Atheists As Victims

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.

Mehta comments:

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.

This entry was posted in atheism, New Atheism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Atheists As Victims

  1. I hate to say it to those guys, but I’m afraid I HAVE indeed met pranksters who put swastikas on signs and things thinking it was funny. For whatever their faults, these people were not Nazis.

  2. TFBW says:

    Indeed, malcolmthecynic. We should consider at least three possibilities in a case like this: it was a genuine act of hate, it was a hoax perpetrated by the target in order to garner sympathy and/or publicity, or it was just some random sociopath troll, with no stake in the fight, who wanted to stir up a fuss for the sheer entertainment value. I suspect that the “troll” option is all too common in actual practice.

  3. Ape in a Cape says:

    There is a fourth, and eminently plausible explanation in light of the atheistic worldview: The graffiti came from nothing and appeared spontaneously on the poster without cause. If naturalism can splash color upon the photon and then reveal its effects to the eye of a hominid, it should be a trivial thing for it to give rise to an impromptu piece of unsophisticated poster art.


  4. And the fifth, most likely explanation.

    God wrote it.

  5. Michael says:

    Actually, I forgot to mention one more thing. There is no evidence that that defaced poster ever existed in a the hallways of Western Carolina University.

  6. Ape in a Cape says:

    Thank you NotAScientist. The more I ponder this issue, the more I realize that your response is methodologically superior to mine. For instance, your notion of agent causation fits much better with our present experience than my suggestion of an acausal occurrence. Moreover, yours has the added benefit of being falsifiable, at least in principle. Insofar as we are discussing foundational creative theories, I’m going to defer to your entry as the more reasonable insight on this one.


  7. cl says:

    Ape in a Cape,

    LMAO!! So good…

  8. TimBones says:

    Mike, don’t forget when atheist John Loftus made a fake blog under some anonymous blogger handle to bash JP Holding. Loftus runs “Debunking Christianity”.
    Loftus commented on this phoney blog that he set up saying: “I recently noticed another blog that apparently started up in March which is very critical of J.P. Holding, here. I personally do not like Holding, but I’m probably not going to waste my time on him, except to point out what others are saying about him.”

    But, Loftus didn’t know that the Whois code showing the ownership of that mystery blog was indeed himself.

  9. TimBones says:

    I found a site that has Loftus’ discussion with others calling him on his lie.

    Scroll down a bit to see the back and forth.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.