you for creating children that won’t be able to understand the society, world and universe they inhabit. But most of all, thank you for calling our society “evil”, because there’s nothing that describes Christianity more than the bigoted, ignorant, hateful, hurtful, destructive filth that flows from your tragically misguided brain. May all of the children that the AiG has “reached” turn away and reject that immoral dogma so that this earth can be a better place for the generations to come.

  20. 20
    Jacob Schmidt

    The one that’s totally real, and that makes anyone operating at higher than a room-temperature IQ see red with rage for the way it’s poisoning children’s minds with miseducation that qualifies as outright intellectual abuse?

    I don’t like this sort of statement. Dogma and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, and never have been.

  21. 21
    hypatiasdaughter

    #15 hausdorff
    These self-righteous bozos would have no problem sitting on a jury and handing out a death sentence for murder. “Were they there” to see it happen?

    1. 21.1
      Jasper of Maine

      They seem to have an odd exception for the testimony of other people.

      Like, a couple years ago, “Mike” called into the show, arguing about how the Bible was true, etc. He gave the “were you there?” line when the hosts were talking about evolution.

      The hosts ended up asking the caller if he was there when Jesus existed/did his stuff…. and all of a sudden, the “were you there?” rule didn’t apply to him, because the Bible talks about people who WERE there, and therefore, problem resolved.

      1. Jasper of Maine

        1. Jasper of Maine

          Bah, stupid thing didn’t retain the starting time.

          Starts at about 35 minutes

          1. Jasper of Maine

            Bah – not 35 minutes… 34 minutes

      2. Raymond

        And these people actually believe this stuff. ***Shakes head***

  22. 22
    theignored

    On Ham’s facebook page where that is discussed they not only believe it, they vigorously defend it. Sad.I posted on Myers’ blog some of my futile attempts to deal with those people.

  23. 23
    Heir Apparent

    I don’t know why I’m shocked by this, but it’s disgusting and frankly I’m appalled. Ah, the joys of the country I live in.

    And since matter is neither created nor destroyed, I was technically there. Do I get a free apologetics pass?

  24. 24
    keirfamily

    The trouble is, as usual, that there are no circumstances under which a fully programmed believer will abandon their beliefs; the more we show evidence that opposes their world-view, the more they doubt the evidence, because it opposes their world-view. Bayes’ theory in action… (see “Thinking, Fast & Slow” for an explanation).

    “If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people” – House, I believe.

    An echo is our own “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”. Or ask a scientist about the law of conservation of energy (aka the impossibility of perpetual motion machines). Any claims of evidence suggesting that this law can be broken will be denied “because that would break the law of conservation of energy”.

    And we all do it; who hasn’t put off making a will (in some cases, for life) because that means thinking about our own death, and we don’t want to think about that. “Being wrong”, for many people, is a little death… – and not to be considered.

    “Blessed St Leibowitz, keep ‘em dreaming down there…”

    1. 24.1
      Martin Wagner

      The trouble is, as usual, that there are no circumstances under which a fully programmed believer will abandon their beliefs

      Naw, man, this is both untrue and unfair. Matt Dillahunty is a case in point, as is Teresa McBain, as are the several people who have defected from Westboro. The Clergy Project is all about helping ministers who are abandoning the faith they’ve lost. Though it is the case that a great many don’t, a lot of people who are thoroughly God-soaked come to their senses all the time.

  25. 25
    nathan

    In my lifetime (a scant 37 yrs) i have gone back and forth a couple times on the whole God, not god, Christianity is crap, it isn’t crap thing. For me, i came to my senses when i chose to live with the belief that the bible is true, that God exists, etc; And i don’t mean to say that those who don’t believe are deluded and senseless.
    It is a choice to believe one way or the other. Both sides fall short in the burden of proof argument. Proof isn’t necessary for a lot of things we all do everyday, it doesn’t need to be present for one to believe or disbelieve something, it doesn’t even need to be present for something to be true.
    For example, the sky is blue. True statement. (Sometimes, LoL) When it is true, i don’t have to prove it for it to be true, it just is true during those times when the sky is blue. We could muddle the point by discussing color blindness, air pollution, the spectrum of light, and a myriad of other things. But, the point is, it is true. It becomes muddled and confusing when we bring in other points, each which come with their own little set of presuppositions or mitigating factors. So, i hope one would infer from this example that the discussing parties’ perspectives become important to truth discussions.
    And perspective, well that isn’t always an easy thing to share. But, it is pretty darn important when trying to discuss differing beliefs, for if the two (or more) parties cannot look at the issue with some common perspective, they will almost certainly have a very rough go at understanding each other, much less the topic of discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>