Hating on Christians

Atheist PZ Myers posted a blog entry entitled, “You will know they are Christians by their flexible morality.”  He writes:

A wealthy, well-connected real estate agent in the Ozarks decided to have her mother-in-law murdered……What’s interesting about it is the woman’s justification. 

And then quotes an article:

According to a probable cause statement, it all began when Bauman became convinced that her 74-year-old former mother-in-law was causing a strain in her relationship with her daughters. She and her ex had divorced in 2018, and she worried he and his mother might try to get full custody of the girls.

On March 1, she confided in an unidentified woman and asked for help finding “somebody to get rid of her.” Pressed about whether she was serious, Bauman said she “knew it was wrong as a Christian, but she would go to church and ask for forgiveness after it was done.”

Myers then comments:

Christian morality: the world’s greatest get-out-of-jail-free card. Everything is permissible as long as you ask Jesus to forgive you after the vile deed is done.

The same day, atheist activist Hemant Mehta posted a blog entry entitled, “Christian Realtor Arrested in Murder Plot Said She’d Just Ask God to Forgive Her.”  Mehta comments as follows:

That’s the entire problem with the Jesus story, isn’t it? If you think you can be forgiven for anything, it gives you carte blanche to do anything you want, no matter how heinous it might be. Those of us in the reality-based world know that forgiveness only comes from actual repentance — and acceptance of that from the other side. There’s no guaranteed forgiveness for being a horrible person.

There are several points worth noting.

First, note the striking similarity of Myers and Mehta’s “argument.”  It’s essentially the same one.   We’ll look more closely at that in a minute.

Second, note that both Myers and Mehta are bitterly lashing out at Christianity.  Myers clearly refers to his target as “Christian morality” and Mehta targets “the Jesus story.”  This is significant because Myers and Mehta will sometimes try to posture as if they are only opposed to those far-right, trump-supporting, members of the Religious Right.  But that’s dishonest posturing.  As we can clearly see, they disdain and mock “Christian morality” and “the Jesus story.”  In other words, all Christians and all of Christianity.

Third, it’s interesting that both Myers and Mehta seem to have this problem with forgiveness.  This makes sense given their shared Woke ideologies.  As we know, the social justice types tend to be vindictive and vengeful.  Forgiveness is a concept that threatens their ideology because they understand the empowering essence of being a “victim.” 

Forth, and most significantly, Mehta and Myers are displaying their inability to think like a scientist.  When your mind is consumed with hatred, it is quite difficult to take a dispassionate, scientific approach.  So let me clearly demonstrate their errors.

Because of their anti-Christian bigotry, and their need to update their propagandistic blogs, both Myers and Mehta are on the constant lookout for any story that will put Christians – the objects of their Hate – in a bad light.  Thus, they both lap this story up.

But do they truly have evidence for anything being wrong with “Christian morality” or “the Jesus story?”  Do they have actual evidence that Christianity is “the world’s greatest get-out-of-jail-free card” where “Everything is permissible?”   Do they have actual evidence that Christianity “gives you carte blanche to do anything you want, no matter how heinous it might be?”

If you can think like a scientist, the answer is a very obvious NO.  What they have is nothing more than a news story about one individual with expressed intentions.  Whether the individual would have gone through with it to the end remains unknown.  But even if she did, it would amount to nothing more than a sample size of 1.  An anecdote.  And that is not evidence.

Myers proposes a causal relationship.  When he proclaims, “Christian morality: the world’s greatest get-out-of-jail-free card. Everything is permissible as long as you ask Jesus to forgive you after the vile deed is done,” he is proposing that Christian faith leads to an “Everything is permissible” viewpoint so of course this woman planned murder.

Mehta proposes the same causal relationship.  He proclaims, “That’s the entire problem with the Jesus story, isn’t it? If you think you can be forgiven for anything, it gives you carte blanche to do anything you want, no matter how heinous it might be.”  So of course this woman planned murder.

But if Christian faith does indeed “give you carte blanche to do anything you want, no matter how heinous it might be” and leads you to believe “vile deeds are permissible,” should we not have lots of evidence to support this hypothesis by now?  For example, the truth claim clearly predicts a strong correlation between those who take Christian faith very seriously and the incidence of violent crimes.  So where are the studies that show that the stronger one’s belief in the Christian faith, the more likely they are to commit murder or rape?  Hello?  Anyone there?

There is no such evidence because Mehta and Myers’ “argument” is rooted in stupidity and bigotry.

Now that their claim/argument has been so easily refuted, let’s turn to the truly interesting part of their posts.  Both were posted on the same day and both make the same easily refuted argument.  The fact that both men think the same might be attributed to both being social justice atheist drones. But there is more.  For some reason, both Myers and Mehta seem to think this would have made a good show for Netflix.

Myers: it sounds like a True Crime melodrama that will one day appear on Netflix

Mehta: You may have heard by now about a practically-made-for-Netflix crime that involves a high-profile real estate agent from Missouri trying to order a hitman to take out her former mother-in-law.

LOL. Given the striking similarities, perhaps we should be asking………just who plagiarized who?

This entry was posted in Christianity, christophobia, social justice atheism and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Hating on Christians

  1. It’s sad but unsurprising that they are completely unable to conceptualise the notion of being transformed for the better by the word of God and the work of the spirit.

  2. Kevin says:

    Nothing more worthless than people who claim to not believe in objective morality (but obviously do, otherwise they wouldn’t be woke idiots) criticizing the moral systems of others.

  3. pennywit says:

    I find the broad-brushed attacks on Christianity puerile. But I am curious …

    Do you think you judge atheists as a group, or liberals as a group, based on the conduct of a few?

  4. TFBW says:

    It’s comical how these people have the audacity to hold up their own religion as superior to Christianity. If I weren’t a Christian, I’d go with Nihilistic Atheism, not this Wokism garbage.

    “If you think you can be forgiven for anything, it gives you carte blanche to do anything you want, no matter how heinous it might be.”

    As a Nihilist, I would not even recognise the validity of “forgiveness” as a concept; reconciliation, perhaps, should I care to be reconciled, but I would hate my enemies with gusto and not give a damn for their thoughts on the matter. As followers of Wokism, I’d love to hear their detailed take on “forgiveness”, as I’ve never heard of any Wokist offering forgiveness to anyone for anything. I’ve seen them decide not to prosecute wrongdoing as a matter of political convenience (e.g. ignoring “metoo” accusations against Biden), but that’s not forgiveness. If you forgive, you forego the ability to use the wrongdoing as leverage in the future, and Wokists love having leverage — they lust after that kind of power.

    As religious outlooks go, Nihilism at least has the benefit of brutal simplicity. There are no rules; only the raw exercise of will and power. Wokism strikes me as being a religion for schemers and manipulators: it pretends to have rules, but the rules only exist to act as constraints on the suckers who actually believe the illusion. The masters of the game always posture as though there are rules, and they are following them, but they’re actually making them up as they go along.

  5. Kevin says:

    Emotionally my knee-jerk reaction is to lump them together any time I see “atheist” or “progressive” or whatever.

    Intellectually I know they are not all like that, probably not even a majority like that. Possibly not even a significant minority beyond how loud they are. But still, I am not immune to the knee-jerk initial judgment.

    That being said, despite how I “feel”, what I know prevents me from making a living trashing them. That would be intellectually and morally bankrupt.

    It’s one thing to criticize foundational tenets of a belief, quite another to condemn the people themselves.

  6. TFBW says:

    Do you think you judge atheists as a group, or liberals as a group, based on the conduct of a few?

    Richard Dawkins and Thomas Nagel are both atheists, but I have vastly different opinions about them. Atheists, as a group, have about as much in common as people who don’t collect stamps do. The one thing you can say for sure is that they profess not to believe in God. The odd thing is that many atheists seem to think that their atheism implies much more than this, such as some kind of implied politically-liberal bent. P.Z. Myers and Hemant Mehta seem to think this way, and they seem to think that a liberal political bent simply means one is “reality-based”. Weird, given how they’re aligning themselves with the faction that increasingly insists that everything, particularly biological sex, is a social construct.

  7. Ilíon says:

    TFBW:… The masters of the game always posture as though there are rules, and they are following them, but they’re actually making them up as they go along

    Calvinball morality.

  8. Ilíon says:

    intellectually dishonest God-hater posing a real selective skepticism stumper, but it truth making an intellectually dishonest accusation:Do you think you judge atheists as a group, or liberals as a group, based on the conduct of a few?

    As even this intellectually dishonest God-hating leftist shill knows, we judge the *content* of God-denial and leftism, and the *behavior* of their respective (to the degree that there is any degree of separation between the two) adherents,

  9. pennywit says:

    Emotionally my knee-jerk reaction is to lump them together any time I see “atheist” or “progressive” or whatever.

    Intellectually I know they are not all like that, probably not even a majority like that. Possibly not even a significant minority beyond how loud they are. But still, I am not immune to the knee-jerk initial judgment.

    Thank you for that honesty.

  10. pennywit says:

    The odd thing is that many atheists seem to think that their atheism implies much more than this, such as some kind of implied politically-liberal bent.

    At least in the United States, there does seem to be a correlation between identifying as political liberal and identifying as not being religious. I’m not sure what all is at play there. I suspect part of it is that religious expression is also a cultural grouping — and in the United States, evangelical Christians (who exhibit the strongest signs of religious identification) have generally aligned themselves with the political right.

  11. Ilíon says:

    ^ That is because “the political right” is not contrary to Christianity, whereas all variants of leftism are contrary to Christianity (besides being contrary to one’s liberty and continued well-being).

  12. TFBW says:

    At least in the United States, there does seem to be a correlation between identifying as political liberal and identifying as not being religious.

    Sure, there are all sorts of correlations between cultural subsets and voting patterns, but I’m not talking about a correlation. When I say, “many atheists seem to think that their atheism implies much more than this, such as some kind of implied politically-liberal bent,” I mean that in the stricter sense that they think you ought to subscribe to a particular political viewpoint, not merely that you are statistically more likely to do so. That was the whole thrust of “Atheism+”, of which P.Z. Myers was (and is, as far as I’m aware) a great proponent. He thinks, for example, that if you’re an atheist, then you ought also to be a feminist, among other things.

    For my part, I consider “Atheism+” to be categorical nonsense. There is nothing in the lack of belief in God which implies any of that fashionable liberal doctrine. In fact, if you’ve written God out of the picture as an external foundation for objective morality, then there’s no objective basis to prefer anything over anything else: it’s all personal taste. P.Z.’s political militancy is philosophically and intellectually bankrupt, and my respect goes to any atheist who is willing to point that out, whether or not they align with his political views.

  13. Maybe with Myers et al it’s just a case of survival of the fittest, i.e attaching oneself to the dominant socio-political ideology for personal advantage.

  14. Dhay says:

    nihilist2christian > Maybe with Myers et al it’s just a case of survival of the fittest, i.e attaching oneself to the dominant socio-political ideology for personal advantage.

    In PZ Myers’ 19 March 2021 post entitled “I think I might have been the beneficiary of a Ponzi scheme” he reveals his lucrative income from ScienceBlogs:

    …I was recruited to join ScienceBlogs. … I was also enticed by the generous payments they made, with a significant sum based on traffic issued to the bloggers. … I was making about $8000 month there.

    Yes, I was stunned, too. I didn’t know how they were doing it: it was supposed to be ad-based revenue, but what it really was was massive investments by rich people with lots of money to throw around who were trying to promote a science-based perspective, and who hired popular writers to kick start the whole thing. Of course, the other people writing there will tell you they got nowhere near that amount — it was just the first wave

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2021/03/18/i-think-i-might-have-been-the-beneficiary-of-a-ponzi-scheme/

    Looks like he attached himself to rich people for personal advantage, $8,000 a month is $96,000 a year. And he was there from the start, (January 2006), until he left (or was ejected) and set up FreethoughtBlogs (August 2011.) Lucrative, though “later, they started revising the fee structure, always downward”.

    We can do a back-of-envelope crude estimate of Myers’ ScienceBlogs earnings by making the simplifying assumption that his annual earnings dropped linearly from a peak of $8,000 a month to peanuts (rounded down to $0), for an estimated average of $48,000 a year paid for roughly five and a half years, an estimated total of $264,000.

    *

    These “rich people with lots of money to throw around who were trying to promote a science-based perspective”, who might they be?

    I think we can rule out the “massive investments” being commercial investments with a hope of making profits, you don’t, as Myers found out when he set up FreethoughtBlogs : “We tried to make a go of it with entirely ad-based revenue, with a mistaken idea of how easy that would be, based on our experiences at Scienceblogs. It’s all a scam! You’re going to make peanuts off of ads…”.

    Does promoting a science-based perspective return political or ideological advantage? Maybe! I note that when the ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science’ launched its Donor Circles:

    The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’.

    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/greedy-atheists/

    That $500,000 a year got massively reduced after a storm of ridicule, but plainly Dawkins fully expected there to be people out there willing to pay $500,000 a year just for a meal (plus a discounts on event tickets, and a few freebie items of RDF-branded merchandise); such people are fools, are driven by a socio-political ideology, or are both. So yes, there’s rich people out there ready to “make massive investments” in promoting their socio-political ideology.

    What socio-political ideology? Probably — the US is not my patch — a pro-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-religious ideology, an ideology promoting the propaganda image that science is at loggerheads with religion, reason likewise; that if you’re rational and logical (or at any rate if you identify with ‘Science and Reason’ or ‘Science and Evidence’, which is by no means the same thing as, and nowhere near as good as, being rational and logical) you won’t be religious, and if you’re religious you won’t be rational and logical; that there is a zero-sum opposition of rationality and its fruits, and religion and its fruits. Yeah, yeah.

  15. Isaac says:

    There’s no nice way to say this. Myers and Mehta are fools. Their arguments are illogical and dimwitted. Their followers are equally dim-witted, mean-spirited sheep.

    Here’s how a truly “reality-based” thinker of any kind would process their childish screeds: “Wait a minute. Would the would-be killer here have acted any different if she was an atheist? Would she have not wanted to kill her mother-in-law? How did her religion make her more likely to do the crime? It didn’t. If anything, it simply presented an obstacle that would not have been there for an atheist- the fact that God doesn’t allow murder. Her idea to ask forgiveness after the fact was her own personal attempt to get around that. An atheist, all else being equal, would have just done the deed and only been concerned about not getting caught. No repentance, righteousness, or forgiveness from any party would be required in a godless world.”

  16. pennywit says:

    The ethics inquiry, I think, would be unique to the actor. Seems to me the question is not “Does Christianity lead people to commit crimes, ethically speaking, because they believe God’s forgiveness insulates them from guilt?” but rather, “Why does this particular person believe that her religion permits her to commit this particular crime ethically speaking?”

    My own (admittedly anecdotal) experience is that human beings are quite capable of offering up any number of rationales (ends vs. means, permitted by religion, etc.) for morally repugnant acts.

  17. Dhay says:

    In Hemant Mehta’s 12 March 2021 “Racist High School Basketball Announcer Defends Himself By Saying He’s Baptist” — actually, the announcer, Matt Rowan, didn’t defend himself by saying he’s a Baptist, the nearest he came to an excuse was to say his blood sugar was awry, as Mehta himself acknowledged:

    But the most jaw-dropping response comes from Rowan himself. He’s now blaming his racism on… diabetes. (The Twinkie Defense lives on.)

    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/03/12/racist-high-school-basketball-announcer-defends-himself-by-saying-hes-baptist/

    Look back to 28 April 2013, when Mehta re-posted (hence ‘owned’) a eulogy for Madalyn Murray O’Hair by an American Atheists spokesman, “Remembering Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the Founder of American Atheists”. There we find high praise:

    In its prime, Madalyn’s mind could pierce such fog covers with lightning speed to reveal the hard core of the problem facing her. When she did this on the debate platform or in the midst of a radio or television show, she was dazzling.

    High praise immediately qualified by:

    Although she retained this ability to the end of her tragically abbreviated life, during her later life her cognitive functions were sometimes impaired by the brittle form of diabetes that bedeviled the final years of her career. With blood sugar too high or too low — I never could decide on which side the problem lay — problems presented too suddenly could elicit fiery emotional outbursts. On a number of occasions, she would punch out letters on her typewriter that utterly devastated their recipients.

    This “most jaw-dropping response” — I echo Mehta, above — comes from the AA eulogist. Who’s now blaming her vicious outbursts on… diabetes. (The Twinkie Defense lives on.)

    Yep, the “Twinkie Defense” lives on. Mehta’s approval or disapproval of the Twinkie Defence is evidently heavily dependent on whether it’s a Christian or an American Atheist spokesman making it.

    But, like Rowan, she immediately apologised handsomely and set about putting things right, (or i Christian terms, she repented and bore fruits in keeping with that repentance), she did, didn’t she. Didn’t she? No:

    At least some of these letters I am certain she later regretted. But she could never publicly go back on a decision once made.

    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/04/28/remembering-madalyn-murray-ohair-the-founder-of-american-atheists/

    I’ll channel PZ Myers:

    > Atheist morality: the world’s greatest get-out-of-jail-free card. Everything is permissible.

  18. Allallt says:

    “For example, the truth claim clearly predicts a strong correlation between those who take Christian faith very seriously and the incidence of violent crimes.”
    No, it doesn’t.

  19. Dhay says:

    Allallt > “For example, the truth claim clearly predicts a strong correlation between those who take Christian faith very seriously and the incidence of violent crimes.”
    No, it doesn’t.

    You’ve gone off half-cocked, bam!, giving a terse reply devoid of reasons or reason.

    I wonder whether you have had reading and comprehension difficulties. Adding the immediately preceding truth claim:

    OP > But if Christian faith does indeed “give you carte blanche to do anything you want, no matter how heinous it might be” and leads you to believe “vile deeds are permissible,” should we not have lots of evidence to support this hypothesis by now? For example, the truth claim clearly predicts a strong correlation between those who take Christian faith very seriously and the incidence of violent crimes.

    The truth claim as quoted is Hemant Mehta’s and PZ Myers’ respectively; it’s recognisably the same claim with different wordings. (Michael has paraphrased Myers’ while retaining the sense.)

    Allallt > No, it doesn’t.

    Surely it does.

  20. Kevin says:

    If there is no hypothetical correlation between having Christian beliefs and committing heinous acts (and there isn’t), then there is absolutely no reason to harp about how terrible those beliefs are, as it is purely an exercise of imagination.

    But nutjobs Myers and Mehta did whine about them, which means that they view the correlation as being more than a possibility. Progressive Zombie Myers openly states that a hallmark of Christianity is “flexible morality”, which supports Michael’s assertion. Then there is con man Mehta, who says that the story of the cross allows all sorts of evils, while somehow “knowing” where true forgiveness comes from in a “reality-based” worldview.

    It is blatantly obvious that Michael is correct. Both of those idiots believe Christianity correlates to using the cross to justify evil acts as a matter of course.

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 )

Connecting to %s

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