Earlier this week, I argued that some people didn’t understand creation-speak — they were interpreting a Ken Ham statement as an admission that he had no evidence. This was not correct, because Ken Ham is so dishonest or deluded that he’d never admit that, ever.
Now Ham has acknowledged my ‘assistance’.
Interestingly, even one of our most vocal opponents—who is an atheist—pointed out the misrepresentations made about this radio program. Dr. PZ Myers of Minnesota, who does not like me at all and hates God, has recognized that many of his fellow secularists have misquoted me and have taken my comments out of context. He wrote on his blog a few days ago that secular bloggers have completely misread my radio statements: “What he [i.e., me] actually said is familiar creationist dogma, and comes nowhere near their interpretation. . . . It doesn’t say what they think it says. Notice the ‘solely’; creationists will claim that they are using their reason, even when they aren’t.” Later in his blog, Myers takes a shot at me, but in this rare instance, PZ’s blog has come to my defense! (I am reluctant to link to PZ’s blog because of some vile content and profanity, but some people will want to check out the “defense” for themselves at freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula.)
Yuck. I need a shower. That’s also the most he’s ever acknowledged my existence.
By the way, I don’t hate gods — they don’t exist. I really despise the buffoons who lie about gods to fleece their flocks, though.
It’s almost like som sort of reluctant friendship slowly forming without any of you two realizing it. ;) Nah, just kidding. It’s more like the “dear enemy effect”, maybe.
Vile content and profanity, eh? Yeah, the truth hurts the ears of yer suckers, yer meal tickets, oh Hammy one.
I wonder if there’s going to be a “How I Became an Atheist” deconversion from someone checking out the “defense” and realizing that it accurately describes Ham’s original slippery statement. Then, the realization hits that all you were saying was “No need to make things up. The truth about Ham is more than damaging enough.”
KHAAAN!!!
I hope lots of his readers visit FTB and take a look around, and read, and learn, and think about truth, and join the real world.
I smell a buddy/road trip film in the making.
“Together, they fight crime!”
“Squidman, shall I fire up the Cephalodrive?”
“Yes! To the Squidmobile, Hamboy!”
Cheer up, PZ. At least he didn’t call you “Meyers”!
Okay!
Vile content: quotes from Ken Ham
Profanity: damn
Given that forbidden fruit is the most tempting, I wonder how many of Mr Ham’s readers checked this site out?
Keep this up and Myers/Ham shippers will start showing up on Tumblr.
I laughed so hard! Isn’t he cute the Hamster.
I sense the beginning of a great friendship here.
Isn’t hating a god like hating Darth Vader or Moriarty? Sure, they aren’t beloved fictional characters, but who actually “hates” them?
Meanwhile, I find the lies Ham peddles far more vile and profane than some colorful language.
I have participated in the profanity, but I wonder what content he considers “vile”. The tolerant parts?
In all the old westerns the firmest friendships start out with a fight. :) :] :}
Should I be amazed that he actually quotes “creationists will claim that they are using their reason, even when they aren’t”, and calls that a defense?
Yes, Ken, PZ Myers (thanks for managing to spell it right, most of your kind don’t) was compelled to clarify that you do not in fact give a toss about evidence for evolution and that you continue to demand that science show you a dog give birth to a pony.
All those that aren’t too scared. Most probably are too scared.
Yep, and even more so the atheist parts. :-|
I hope lots of his readers visit FTB and take a look around, and read, and learn, and think about truth, and join the real world.
I would like them to visit. Even if they remain god-bots their comments would be a nice diversion from all the MRA types, I find it far less depressing and could use a mindless break.
Arg, misplaced block quote on that first line.
They keep saying that. And I mean, I know why they do, and frankly I do hate God as a character, but it’s beside the point, innit?
I don’t hate God or gods just like I don’t hate Iago or Darth Vader. The Abrahamist god is a villain like Sauron and is just as fictitious. It would be silly to hate an imaginary being.
Don’t you just feel his christian love coming through? He agrees with you… that’s he’s still incapable of looking at the evidence in any rational way.
Yes Ken Ham, PZ Myers is honest.
“Look, Ken Ham said something reasonable!”
“No he didn’t; you misinterpreted it.”
“Hey, PZ came to my defense!”
It’s happened the other way around — not with Ham, but with a theist who corrected another theist’s error regarding what the gnu atheists are saying (and what we’re not.) At least, I’m pretty sure it happened. I seem to have a vague recollection or two of acknowledging that some of the apologists were actually bothering to read what we wrote without filtering it through their atheist-decoder machine. But I can’t think of any examples at the moment.
Yes, they still disagreed with us — but when you spend a lot of time flaying at straw men an honest debate on the issues is gratifying. They payed attention. Always a wise move.
You really don’t understand your own position unless you properly understand the other side.
PZ has Ham figured out. This is not a good a thing for Ham.
I reflexively looked for the thumbs-up button to “Like” Sastra’s post in #26. This is a bad, bad sign if I’m developing FB reflexes.
You can hate fictional characters just fine, imho. The christian god does give enough reason to hate him, being a sociopathic mary sue and all. On the other hand, there isn’t much stuff in the bible (like a real narrative or likeable characters) for the god to wreck, so in the end, he’s just too boring to hate him.
I feel a PZ/Ham fanfic coming on.
Oh don’t ask that, it’s a question that can only be answered with ‘awful people’. The sheer energy expended on hating fictional characters can be astounding.
I’m amused by the demagoguery in Ham’s statement. For instance, it’s patently obvious that the reason people were saying that Ken Ham was having a moment of clarity was due largely to misunderstanding what he said, yet he uses the word misrepresent, which has a much more negative connotation, to describe people’s motivations. Either Ken Ham is just playing up his use of English to appear more intellectual (and failing) or he’s specifically trying to manipulate his base into being more anti-atheist by playing to the stereotype that atheists are manipulative and immoral liars.
Well shit goddamn hell fuck, I’m going to have to watch my manners!
Instead of Darth Vader, Moriarty, or Sauron, try this one:
Jar Jar Binks