No announcement yet.

atheist incoherence and hypocrisy

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • atheist incoherence and hypocrisy

    Years ago, I came across this story:
    Atheist Group Believes Tebow ‘Full Of Crap’ With Public Display Of Christianity

    The article is about a pathetic, public display of emotion by some whiny, envious malcontent by the name of David Silverman, president of American Atheists. Something I read in it has come to my mind, now and then, over the years, because it has always struck me as kind of curious. In the article, we read:

    Silverman believes that Tebow is “full of crap” when he publically displays his Christianity on the football field and said his prayers are for publicity.
    They go on to quote Silverman:

    “It’s not that Tebow prays, it’s that he waits for the cameras to be on him to do it,” Silverman says. “He’s totally faking.”
    What really stood out to me were Silverman's words, "full of crap", and, "He's totally faking". Since Silverman was complaining that Tim Tebow prays, in public, during football games, it struck me just how stupid it was, of Silverman to, out of the other side of his mouth, accuse Tebow of being "full of crap" and "totally faking".

    One, and only one, of the following two things is true:
    1. Tebow was praying
    2. Tebow was not praying

    If 1 is true, then Tebow was NOT "full of crap" and "totally faking". If 2 is true, then Tebow was NOT praying, and was only (for whatever motive) letting on, publicly, like he was praying--in other words, he was "full of crap" and "totally faking". Silverman, being an enemy of logic, seems to have wanted to have it both ways: for Tebow to have been, simultaneously, praying and not praying.

    Let's say, though, for the sake of argument, that 2 is true: Tebow was not praying. OK, that means that he was, as Silverman would have it, "totally faking", since he, obviously, had the appearance of one praying. What rational complaint could someone such as Silverman, an atheist, have against Tebow faking prayer? Absolutely zero. For Tebow to fake prayer would mean that Tebow was not praying, and, of course, for Tebow to be not praying would be for Tebow to have something in common with Silverman, and co.: namely, to be not praying! Shouldn't it, rather, have pleased the atheist, Silverman--the idea that Tebow was not praying?

    And, if it be retorted that what is to be complained about is the (alleged) lack of sincerity, the dishonesty--the "totally faking"--on the part of Tebow, why, the fact is that Silverman, an atheist, simply has no leg to stand on. Why? Because, as atheism neither is, nor does it/can it possess, even the slightest basis for morality, or for making moral judgments, to any rationally-thinking mind, any denunciation of dishonesty (of being "full of crap", of "totally faking") coming from Silverman and his atheist colleagues, must needs fall flat on its face, and mark the denouncers as hypocrites.

    Pretending to be a Christian is, according to atheists, themselves, perfectly in accord with being an atheist. Here is an article written by a proud anti-Christian, titled The Advantages of Pretending to be a Christian. In the article, we see that, according to atheists, it is acceptable for atheists to lie, and pretend to be Christians, if it will help them achieve a desire they may have of, say, "fit[ing] in with the crowd".

    Remember, atheism offers not a shred of a moral basis for judging lying--any lying, whatsoever--to be wrong. Remember this next time you hear atheists claim (with, of course, absolutely zero basis for so claiming) that Adolph Hitler was a Christian. It can, and should, always be retorted to such a claim, the truth, that Adolph Hitler was no Christian at all, and that, if you really want to imagine that he, at times, gave off some appearance of being a Christian (which is, of course, supremely asinine to imagine), then there is always that necessarily atheist-embarrassing (because unanswerable) rejoinder: "If Hitler ever gave an appearance as though he were a Christian (which he did not), then he could only have been--being the atheist that he was--living in accordance with the atheist principle of doing, and saying, whatever he deemed useful and necessary to achieve his desired ends."
    What evidence do you have to support your claim that what you call "evidence" is evidence?