Popular New Atheist Blog Goes After 12-year-old Girl

Hemant Mehta, the hardcore New Atheist activist who deceptively promotes himself as “The Friendly Atheist,” used his popular blog to go after a 12 year old girl.  Mehta throws out some red meat to his rabid fans and followers:

There’s a controversy currently brewing in Katy, Texas, because that question about God’s existence is being used as evidence for Christian persecution.

That accusation is being made by seventh-grader Jordan Wooley, who said the statement about God was a fact. Her teacher correctly told her that was the wrong answer. Now, Wooley claims she is being forced to choose between her grades and her faith.

Actually, you can listen to Jordan herself make her case:

Mehta claims the teacher did nothing wrong and that little Jordan made a mistake when she interpreted the phrase “common assertion” to mean “myth” since it could not mean “fact” or “opinion.”  If I get the time in the next couple of days, we will dissect Hemant’s reasoning.  For now, let’s focus on something else.

After setting the stage like this, Mehta’s atheist fans and followers took it from there and began to viciously attack the 12 year old girl.  Consider some of the comments that are hosted by Mehta’s blog (while keeping in mind that Mehta makes zero effort to control or tone down the hateful comments his blog encouraged):

    In summation the poor widdle girly with the broken fee fees LIED HER FUCKING ASS OFF and got a bunch of people pissed off at her teacher all so that should could martrybate in public and get lots of attention.
    Another instance of stupid children not paying attention, misrepresenting the facts and lying.
    The student spinned it so it seemed like they said God doesn’t exist and this is where the persecution complex comes in. They take a real life situation and modify it to a level where they would be conceived as persecuted. It’s lying.
    This child will go far in the world (sarcasm)
    But then I’ll also have to credit her with the ability to make up the phony story without coaching.
    Yes, the student made it up.
    And I don’t buy for a minute the notion that the student’s substitution of ‘myth’ for ‘common assertion’ is a mistake. She changed the word to support her false narrative, again proving that Christians are generally liars.
    But really, look at that student playing the martyr. It’s affecting her “grades”? Really. One problem marked incorrect is affecting her entire grade point average? Po’ baby.
    Guess this precious little snowflake needs some math tutoring too.
    Seventh grade? Boy, they start the persecution complex young in Texas.

Big, bad, brave atheists……attacking a 12 year old as being a stupid liar.  Atheist morality on display.

Keep in mind that Mehta is a very experienced atheist activist who knows his readers.  He must have known his decision to use his blog to target a 12 year old girl would elicit such hateful attacks among his fans, allies, and followers.  As an experienced and savvy activist, he knows he can’t cross the line by attacking children.  But he sure as hell knows how to get his faithful atheist followers and readers to do the dirty work for him.  Despicable.

 

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

25 Responses to Popular New Atheist Blog Goes After 12-year-old Girl

  1. advancedatheist says:

    What would happen in the alternate reality where this girl said she didn’t believe in a god, and she wanted contraception so that she could have sex with her boyfriend because of what she read in atheist propaganda about the wonders of adolescent sexual freedom?

    Hemant became the Unfriendly Atheist towards me and banned me from posting because those feminist atheist goofs who follow his blog didn’t like my posts about the secular incel phenomenon and my criticisms of those nonsensical and one-sided stories Hemant publishes about how women become sexually liberated when they abandon the sex-negative churches they grew up in and turn atheist. I kept pointing out that this can work for women because they have the gatekeeping power all along.

    This doesn’t necessarily work for a lot of christian guys. The sexually unattractive christian man doesn’t enter a sexual utopia by becoming an atheist. He just becomes a sexually yucky atheist guy.

  2. John says:

    What happened Michael?

    It seems that since September,you haven’t been posting as frequently.

    Why is that?

    You seem to have been able to post more frequently in August and before that,as well as years before.

    So what has changed since August then?

  3. John says:

    Also,I just found out even some Christians are asking themselves whether or not this account of the girl is accurate.

    Some say it is important to hear from the other side and that it seems a tiny bit faked as well.

    Eitherway,we don’t know right now,but if it is true,I await your dissection of Mehta’s argument then.

  4. John says:

    Also,recently,there is another New Atheist ”argument” that has recently surfaced.

    It’s a study showing how scientists used magnetism to shut down the surface region of the posterior medial frontal cortex,a region that is responsible for the fight or flight response,basically,fear,and they ended up making people stop being religious:

    http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/09/03/scan.nsv107.abstract

    Even when reminded of death,some people who now had less or no more belief in God did not care about it or see it as a problem because the surface region of the posterior medial frontal cortex was ”shut down” and magnetised.

    Now,atheists,even some scientists of the study,are using this to their advantage by proclaiming that this is proof religious belief is completely based on fear of death and other such behaviour.Some say that all this prooves is that when you take the fear of death away from a religious person, they no longer need a god or gods.

    Now,some Christians misinterpreted this to mean that atheists are more stupid becase the cortex shut down was responsible for logical reasoning.

    But only the surface part was manipulated,and reasoning and logic were not interfered with.The only thing that was interfered with was fear.

    This,along with another study:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html

    Makes up a fresher version of the argument that religious people are less intelligent and that religion is basically fear of death and so on.

  5. G. Rodrigues says:

    @John:

    For a review go here.

    Summary: another monument to stupidity dressed up as Science ™!

  6. Michael says:

    Also,I just found out even some Christians are asking themselves whether or not this account of the girl is accurate.

    Some say it is important to hear from the other side and that it seems a tiny bit faked as well.

    So that’s an excuse to use a popular blog to attack a child?? You tell me.

  7. Jakeithus says:

    I remember a teenaged atheist in New Jersey who made the news within the past year or two based on her opposition to a publicly displayed prayer of some sort. I wonder if Mehta criticized Christians for attacking that teenage girl, I wouldn’t be surprised the least if he did, given that he’s not above blatant hypocrisy when it comes to making believers look bad.

  8. Kevin says:

    I fail to see how being comfortable with dying suddenly makes atheism a rational proposition. I’d have to lose a lot more brain function than that to agree with atheism.

  9. TFBW says:

    I’m sure they don’t think of themselves as engaging in an attack on a twelve year old girl. I expect that they are attacking a symbol of the abstract, perceived threat to their freedom known as organised religion. When you’re up to your eyeballs in militant ideology like that, you can lose sight of the fact that actual people are involved.

    On another note, I want to say that I’m a bit irritated by “fact, opinion, or commonplace assertion” being presented as mutually exclusive alternatives. And Mehta goes along with this? Come on, people — where’s the commentary on the sloppy thinking behind the question? Mehta blithely plays along, like so.

    What if I gave you the statement “God exists”? Fact, opinion, or a commonplace assertion?Once again, it’s a commonplace assertion. You can’t prove it either way, but a lot of people sure as hell believe it. (For what it’s worth, saying God doesn’t exist would be in the same category.)

    This is rubbish. An assertion is simply a statement which the speaker presents as true. It’s generally associated with matters of fact, rather than matters of opinion, because opinions are subjective, and one can merely state them without the need to assert. Perhaps one might be required to speak with the force of an assertion on a matter of opinion if one’s sincerity were called into question. The main point is that “assertion” is orthogonal to “fact” and “opinion”: it is a measure of the force with which a statement is presented as true, and may refer to a statement of fact, or a statement of opinion.

    Now, it may be entirely true that “God exists” is a commonplace assertion, but the actual truth of the statement remains either a matter of fact or a matter of opinion quite independently of this. If God’s existence is a matter of fact, then He either actually exists or does not, and one can actually be objectively right or wrong about that matter. If God’s existence is a matter of opinion, then it’s a subjective matter as to whether He exists or not, and, presumably, simply having the opinion that he does (or does not) exist is enough to make it so (or not) relative to you.

    Of course, the whole idea that God’s existence might be a matter of opinion seems a little absurd on the face of it, and it’s certainly not how theists and strong atheists approach the question. When Dawkins says that there is almost certainly no God, he asserts something which he intends to be understood as a matter of fact, not merely an expression of his opinion.

    So what’s with Mehta and his “you can’t prove it either way” non sequitur? The ability to prove something (or not) has no relation to the question of whether something is a matter of fact or opinion. Is Mehta really so philosophically naive as to draw a distinction along those lines?

    So much mushy thinking. The twelve year old, I can excuse: she’s supposed to be learning. The teacher and the more-rational-than-thou atheist, not so much: they should know better.

    Am I being unreasonable?

  10. advancedatheist says:

    Neuroscience poses an even bigger challenge to Christianity than the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory constructs stories to try to make sense of what physical evidence says about an unobservable past. But modern neuroscience can show in the here and now how religious beliefs work as natural phenomena. Ironically many of the empirically testable clams of Buddhism come out looking pretty good in the light of neuroscience, because Buddhism’s validity never depended on the historicity of a Buddha in ancient India in the first place. We could eventually get to the point where people become not only voluntarily god-optional through advanced neurotechnology, but they could also experience Buddhist enlightenment, psychedelic states and other currently hard-to-access forms of cognition through a mouse click or its equivalent..

  11. Allallt says:

    This is a nonsense post.
    A mistake a little girl made has created massive national uproar. The only way to defend the teacher (who did nothing wrong!) is to admit the girl made a mistake.
    Myths and common place assertions are not the same, in part because the assumption is that if something is a myth it isn’t true. Whereas, “common place assertion” is a category that has no ‘truth’ value applied to it. The confusion is mistaken.

    It’s then ridiculous to blame Mehta for the content of his commenters. It’s liberalism: don’t filter.

    The topic is fair game, and Mehta isn’t responsible for his commenters.

  12. @advanced…I mean no disrespect here, but it seems in responding to Michael’s posts you nearly always bring up women or the issue of lonesomeness in the lives of certain unbelievers. Is this something that really consumes you? My suggestion if it is would involve a few things, prayer probably being out of the question for you, I take it. Firstly, love yourself. Your dignity as a human has nothing to do with being partnered up. Embrace being you in the moment. Secondly, do your thing brother. If you have an interest that is heathy, stick with it. Cultivate others too. The more I terests the more extroversion the more socialization and perhaps nice women. Thirdly, throw away any expectations or notions of fairness. After all, if you’re an atheist you may subscribe to an order less world. Fourthly, forget about terms like involuntary celibacy. Nobody owes anybody sex. Sex is overrated too. And fifth, if you are in possession of any pornography, trash it. It will help reset your thinking towards women, who are beautiful creations deserving of dignity. Lastly, be good. Enjoy as much as possible the days you have. Good luck.

  13. Crude says:

    As TFBW says, an assertion is a statement presented as true. Let atheists admit that ‘evolution is not guided by God’ is neither fact nor opinion but ‘commonplace assertion’.

    It’s then ridiculous to blame Mehta for the content of his commenters. It’s liberalism: don’t filter.

    Mehta doesn’t need to filter. He can just criticize his commenters for angrily attacking a twelve year old girl.

    Let me guess: liberalism means 12 year old girls can be attacked, mocked and slandered without criticism, because ‘don’t filter’?

  14. Michael says:

    This is a nonsense post.

    I point out that New Atheists engage in mean-spirited, hateful attacks on a 12 year old girl and you respond, “Nonsense.” How predictable. Everyone should note that not one atheist, not one, has been willing to condemn, or least distance themselves from, the hateful attack of a 12 year old on Hemant Mehta’s blog.

    A mistake a little girl made has created massive national uproar.

    Still trying to blame the little girl, eh?

    The only way to defend the teacher (who did nothing wrong!) is to admit the girl made a mistake.

    Of course the teacher did something wrong. She should never has used “There is a God” as an example in the classroom. Duh. Even the school board had to acknowledge this:

    At the conclusion of the investigation today, the principal determined that the classroom activity included an item that was unnecessary for achieving the instructional standard…..this ungraded activity was ill-conceived and because of that, its intent had been misconstrued. As a result, the activity will no longer be used by the school, and the teacher has been advised and appropriate personnel action will be taken.

    Myths and common place assertions are not the same, in part because the assumption is that if something is a myth it isn’t true.

    If commonplace assertions were defined as they have been elsewhere – a common, unfounded belief – it’s silly to expect a 12 year old to be able to split hairs like this.

    Whereas, “common place assertion” is a category that has no ‘truth’ value applied to it.

    Look at Jordan’s assignment. Another entry is ““People who wear glasses are smart” Would you say that’s a myth?

    It’s then ridiculous to blame Mehta for the content of his commenters. It’s liberalism: don’t filter.

    Read the first comment above:

    Hemant became the Unfriendly Atheist towards me and banned me from posting because those feminist atheist goofs who follow his blog didn’t like my posts about the secular incel phenomenon

    There is indeed a filter. So that excuse has been blown out of the water. And as Crude points out, “Mehta doesn’t need to filter. He can just criticize his commenters for angrily attacking a twelve year old girl.”

    Indeed. In fact, Mehta quit his job as a teacher to become a fulltime blogger, so he clearly has the time to do that.

    The topic is fair game,

    Attacking a 12 year old girl is NOT fair game.

    and Mehta isn’t responsible for his commenters.

    I stand by my conclusion:

    Keep in mind that Mehta is a very experienced atheist activist who knows his readers. He must have known his decision to use his blog to target a 12 year old girl would elicit such hateful attacks among his fans, allies, and followers. As an experienced and savvy activist, he knows he can’t cross the line by attacking children. But he sure as hell knows how to get his faithful atheist followers and readers to do the dirty work for him. Despicable.

  15. Michael says:

    Neuroscience poses an even bigger challenge to Christianity than the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory constructs stories to try to make sense of what physical evidence says about an unobservable past.

    It depends on one’s Christian views. As I have demonstrated on this blog before, the theory of evolution poses no challenge to my Christian faith. As for neuroscience, there is nothing there to pose a challenge. I believe that my essence is not that of some ghostly soul. I believe my essence, my identity, is intimately connected to my bodily existence. After all, that’s precisely why my Christain understanding of the afterlife entails a bodily resurrection.

  16. Michael says:

    Also,recently,there is another New Atheist ”argument” that has recently surfaced.

    In other words, given the failure rate of other New Atheist arguments, the Gnus are grasping for straws.

    That study smells like junk science to me. A good place to start is the link supplied by G. Rodrigues. If I get time, I’ll add some more.

  17. Isaac says:

    Advancedatheist’s kooky logic concerning neuroscience is the sort of thing that just makes atheists look like fanatical ideologues, misrepresenting science so that they can make bizarre metaphysical claims.

    Brain chemistry manipulates emotions and thoughts, but manipulating brain chemistry directly in a laboratory isn’t the same as experiencing emotions in the real world, where brain chemistry is a RESPONSE to real external stimuli. The atheists’ wishful thinking is causing them to confuse cause and effect.

    If you feel satisfaction after winning a spelling bee, the cause of your happiness isn’t seratonin. The CAUSE is winning the spelling bee. The release of seratonin and your subsequent happiness are both effects.

    By goofy atheist logic, accomplishments, romantic affection, etc. don’t exist, and they can prove it by replicating the feelings of those experiences in a lab. It’s the saddest kind of grasping at straws.

  18. Ratheist says:

    You yourself are lying in much the same way as the child, you exchanged the word “criticism” for “attack” and added in “12 year old” and “child” in order to hype up your own false narrative. So now the big bad atheists are “attacking a 12 year old child”, but when you look at it, they aren’t, they are criticizing her stance on the assignment and her reaction to it, calling it “lies”. This post is hypocrisy incarnate.

  19. Michael says:

    Some say it is important to hear from the other side and that it seems a tiny bit faked as well.

    I see. So you won’t answer my questions, but you will make a sneaky attack on a child. Typical gnu.

    Yes, we do indeed need to hear from the other side. The teacher needs to answer the following questions:

    1. Why, among all the possible examples, did you include “There is a God” as one of them?
    2. Is it true that you told the class the correct answer for #2 is “commonplace assertion?”
    3. How did you define “commonplace assertion” for the class?
    4. What was the correct answer for #8?

    Anything that does not address these questions is likely to be bullshit. So until we get answers, we can ask why it is the other side refuses to talk.

    Eitherway,we don’t know right now,but if it is true,I await your dissection of Mehta’s argument then.

    No need for you to wait. The first round of dissection is here.

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/atheist-activist-flunks-7th-grade-critical-thinking-exercise/

  20. John says:

    ” they aren’t, they are criticizing her stance on the assignment and her reaction to it, calling it “lies””

    They also call her stupid and say that this shows Christians are generally liars and even do something that,at least to me,seems like mocking/taunting by saying ”Guess this precious little snowflake needs some math tutoring too.”

    Is calling her stupid,angrily proclaiming she is a liar with some cuss words and do something that to me looks like taunting or mocking criticising?

    They can just as easily criticise without angrily calling her a liar and saying this was ”Another instance of stupid children”.

    To me,this is just a straightforward attack.

  21. Allallt says:

    Firstly, as a teacher and an older sibling to a 10 year-old, 11 year-old and 14 year-old, I think it’s reasonable to expect a 12 year-old to tell the difference between “true”, “false” and “can’t tell even though it’s said a lot”/”opinion”. (Although, telling the difference between “can’t tell…” and “opinion” seems difficult in some cases and, for some people, all the time.)
    As for the task you pointed to–people who wear glasses are smart–I’d consider that an ill-defined statement (and, as a teacher, I’d have made sure all my commenters were at least well-defined). It seems the entire lesson wasn’t thought through. If I was observing their lesson, that would have been my concern: the statements are overly complex given the narrow categorisations offered.
    This is particularly true when it would appear that was exactly the learning objective of the lesson.

    Although the teacher’s lesson plan may have included non-essential elements, that’s a meaningless finding. A lot of lessons have non-essential elements, especially at a younger age. Generating content is necessary to develop a skill; even though each bit of content can be considered non-essential, having some content is essential. I don’t see that the (Christian) teacher did anything wrong. “God exists” is the epitome of a common assertion where the truth of the claim cannot be established.

    When someone publicly accuses another person of acting unprofessionally and being offended by that behaviour, risking that persons job, it is perfectly reasonable to give the actual details.

    I’m on your side when it comes to the tone and aggression of the commenters, but I think blaming Mehta is ridiculous.

    If true, and Mehta does filter his comments, then some blame does fall on Mehta. I don’t censor my comments, but I only have time to denounce the aggressive comments on my blog because I get so few comments.

    As for saying no atheists have defended the little girl, here are some comments from the thread (with more than 500 comments):
    * ““Little bitch”? She’s in the seventh grade. That seems inappropriate. She simply failed to understand the difference between facts and opinions.”
    * “We really can’t blame the girl. She only knows what she is being taught at home and in her church. And.. they lie to her.”
    After scrolling through comments that are two people arguing ad nausea, I gave up looking, because the attacking comments weren’t there either.

  22. Michael says:

    Firstly, as a teacher and an older sibling to a 10 year-old, 11 year-old and 14 year-old, I think it’s reasonable to expect a 12 year-old to tell the difference between “true”, “false” and “can’t tell even though it’s said a lot”/”opinion”. (Although, telling the difference between “can’t tell…” and “opinion” seems difficult in some cases and, for some people, all the time.)

    I thought we were expecting 12 year olds to know the sophisticated definition of “myth” and contrast that with “commonplace assertion.”

    As for the task you pointed to–people who wear glasses are smart–I’d consider that an ill-defined statement (and, as a teacher, I’d have made sure all my commenters were at least well-defined).

    Jordan did not have that option. Put yourself in her shoes. An authority figure told her she had to place those nine claims in one of those three categories – factual claim, opinion, and commonplace assertion. Atheists are attacking her for interpreting “commonplace assertion” as myth. So, please tell us how to categorize “people who wear glasses are smart.” Is it factual claim, opinion, or commonplace assertion?

    It seems the entire lesson wasn’t thought through. If I was observing their lesson, that would have been my concern: the statements are overly complex given the narrow categorisations offered.
    This is particularly true when it would appear that was exactly the learning objective of the lesson.

    I agree with you. The cause of this shit storm is the lesson and the teacher.

    Although the teacher’s lesson plan may have included non-essential elements, that’s a meaningless finding. A lot of lessons have non-essential elements, especially at a younger age.

    The example “There is a God” was not only non-essential, but the cause of this shit storm. Even the school board conceded that as part of this “ill-conceived” assignment.

    Generating content is necessary to develop a skill; even though each bit of content can be considered non-essential, having some content is essential. I don’t see that the (Christian) teacher did anything wrong. “

    Do you have evidence the teacher is a Christian? I’ve not been able to find any, except for the assertions of some edu-crats clearly in full blown CYA mode. At this point, we have no idea if the teacher was a Christian or atheist. And yes, I have explained what the teacher did wrong.

    God exists” is the epitome of a common assertion where the truth of the claim cannot be established.

    Did the teacher define “commonplace assertion” as an “assertion where the truth of the claim cannot be established?” Unless you can show this, your point is not relevant. The internet shows the common definition to be a “common, unfounded belief.” Which, of course, would describe the assertion about people wearing glasses.

    When someone publicly accuses another person of acting unprofessionally and being offended by that behaviour, risking that persons job, it is perfectly reasonable to give the actual details.

    Yes, why doesn’t the teacher provide actual details? The only one providing actual details is the student. In fact, she is the one, and not the teacher, who has provided us with the actual assignment.

    The teacher needs to answer 4 questions:

    1. Why, among all the possible examples, did you violate the Constitution and include “There is a God” as one of them?
    2. Is it true that you told the class the correct answer for #2 is “commonplace assertion?”
    3. How did you define “commonplace assertion” for the class?
    4. What was the correct answer for #8?

    I’m on your side when it comes to the tone and aggression of the commenters, but I think blaming Mehta is ridiculous.

    I don’t agree. It’s not simply “tone and aggresion.” It’s mean-spirited, nasty personal attacks on a 12 year old child.

    If true, and Mehta does filter his comments, then some blame does fall on Mehta. I don’t censor my comments, but I only have time to denounce the aggressive comments on my blog because I get so few comments.

    Mehta is not like us. He quit his job to blog fulltime. He is an activist. He is making lots of money off his blog. Look, he is the only one with the power to delete those comments and put a stop to these attacks on a child. My guess is he doesn’t want to do anything that because it might hurt his profits and sales potential among the gnu drones. That he lets the attacks stand has nothing to do with principle. After all, we are talking about a guy who dishonestly promotes himself as the “Friendly Atheist.”

  23. Michael says:

    You yourself are lying in much the same way as the child

    Critical thinking time. To lie is to claim something is true when you know it is not true. I, of course, did not do this. And you have no evidence the child was lying. If you are blindly relying on Hemant Mehta’s logic, it has been eviscerated.

    So, please stop lashing out at a child. It makes you look very small and weak.

    you exchanged the word “criticism” for “attack”

    I did? Can you point out where this “exchange” happened? I simply read the Mehta’s blog entry and the comments and noticed all the personal attacks being made. I archived some of them above and accurately label them for they are – attacks. When someone puts the spotlight on the truth, they are not lying.

    added in “12 year old” and “child” in order to hype up

    The girl is a 12 year old child. It is not a lie to point this out. I can understand why you would not want people to know this truth. Atheists have a bad rep when it comes to behaving morally. Attacking a girl by calling her a bitch and screaming at her for being a liar doesn’t exactly help that rep.

    your own false narrative.

    What false narrative? The nasty comments were copied and pasted from Mehta’s blog.

    So now the big bad atheists are “attacking a 12 year old child”

    I’m making fun of the people who attack this child as “big, bad atheists.”

    but when you look at it, they aren’t, they are criticizing her stance on the assignment and her reaction to it, calling it “lies”.

    According to the Gnu, the following is mere criticism:

    This little bitch is freaking OUT
    In summation the poor widdle girly with the broken fee fees LIED HER FUCKING ASS OFF
    Guess this precious little snowflake needs some math tutoring too.
    But really, look at that student playing the martyr…..Po’ baby.

    Fess up, Ratheist. Which one of those comments did you write?

  24. TFBW says:

    Michael said:

    It’s not simply “tone and aggresion.” It’s mean-spirited, nasty personal attacks on a 12 year old child.

    Attacks which are motivated, I might add, by nothing more than the girl’s willingness to stand up for her Christian beliefs. She stands for and stands up for the object of their hatred, thus the barrage of rotten tomatoes.

    Do you have evidence the teacher is a Christian? I’ve not been able to find any, except for the assertions of some edu-crats clearly in full blown CYA mode.

    “The teacher is a Christian” has become a commonplace assertion, so I guess it must be lacking in evidence and/or be unprovable, and carry the implication that it’s false. 🙂

  25. Jay says:

    A while back, these same neo-atheists — which include the likes of PZ Myers — were lauding a young girl about the same age for being an atheist and being highly offended that Christians like myself were daring to criticize her on her YouTube page. “How dare you attack an innocent little girl!” were their cries en masse. I guess when the tables are turned, their hate and arrogance blinds them to their own past. Hypocrites.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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