The "Friendly Atheist" Tells Us Why Most Atheists Are Democrats

Democrats don't have to reach out to Atheists; they already have their votes.

What The Atheists Think Their Problem With Non-Acceptance Is

Hemant Mehta, the self-appelled "Friendly Atheist", discusses Tom Krattenmaker’s ideas:

”Today is Openly Secular Day and Tom Krattenmaker uses the opportunity to bring up five challenges atheists still face.

I wanted to summarize his points and add a few thoughts of my own:
1) Even though we’re despised in some parts of the country and discriminated against in some ways, we don’t really get bullied or picked on. That makes it harder to gain sympathy for our views.
Krattenmaker is right (and I’m glad he is, because the alternative would be awful). We often make a lot of comparisons between our movement and the LGBT movement, and this is one area where that just falls apart. LGBT individuals have it much worse than we do on this front. (For that reason, I don’t buy the notion that the treatment of atheists is “America’s last prejudice.”)

That said, how do we make people more likely to trust us or consider us electable? Atheists who have the opportunity to do so need to talk more about their values and share stories about what they’re gone through. We have to find a way to get people who might disagree with us about God to be on our side in other ways. That doesn’t happen if we spend a lot of our time insulting them (publicly or otherwise).”

Do they actually think that talking about the fact that they have no common set of values short of scorn for religion and those who are religious is going to help their image? This first issue seems to point to the tone-deafness and lack of self-examination that is common to Atheists, although it is not value, it is a failing. It is demonstrably is a feature common to the narcissistic elite class.

”2) We have a shitty reputation.
We do. And what I said above still applies here. When you think about the most famous atheists — known to people beyond our community — the ones who immediately come to my mind are comedians (who mock religion) and authors (who criticize religion). All of that has it’s place, no doubt, but whenever possible, we need to promote and support voices who are tough to dislike. It’s tough to find Neil deGrasse Tyson-types who can reach out to multiple kinds of audiences without necessarily alienating them while talking about atheism (which Tyson doesn’t do). But the more people like that in the public eye, the tougher it is to pretend we’re all evil and immoral.”

Thinking that the slightly-milder-than-Dawkins snark of Tyson (also known for falsehoods) is a helpful feature is also odd. Tyson is so obviously self-absorbed in his eliteness and superior Materialist status that it is nauseatingly obvious that he is an Atheist even before he belittles religion. It becomes apparent that Atheists can’t recognize hate speech when they agree with it and think those same thoughts themselves.

”3) Too many people think God and morality go together.
That’s unfortunately true as well. Once again, this is a matter of stressing our Humanism: That not believing in God or an afterlife compels us to act certain ways right now. We have to fight for civil rights and against injustice because it’s not like these things will all get sorted out after we die.
Already, there have been advertising campaigns stressing how we’re “good without God,” though a catchy slogan is no match for tangible actions. That means more volunteering, more charity work, and being on the front lines on issues where religion gets it wrong.”

Many people recognize that there is no standard moral code at all which attaches to Atheism. They already know that moral behavior does not necessarily attach to those who actually do have a code; so how could moral behavior attach to those with no code at all, except whatever they make up themselves? So this is another tone-deafness issue with which Atheists are afflicted. Good Without God still resonates with Mehta, even though it is obvious that there is no Atheist definition for "good", and non-Atheists know that intuitively because it is self-evident. (There are several features of Atheism which are self-evident to everyone except Atheists; and that indicates an Atheist mental issue.

”4) We dismiss religious groups that might otherwise be natural allies on a host of church/state separation issues.
I’ve definitely experienced this, but that’s changing. That’s why Foundation Beyond Belief always includes an organization run by (non-proselytizing) religious groups in our slate of charities each quarter. That’s why the Secular Student Alliance has done more work recently with the Interfaith Youth Core. That’s why I’m a firm believer that achieving our common goals is more of a priority than debating who’s right, whether we’re supporting progressive churches for being LGBT inclusive or joining religious leaders in protests when we see racial inequality.”

First off, if there actually were any “natural allies”, under what common grounds could that alliance happen? As for common core values, there is no realistic possibility since Atheists have no common core values which are not attached to their rejection of ALL the morally grounded worldviews of all others. Rejection and denial are the only common core which Atheists have.

The whole point of Atheism is rejection of non-reductionist, non-materialist ideas and the worldviews which are deduced using those ideas. Atheism is 180 degrees out of phase with non-Atheism. And for the most part Atheists are proudly elitist in their contrary views. They take those contrary views on purpose, not on the basis of any rational value, but purely on the value of having views which are contrary. That's what sets them apart, and makes them "elite"; they reject that which is "common". So how can they have anything in "common" with putative allies?

”5) We have to stop being the “others.”
Krattenmaker is saying that most people still don’t know any open atheists, and that makes it a lot easier to demonize us. That’s why events like Openly Secular Day are so important, and why I just love to see people using new media to speak out about their non-belief. They’re using YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and their campus groups to send messages to strangers who may not know what freethought looks like. This is such a huge change from a couple of decades ago, and it’s only going to get better on this front in the future.”

I don’t think Atheists are demonized. I think they enjoy their perception of their "high intellectual status" (gained by uttering three words, “ain’t no God”), a status which they know sets them apart from the herd, a class which they scorn and spurn at every turn including in their Atheist churches which employ the ridicule of comedians rather than the moral lessons of real churches. The "othering" comes first from Atheists themselves, as they remove themselves from the scorned herd - the other. By "othering" the herd, it is only natural that they are "other" than the herd themselves. It is a tautological condition of Atheism with respect to non-Atheism, the same as NOT X is to X. There is no possible remedy for such a problem of mathematics and logic, which dictate "othering" for the set, NOT X, which is outside the set of X.

And the “use of new media to speak out about their non-belief“ can’t possibly help their image, since those images are also of rejection, scorn, elitism, and irrational materialist claims about existence as well as false and denigrating imagery of actual believers. Think about the movie "Religulous" for example.

As for Freethought, it is exactly "free": free of grounding logical principles and free of moral tenets which define an Atheist moral basis. In other words, Freethought is freely irrational and freely amoral. And that condition of mental anarchy leads very quickly to Leftist, statist, elitist top down control of the scorned classes. It's a very natural extension. And it is so obvious that is virtually self-evident - except to Atheists.

”To be sure, those aren’t the only challenges we face, but they’re pretty accurate from a broad public perspective. I’m an optimist about all of them. When you considering how much worse things were for us, on all five fronts, a few decades ago, it’s incredible how far we’ve come. The path ahead of us looks bright.”

Mehta thinks that these statements by Krattenmaker are “accurate”. That being the case, and if that thought process is extended, then it is made clear that Atheists have no concept of what their actual problems are regarding their desire for being accepted as “normal” people (who might vote for one someday). That self-blindness seems to be a disorder, and narcissistic disorder seems to come very close. Here’s why: Narcissists believe that other people have the problem, not themselves. Their self-image is that of flawlessness, of having no defect in either thought or behavior. They thus are above the others, above those with the actual problem, and therefore they are superior to them. Further, narcissism is untreatable because the narcissist will not work on issues which he knows he doesn’t have.

Sound familiar?

Hemant Mehta and Alpha God

The friendly Atheist clips a bit from a book by Hector A. Garcia, "Alpha God", which claims to know how the God idea came about. This is a common practice amongst evolutionary story tellers, who make up fantasy scenarios which to them seem to be plausible. They focus these stories on the evils which they discern in the modern world, such as Catholicism of 1,500 years ago, give or take, and Islam, not all of it just the parts that fit the narrative. Oh, and also the Evil God which makes their lives of moral ambivalence pure hell.

The first part deals with size, quoting Steven Pinker who claims - without a shard of evidence - that for hunter-gatherers the term "big man" referred to men who were actually large in size (makes sense to Pinker, so it must be true - he wrote a book). Then the standard un-referenced claims that taller men go farther than less tall men, a claim which is questionable first of all, and is of no consequence to creating the universe in any event. The meaning of this is that big is alpha to humans, dogs and goldfish of course, thus enabling the stacking up of that selected evidence as the faux axiom for support of the claim that God was created as the biggest and most alpha of alphas. It's a story. Just a story. There is no evidence, because it is just a fantasy story.

I haven't read the book so I don't know if there are any actual arguments intended to serve as actual logic to refute the existence of a non-physical intelligent agent which created the universe. That fundamental hypothesis is an argument wherein size doesn't matter, but innate power does. But that is not what the Atheist narrative is about; the Atheist narrative is about fabricating a self-designated "plausible" argument for the human creation of God, rather than God creating humans. It's a necessary belief, unsubstantiated and unsubstiable, but for which "truth" is necessary for the belief system and worldview, regardless. Evidence is not necessary, unless the evidence serves the narrative. It is the narrative itself which is deemed necessary and sufficient for proof of "no God". Atheism has never had evidence or logic for its support; so stories are sorely needed. And this author has this one to offer.

The second part that Mehta offers is "foot kissing" as evidence for the human creation of God as top dog. Really. That's it. Read it for yourself, the absurdity of this as an argument for there being "no God", is beyond parody.

The fact that Mehta considers this to be worthy of repeating reveals a lot about the critical thinking paths which he does not take. Yet Mehta maintains a somewhat influential profile in the Atheist community, apparently. And that reveals a lot about the Atheist community.

Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Scientismist Place

Over at Mehta's place, Serah Blain is allowed to take the reins and she extolls Darwin Day and Darwin's natural selection:

"Charles Darwin’s discovery of natural selection as the mechanism by which biological evolution occurs continues to have monumental impact on countless areas of modern life. But as important as this discovery was, equally important was the strength of character displayed in the very act of asking forbidden questions that could unravel prevailing views of what was true."

Anyone actually following evolutionary turbulence and theorizing knows that natural selection has been dumped as having causal powers for driving (the presumption of) evolution. The Altenberg 16 nailed the coffin almost shut tight, leaving only scant gaps which appear to be in deference to the god of evolution, not to observation or empirical justification. In fact, variation and natural selection was replaced nearly 80 years ago by the idea that variation didn't work as causal either; so they added mutation to the mix to see if that would do the trick.

But no, mutation was not enough to justify (the presumption of) evolution, either. So at Altenberg, the 16 evolutionary gurus discussed what it would take to justify the concept of evolution. And afterward they published a book containing the new technologies and theories that might, maybe, some day, justify the concept of evolution.

But the problem is that none of the technologies or theories available even today comes close to providing any current knowledge as to how, exactly, the fossil record came to show that which it shows. Further, after 200 years of fossil digs there is still no common ancestor for the multiple phyla that came into existence during the Cambrian Explosion.

Yes, that's right. There really is a missing link. And it is the one link necessary to prove the consistency of the common descent theory, which accompanies evolution.

But back to Darwin. Darwin did science by a little induction and a lot of fabulation (story telling). He made famous the technique of showing two data points and making up stories about how one data point turned into the other data point by inventing causes to make the story seem complete. Stephen Jay Gould called this technique, "Just So Story telling". It circumvents the empirical process of experimentation used to verify hypotheses; it does that by calling the Theory of Evolution, True. And then making it legally declared True and unassailable. That is what people like Mehta and Blain are calling "science", and skeptics of such intellectual shenanigans are common called, "science deniers".

When called upon to produce empirical evidence to support their causal claims, they have nothing (except variation within a species).

When asked to deduce the existence of non-compressible, non-algorithmic, meaningful information within DNA, they have nothing.

When asked how it came to pass that the first cell was described in advance in all its complexity even before the cell existed, they have nothing.

When asked how it came to pass that the first cell came into existence in all its complexity without DNA existing first, they have nothing.

When asked to provide a disciplined, grounded deduction showing how agency, consciousness, intellect, qualia, etc. came into being based on the well known characteristics of their purely mineral source, they have nothing.

Blain (and by extension, Mehta) is not in contact with the actual issues of evolution. Here is a classic case of a Scientismist, a fan-girl who is enamored of the thought of science as being the knowledge generator for all possible questions of existence. And she attributes that to Darwin and Darwinism, blindly. She parrots untruths without trying to analyze whether there actually is any truth contained in them.

Says Blain:

"The courage to adopt scientific thinking and set aside bias is needed in the hard sciences."

I can't restrain myself from saying that this statement, in the context of Darwinism, is totally obtuse. Darwinism was never a hard science, it was an ideology (failed hypothesis) that was based in induction cum fantasy. Darwinism never, ever adopted "scientific thinking" in the standard empirical sense of objective knowledge generating science. Darwinism has always been subjective, not objective in its form and conclusions.

"Darwin Day is an opportunity for people throughout the world to participate in world-changing bravery and humility, too. Charles Darwin’s discovery of natural selection underpins everything we know about biology; my hope is that this holiday will come to underpin the character of our culture as well."

Biology in no manner whatsoever depends on Darwin or Darwinism or evolution or evolutionists for its advances. Evolutionists try to steal the respectability of actual scientific, experimental, objective biological advances and to hope that that respectability would somehow reflect on their ideology too. It's a logical fallacy, and it's downright pitiful, yet contemptible.

Mostly, it's contemptible. To sell an ideology on such irrational premises is, in fact, contemptible.

Friendly Atheist Takes On Bill Donohue

...and proceeds to concede the truth in Donohue's assertions:

"But let’s get to the heart of his statements.

Are atheists actually less happy? In some cases, like on Twitter, yes.

Are atheists more likely to die young? In some studies, yes.

Are atheists disproportionately insane? Not really. He’s probably taking out of context research that suggests religious people have better mental health."

So Friendly concedes the facts. But he looks for excuses:

In all of these cases, though, Donohue purposely ignores the elephant in the room: None of these things happen because people are atheists. It has everything to do with the social aspects of it.

Really, Friendly? And your facts covering this are...?

Atheism correlates with all those awful things because religious people tend to have things like stronger communities and more hope (albeit false hope) and people to turn to when they’re depressed. Atheists have to essentially fend for themselves or create alternatives that are nowhere near the scope or size of what religions provide."

First excuse: Atheism is a failure at providing any support for its believers. Did Donohue deny this? No. Does it refute the charges? No. But let's forge ahead:

"Similarly, when atheists speak about their beliefs publicly, it’s usually in response to events that make us upset or angry — so we come off as more defensive (i.e. unhappy). Christians, on the other hand, tend to talk about their relationship with God when they’re writing blog posts or books. (These are huge generalizations, of course, but you get the idea.)"

Translation: Atheists are angry; period. That's what they write about because that's what they think about because that's who they are. Angry. So what's next?

"So back to the point: Donohue is doing what he does best: Lying to make himself look better. He takes general pieces of information, siphons off all the necessary nuance, and pretends that the evidence suggests atheists are inherently immoral, unhappy, and insane."

And what do we have, then? What Donohue said is admittedly correct, therefore he is a liar.

If Donahue needed any further evidence of Atheist irrationality (insanity) he need look no further than Friendly, the Atheist.

Hemant Mehta Inadvertantly Admits That He Cannot Prove There is No Deity

And that's why he won't debate the issue.

Right around 2:10 to 2:15...



Apparently science and logic have failed him on that point.

The "Friendly Atheist" Asserts Racism and Classism

I think this might be the most transparently racist and classist post possible:

Counties That Adopt “In God We Trust” Resolutions Are “Poor, Uneducated, and Overwhelmingly White"

"In God We Trust ~ America, Inc. is the organization dedicated to putting up religious plaques all around the country .

It turns out they’ve done quite well: Nearly 400 cities and counties have approved their sample resolution, putting up “In God We Trust” signs in government buildings.

Hank Sims, writing for the Lost Coast Outpost, decided to analyze the 77 counties (rather than cities, presumably so there’s no overlap) that have adopted the resolution to discover what they have in common. Turns out God’s Country, his name for the collection of 77 counties, leaves a lot to be desired:

The kind of county that adopts this resolution is poor, uneducated and overwhelmingly white."

Take a close look at the data he posts, and the numbers on the far right: they are not false, but they are highly prejudical. The difference between 9.3% and 11% is 1.7%... UNLESS you divide one percentage by the other. When you do that you get pure prejudice: one may divide 0.002% by 0.001% and get 200% which is mathematically correct, but the actual difference is 0.001% which is trivial.

Hemant Mehta has asserted just one thing: his own racist, classist underpinnings. Not to mention mathematical illiteracy in pursuit of his agenda.

The "Friendly Atheist" is Incensed Again

The city of Lake Elsinore has got itself an Atheist bully problem. Lake Elsinore is a town of 53,000 people, just small enough for the Atheist bullies to pick on with continuous legal challenges. The Atheists, two of them, have their panties bunched over a memorial which depicts a soldier paying respects to fallen warriers, which are depicted by cross grave markers and one Star of David.

Here's how the Friendly Atheist interprets the memorial:

"That’s a soldier kneeling in front of several Christian crosses… and one Jewish star.

Because only Christians have died in our country’s wars.

And one Jew.

And no one else, ever."

Now it is pretty easy to see that there is quite a space between the first cross and the next grave marker. I interpret that emptiness to be the empty VOID in which Atheists place their faith, and the blank space marks the grave of an Atheist, marked with the Atheist VOID. And that, then, represents more than the fair share of markers for the tiny minority of Atheists.

Perhaps the Friendly Atheist doesn't like the soldier knelt in reflection on the sacrifices which have been made in the service of Atheists' freedom to piss and moan about all of government not being Atheist, down to little governments and school districts, which they persecute for the express purpose of purging everything from the face of the earth with which they disagree. And that, based on a phony interpretation of the First Amendment, which does not give them that right at all, but which has been twisted beyond recognition by Atheist Activist Judiciaries over the past century or so.

It is, in fact, Atheism and its inevitable fascist viewpoints which make hash of the US Constitution. The "Friendly Atheist" is not my friend; he is an enemy of free expression and free speech and the actual wording of the First Amendment, and he is pro-totalitarian Atheism.

The "Friendly Atheist" even deliberately misconstrues lawyer statements in his rush to condemn. He quotes the Atheist lawyers as working for free, whereas the ADF works for free - but if the defendant loses, the defendant must pay. I'll bet that the same goes for the Atheist lawyers - who make no claim otherwise. Mehta has already proven to be a liar for Atheism; here is just another case.

Another Hemant Mehta Lie

The Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta:

These Elementary School Students Can Get Free Shoes… but Only If They Accept the Bible, Too

"We include a Christian New Testament in every box of shoes we deliver. Our mission is to provide properly fitting shoes and socks to children in desperate need. The Bibles are a bonus and are not an attempt to proselytize, they’re merely our way of sharing hope with all we encounter.
[Hemant's quote from "Shoes 4 Shoeless"].

Riiiiight. A bonus gift no one asked for… but whatever. It’s their organization. They can do whatever they want.

The problem is when they make appearances at public schools to give away socks and shoes… and Bibles. Which they’ve been doing at several districts in the Dayton, Ohio area.

Given the age of the students, there’s every reason to believe they’d be coerced into accepting the shoes (and Jesus) or at the very least think their schools are promoting Christianity. This seems like a very blatant violation of church/state separation and could result in a lawsuit against the districts."

It's true what some Atheists say: "Character development is just too hard for some people".

Mehta has lied in the title. Perhaps he needs more pageviews. But it is a blatant lie, for whatever reason. While he admits in his text that the title is not true (it's a bonus gift), he goes on to complain about coercion which he fantasizes, and as always, church and state separation, which means Atheist-only government and government schools. That's pretty much what we have right now, and it is riding us down into the abyss. But never mind that, the point is to NOT allow any documents into the hands of school children which show a different way of life, especially a way of life with actual moral guidelines. They might develop character. And comprehend what a lie is.

And then, speaking of coercion, Mehta records the FFRF attack. And he jumps to the conclusion that the only reason that Shoes 4 Shoeless exists is for proselytism. He has no such evidence; his presumption is that the Other is evil because it is the Other. So he suggests that Atheists give shoes. Why are they not already doing this? Because Atheists are notoriously stingy.

Atheists Who Love Biblical Rape

Over at Hemant's "Friendly Atheist" blog, there is ranting about another Old Testament verse over which they can cackle and sneer. It fits right in with the rape culture that the Left is promoting in its "war on women" mantra. Taken alone, the verse is rather perverse sounding, as much of the OT is. Here it is:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Footnotes:

Deuteronomy 22:29 That is, about 1 1/4 pounds or about 575 grams

Reading the prior verses for context - never ever done by Atheists, of course - there is severe punishment for rape. And for promiscuity.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[b] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

At first this appears to differentiate only between virgins who are betrothed and not betrothed. But it also differentiates between one who screams and cannot be helped, and one who is not screaming. If she had screamed, she would have been saved. Even if not, there is still another verse which takes it into account:

Exodus 22:
16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Hemant makes the following statement:

"I’m generally irritated by how Jews and Christians cherry-pick from scripture, but since 20 percent of women in the United States experience rape or attempted rape, I consider Judeo-Christian hypocrisy a blessing in this case."

Hemant does exactly that, and does it twice, cherry-picking a reference to a completely unrelated verse regarding the stoning of a man for violating the sabbath, calling it "killing for gathering wood", a purposeful lie.

And he invokes a Moroccan case which is based on Moroccan Law, not the OT, but is compared to the OT in an attempt to use the fallacy of False Association, even in the article Mehta invokes. The case is hideous, of course, but not proof of anything other than that women have been considered property clear up until the 20th century. And that was changed by a nation which was culturally Christian, certainly not values-free Atheist.

As I have pointed out before, Hemant is not friendly: that claim is a lie right there in the title. Hemant is a liar by conventional standards, who, under his worldview, cannot lie because Atheists have no guidance from any common Atheist Principles Of Morality, hence, no truth: no falseness; no honesty: no lies - only expedience in furthering the worldview. Hemant may, under the Atheist void of principles, be incensed at the principles of ancient cultures while have no actual principles of his own, other than what he makes up for himself and others. His self-righteousness is based on his own personal concept of self-superiority, not on any set of general Atheist Ethical Laws (including intellectual integrity); those laws do not exist, and that's why the Atheist and his own rules are his direct path to elitist, arrogant, self-righteous indignation at those he deems inferior.

It's the Atheist way to Leftist Totalitarian superior rules for everyone else.

Mehta and Humanism

Over at Mehta's "Friendly Atheist" site, he has posted a reader's image without critique. I reproduce the image here:

This is a cartoon in the form of a chart. Let's take the items one at a time, Christian side first.

First, Christianity is based on the admonition to "question everything". There are a great many churches who invite non-believers to bring their concerns to the fore and discuss them. While there is some point where Atheism as a belief diverges from Christianity as a belief, there is plenty of dogma on the Atheist side to which a Christian would have to assent in order to convert from Christianity to Atheism.

For example, Philosophical Materialism and its offshoot, determinism, are requirements, and anyone presupposing dualism is rejected as an incompetent Atheist. Also: the immaculate conception of the universe, of the laws of physics, of mind, of consciousness, and of life on earth as well as the denial of agency and free will, are all necessary dogmas under Atheism.

Second, Christianity is divisive both when it is abused by Christians, and when Atheists become incensed at having moral consequences injected into their way. But under biblical Christianity, their is no abuse, except for the placement of moral consequences onto a libertinist populace. What Atheists see as abuse actually is the limitations of human actions, which they want none of. And rejection of limitations of human actions is precisely what produced the Atheist atrocities visited on very large portions of humanity by Atheist governments.

Third, Atheists are ignorant of the science which they promote as their own. There are no Atheist scientific "Facts", as touted in the chart; there are merely scientific contingent factoids, most of which are failing to produce any real knowledge at the moment due to being incomplete or flat out wrong. Atheists who make the claim in the chart are illiterate in both current science and extablished logic. Not to mention the philosophy of science.

Also, Atheists (who hate literalism) always take every sentence of the Bible literally. While there are a few Christians who do this, it is neither necessary nor sufficient for the theist to argue theism without fear of refutation.

Fourth, as discussed above, questioning and doubt are NOT disallowed by Christianity. To make this claim, the Atheists has to be either ignorant about that which he makes claims, or he is dishonest in making them.

Now let's discuss the Humanist side of the chart:

First, "socialized ethics" is not a morality, and not all humanists adhere to it. (First Humanist Manifesto). The idea of basing ethics in a social environment is merely situational ethics. And situational ethics is not ethical at all, and definitely not a set of moral principles. The idea that humanists subscribe to a set of common morals is false.

Second, humanists use a purely materialist belief in "reality", which they do not question, nor attempt to prove in any fashion. Nor do they question their Atheism, or their lack of real morals, or their personal elitism, or their concept of utopia made in their image, or anything of their own creation. In fact, the only questioning they do is of cartoon religion. They do not address actual theist claims, ever, because they cannot. Nor do they ever prove their own beliefs, because they cannot.

Third, the reason that Atheists and humanists are distrusted is NOT for using reason; they are distrusted because their morality is unknown and unknowable, being either situational, Leftist totalitarian, or personally congruent elitism (or all three or none). So this pitch is an attempt to claim victimhood from the high ground, which humanists do not actually occupy.

Just because humanists like to "think up" some morals that they want everyone to accept and adhere to, does not make the humanist a reasoning creature, much less rational. If anything, the New Man humanist is a wannabe dictator, who very likely wears a Che tee-shirt and demands economic equality for himself, to be taken out of the possessions of others and redistributed to him.

Humanism is a pretend space where intellectual miscreants gather to propose their victimhood to each other, and to fantasize their elitist, messiahist takeover of society while marching arm in arm toward their personal control of the global utopia in their religion-hate-fevered minds.

By publishing such falseness, Mehta demonstrates once again that he is not actually "friendly", but publishes false accusations and hate propaganda frequently.

Hemant Mehta Tells Us What Atheist Values Are, and They Are NOT Republican

Hemant Mehta who self-appellates as the "Friendly Atheist", lets Atheists know how to vote, based on Atheist/Humanist principles. If you thought that Atheism is without any principles other than "not having any theist beliefs", Mehta will set you straight on that.



Mehta makes clear what I have said all along: Atheists trend heavily into the Leftist, messiahist, elitist ideology. Thanks for your support on that, Hemant!

But unfortuneately Hemant goes on to babble forth on the moral failures of Republicans, most of which are false claims but only false in reality; they are not false to AtheoLeftists. That's how Relativism works, right Hemant? Right.

The Friendly Atheist Defends the FFRF Attacks

The few times I’ve visited “the friendly Atheist’s” blog, Hemant Mehta has seemed to be on the bland side compared to most internet Atheists. However, in his defense of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Mehta takes another tone, perhaps one closer to the real Atheist he actually is:

”That’s how you know these people are crazy. They’re not interested in the facts, only promoting their own propaganda. You knew that the moment they tossed out the comical phrase “militant atheism.” Remember: FFRF isn’t fighting for atheists to receive special treatment. They just want atheists to be treated fairly under the law — and they go after Christians who think their faith gives them permission to ignore the rules.

FFRF’s militancy is little more than a group of dedicated people writing letters to warn people that they are violating the Constitution. The attorneys there have no desire to stop the religious speech of individuals. They defend those rights. They don’t sue churches for holding worship services or after-school Bible clubs for meeting. They only request equal treatment under the law.

Damn near all of their lawsuits involve Christians who cross the legal line in a way that would make Fox News flip out if any other group pulled the same shit. Like public school coaches pushing Christianity on their athletes, or elected officials using their office to promote their faith, or the IRS allowing churches to get away with endorsing political candidates.

If atheists acted like the Christians that FFRF goes after, maybe Ryan’s group would have a point. As it stands, this is what a whining majority looks like when they realize they no longer get to trample over the minority without a fight.

Remember: FFRF isn’t fighting for atheists to receive special treatment. They just want atheists to be treated fairly under the law — and they go after Christians who think their faith gives them permission to ignore the rules.

And that’s how you know that Mehta is lying. Along with all AtheoLeftists who demand a false interpretation of the First Amendment, Mehta thinks he can claim that the FFRF defends freedom of speech by shutting down all non-Atheist speech in public venues.

Mehta claims that it is oppression of Atheism to have any non-Atheist speech in public venues. That is why it is necessary to “warn people” that they will be attacked with an expensive lawsuit if they do not bow before the Atheist financial assault.

The FFRF sues the smallest of cities and school districts with the demand that they prostrate themselves before the all-Atheist public utopia in which the Atheists can comfortably feel safe from having to tolerate any thoughts outside Atheism. (Aka “secularism”).

When Mehta refers to a “whining majority”, he is really not referring to the majority, he is referring to the tiny towns and organizations which the FFRF attacks. The FFRF does not attack large cities with “Saint” or "Angels" in their heritage and names, they attack tiny towns with a symbol of their heritage on a flag or monument. They are cowards, implementing Atheism by bullying the smallest, only.

Mehta makes this incredible lapse of rationality:

”Remember: FFRF isn’t fighting for atheists to receive special treatment. They just want atheists to be treated fairly under the law — and they go after Christians who think their faith gives them permission to ignore the rules.”

That is a lie; Atheists are specifically installing official Atheism in every public place they think they can bully into it. It is true that they go after Christians, but only the smallest fry who they can bully with financial ruin. The FFRF consistently loses when they attack someone who fights back. And as for rules, neither Hemant nor the FFRF mean the First Amendment; what Hemant means is the corruption of "free speech" protection into "Atheism-only" speech protection – again called secularism, which means Atheism.

Atheists portray themselves as delicate little flowers who are oppressed by the evil Christians (see the silly pie chart at Hemant’s blog), fragile little pansies who are trampled by the presence of non-Atheist thought in their midst, so they must fight to install total freedom from non-congruence because Atheism cannot withstand actual tolerance. Because Atheists are so delicate, so fragile. The legal case against the 911 cross contained the physical illnesses (gastric distress) which afflict poor Atheists in the presence on non-Atheism. And THAT is the oppression which Atheists must fight.

But Atheists have never actually been the delicate flowers they pretend to be. Atheism has, by far, the most violent and bloody history of repression and oppression of all, when it comes to Atheists in power. Their oppression in the USA is completely transparent compared to Atheist oppression of the religious in the 20th and 21st century Atheist nations which dominated huge portions of Earth. First the Atheists eradicate the opposition; then they start on each other, all the while promoting equality.