Friendly Atheist Goes on the Attack

The Atheist Wars just never stop. As we all know, the atheist community has some serious problems with sexual harassment and rape issues. Well, recently two atheists who have long been battling over accusations of sexual harassment reached some type of agreement signaling no such harassment ever took place. This agreement was apparently made public over 2 weeks ago.

What’s interesting is that Hemant Mehta, that ever so Friendly Atheist, decided to use this to taunt and condemn the A+ atheist community, demanding that people like PZ Myers and SkepChick issue a public apology for helping to publicize the sexual harrassment accusations in the first place. If you’ll recall, Mehta recently launched an attack on PZ Myers, so we clearly have a pattern of attack from the ever so Friendly Atheist.

As we can see, reason and evidence simply cannot bring consensus and agreement among the atheists. I starting to think the only hope of rescuing the atheist community is the election of a religious conservative Republican for President in 2016. The atheist community deseperately needs a common enemy. Reason, evidence, science, the desire to “be good without god,” clearly are not enough. If Clinton wins in 2016, robbing the atheists of their common enemy, the secular activist community will continue to devour itself, possibly, to the point of no return.

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

4 Responses to Friendly Atheist Goes on the Attack

  1. Ilíon says:

    [Without] their common enemy, the secular community will continue to devour itself, possibly, to the point of no return.

    It doesn’t appear to make for a very nutritious meal.

  2. TFBW says:

    Gnu infighting is not really an interest of mine, so I have no special prior knowledge of the war in question, other than to know that the divide exists. I can read the new evidence for myself, however, and unless I’m missing something, this is all about the joint statement that Stollznow and Radford issued.

    That document seems to have been the work of lawyers, and while it does effectively withdraw all Stollznow’s allegations, I’m not at all persuaded that it expresses truth in that area. It’s a lawyerly compromise between two parties who have been at each other’s throats in public, but who have clearly decided that the war is too costly to wage — or at least too costly for Stollznow to wage, since she was the one bringing the charges, and is being made to back down from them.

    Consider this statement from Mehta:

    Just to verify this, I asked Stollznow last week if she really signed that statement. While she wouldn’t give me a definitive answer, she didn’t deny it either, saying she couldn’t speak about this matter in public.

    Can’t speak about it in public? Clearly part of the terms of the settlement. Now, Mehta’s not naive: he appreciates the lawyerly aspect of this issue, as shown in the following quote.

    Maybe you think there’s more to the story. Maybe you think she signed it only because it was costing too much to keep fighting this battle in court. But as far as the legal system is concerned, this issue has been resolved.

    No argument there. The matter is legally resolved. I rather doubt that either of the parties were super-happy about it, but figured they’d dug themselves into a lose-lose situation and were smart enough to pull the plug on it before they dug any deeper. But Mehta’s prescription for how folks ought to react to this outcome strikes me as odd.

    And yet every single one of the bloggers I linked to above has been silent about this matter. Unless I missed it, they haven’t posted the joint statement. They haven’t updated old posts with a mention of it. They haven’t offered their opinion on it one way or the other. As far as they’re concerned, Radford is still a bad guy even though the statement explicitly says he didn’t do what he was accused of doing.

    They owe him an apology.

    They owe him an apology because he got Stollznow to back down? They owe him an apology because the legal outcome was a joint statement crafted by lawyers which clearly gives a higher concern to pragmatic consequences than truth? Does Mehta really wish to back the idea that legal outcomes define reality? Am I being uncharitable if I suspect that he would be singing a different tune if a legal outcome rubbed him up the wrong way?

    Or, at the very least, they should tell us why he doesn’t deserve one.

    Pff. I’ve got no dog in this fight, but I’ll tell you why: the joint statement says, in part, “they ask that their friends and colleagues let the matter drop.” This whole apology-demanding act runs directly contrary to that request.

    Mehta’s primary interest here seems to be trumpeting his own rightness, rather than acting in the stated interests of the parties in question, otherwise he would have just posted the statement, declared it over, and let the matter rest. What he’d really like, evidently, is some gloating rights while his opponents eat some crow/humble pie in public. No surprise that Coyne has joined the “I told you so” chorus, then.

  3. nolo says:

    I’ve always laughed at the “friendly” part of the moniker. Mehta is about as friendly as a prednisone-filled chihuahua.

  4. I echo the remarks on Mehta’s friendliness, and add that you have given me another compelling reason to vote Hillary in 2016.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s