Hemant Mehta runs the blog entitled, “Friendly Atheist.” His angle as an atheist activist is to play up the atheist-as-victim routine. About a year ago, the Friendly Atheist used his blog to accuse Christians of defacing a poster that advertised for a student atheist group at Western Carolina University. He entitled his blog entry as “Christian Graffiti on an Atheist Poster.” It’s a short piece and you can see the graffiti here.
The person who originally put the flyer up took it down after seeing the graffiti. I would’ve suggested otherwise.
Leave it up there.
Let people see “Christian Love” in action.
Then, put up a sign next to it with an arrow pointing to the first sign, reading “This is why we need the atheist group” (or something along those lines).
Hopefully, no one considers retaliating against any of the Christian groups’ posters. Because we should be better than that.
As an activist, Mehta appreciates the propaganda the value of such vandalism. It not only gives the atheists a perfect opportunity to portray themselves as victims, but also allows them to portray Christians as eevil bigots and thugs. The student atheist group also benefits, as it receives the free publicity for its event.
Of course, there is one problem with this perfect activist “teaching moment.” There is not one shred of evidence that a Christian wrote that. Not one. So why does Mehta insist that this was “Christian graffiti” and an example of “Christian love?” With no evidence to back up his claims, he must either be drawing upon his own prejudice, where his confirmation bias trumps any need for evidence, or his own sneaky activism, where the chance to score a propagandistic point is too important for needing evidence.
To his credit, and unlike Coyne, Mehta apparently allows some dissenting voices to post on his blog. Three people pointed out there was no evidence a Christian wrote the graffiti, but in each case, an atheist stepped forward to dismiss them. Mehta himself just ignores it all.
Sceptic: Can easily be done by one of your own to lay blame on others.
OregoniAn: Yeah… and any time you see a swastika spray painted on a wall it’s been placed there by one of those Jews.. and if I had a dime for every time a Black burned a cross on their own front lawn.. Go fuck yourself Sceptic =)
JoFro: Wait a minute, how are we assuming a Christian did this? Where is the evidence that it was a Christian who did this?
Octoberfurst: Uhh because of the reference to Jesus. (Duhh!)
Mrs Schaarschmidt: Look, the graffiti is unacceptable and wrong and all that…but this is a college campus. I don’t think it’s fair to judge “the Christians” for this one. Bored dumb kids are a dime a dozen and it is far more likely that this was done by a bored kid than a hateful Christian.
Drakk: Nice false dichotomy you’ve got there. Because there’s no such thing as bored, hateful, Christian kids, right?
In each case, note that the atheists did not and could not provide any evidence, yet they still clung tightly to their beliefs. They try to intimidate the skeptics by a) implying they are insensitive or b) implying they are stupid. That’s all they had. Confirmation bias on display.
Look, it is possible that some Christian could have written the graffiti. But let me put another explanation on the table: An atheist wrote that. As sceptic wrote, “Can easily be done by one of your own to lay blame on others.” How true.
Consider the facts.
1. The graffiti does conveniently serve the activist agenda of atheists: a) portraying atheists as victims; b) portraying Christians as evil; and c) providing publicity to the Atheist gathering. These are, after all, the very reasons activist Mehta showcased this whole incident.
2. Atheists DO have a history of impersonating Christians.
3. It is NOT uncommon for people to fake being victims, especially if they have some cause.
In light of these facts, it is irrational to conclude that a Christian wrote that graffiti. Atheists need to practice what they preach and support their accusations with something called……EVIDENCE.