Hemant Mehta, the “Friendly Atheist” is anything but friendly, given his extensive vitriol against the Christian faith, and his hateful printed libel specifically against The Activist Mommy in retaliation to her defense of the faith and the natural family.
Mehta is a blogger who has recently been quite obsessed with trying to convince the world that The Activist Mommy, a loving mother of 10 children, who fights abuse and exploitation of children, is somehow…wait for it…teaching people how to beat up children. I know…pretty desperate, right?
Long story short: Mehta knows The Activist Mommy doesn’t advocate child abuse and doesn’t have one shred of evidence to the contrary. He knows The Activist Mommy reports & fights child abuse. Being an atheist and LGBT rights advocate, Mehta is desperate to silence the effectiveness and rapid growth of The Activist Mommy’s platform, resorting to falsehoods and a vicious smear campaign to do so.
Fast forward to this week.
In the quest to uncover a possible motive for the man who shot a church full of Baptists in Texas on Sunday, killing 26 and wounding 20, it came to light that the shooter, Devin Kelley, was a follower of Mehta’s facebook page, The Friendly Atheist. Not surprising.
If there is no God and if Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” is the standard for success, who are we to condemn a grasshopper for killing a couple dozen ants?
The greatest mass murderers of the last century shared Mehta’s godless worldview – from Lenin, to Stalin, to Pol Pot, to Castro, to the succession of Communist dictators that tortured and enslaved the eastern European nations in the wake of World War 2, and who still do so today in nations like North Korea and China.
Mehta predictably is urging the public “not to jump to conclusions”, but doubtless if the shooter were a Christian, atheists would be having a heyday.
In the Christian faith, we have a moral standard that condemns the intentional murder of innocent human beings. Jesus said in Matthew 19:18-19, “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
But why would an atheist condemn murder? Why would an atheist not lie, steal, or commit adultery if it suits his or her fancy?
Atheists are quick to remind us that they have morals just like anyone else. Yes, and they can be quite dogmatic with their morals. Watch them vehemently condemn the Christians for the crusades and the Salem witch trials, and watch them defend sodomy with as much zeal as a Bible-thumpin’ Pentecostal preacher defends the resurrection of Jesus.
The question is, what is the BASIS of the atheist’s moral standard? Opinions are a pathetic foundation from which to assert any behavior as right or wrong. When an atheist like Mehta asserts his opinion that it was wrong for Kelley to murder those churchgoers, the follow-up question is, why should the mass murderer Kelley follow Mehta’s opinion?
Oh, it’s his opinion that others should follow his opinion? That’s what you call circular reasoning, my friend. If opinion is the basis of right and wrong, Mehta has no more grounds to condemn Kelley for murder than he does to condemn gay-bashers or child abusers.
Well, murder is illegal, the atheist asserts. Our democratic consensus has decided it should be illegal, they remind us. Yes, on both counts. But why should Kelley follow the law again? Why should he adhere to the democratic consensus? Oh, it’s Mehta’s opinion Kelley should follow the law? Hmm.
Your opinion as the basis of morality and judgment gives you an argument about as sensible as a fart. And if abortion were illegal and atheism (blasphemy) were illegal, would you atheists be urging following the law then? The democratic consensus in Saudi Arabia is that gays should be executed – are you atheists urging following the law there?
Maybe you should take the log out of your own eye, Mr. Mehta, before you try to take the mote out of Kelley’s.
Hold on, the atheist rebuts, Christians base their morals on their opinions as well. Nope. We conform our opinion to an objective standard. “Thou shalt not murder” – that’s the main reason Kelley shouldn’t murder.
Not all opinions are equally valid, I’m sure you’ll agree. The opinion that 2 plus 2 = 5 is invalid while the opinion that 2 + 2 = 4 is valid. Some opinions are false. Kelley has learned by now that putting into practice the blind faith of atheism and murdering others has a high cost, namely, eternal punishment in hell.
The Christian, however, has a basis for his morals – God, who created the universe, prescribed a standard of ethics found in the Bible to which He will hold all accountable on a future day of judgment. At least we don’t pull the carpet out from underneath our feet when we level a judgment at a mass murderer. The atheist, as dogmatic as he is, has his feet planted firmly on thin air.
The best argument against what atheists believe is what atheists do. They will condemn someone who steals their car, rapes their wife, lies about them, molests a child, or who actually acts like there is no God and murders churchgoers, and they will do so with a confident moral indignation that is complete and utter nonsense if there is no God.
The best argument for the existence of God is the atheists’ arguments against Him, for with their condemnations of mass murder, they prove true the biblical passage that all men know the God that created them, their conscience is informed of His moral standard, and they hypocritically resist His truth for selfish reasons (Romans 1).
In short, the best argument against atheism is Mr. Mehta, “The Friendly Atheist.”