Dig in your heels and stick your head in the sand

Hement Mehta over at The Friendly Atheist has a follow-up on the Tamara Scott quote that I examined in yesterday's posts (see Part I, Part II and Part III). Apparently, she became aware that he had discussed her radio appearance and went on Facebook to complain about it. Her quote has since been removed, but Mehta has blockquoted some of it, and there are a couple of points that stand out. (

First, she says,

"Well, if only they  cared enough to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me, God... Oops, therein lies the first problem. No God, no set truth."

That is ridiculous on its face. God is not some guarantor of truth. If nothing else, look at how many variations of Christianity alone there are and tell me which one is true. They all say they appeal to the same god...

Lacking a belief in any gods does not mean atheists don't care about truth or that we are only interested in deception. We can ascertain what statements adhere to reality and which do not; we can tell if someone lies to us; we can check the evidence against what is being represented. I think Scott may have the impression that atheists are the devil, the supposed deceptive agent in the Bible, but she would be wrong.

Another interesting part is Scott says she didn't even read Mehta's post! She knows he doesn't care about accuracy or truth because... well, she just knows. She says it was a "sloppily reported hit job." In part, she makes the claim that Justin Scott (the atheist activist who gave the invocation) declared his desire to destroy Christianity. Mehta has linked to an article on Justin, where anyone can read that he just wants atheists to be able to take part on par with Christians:

“I want to get to the point where nobody cares about it anymore. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have these prayers going on anymore, but as long as they’re legal and as long as cities keep insisting that we have them, I just figure let’s go and challenge each one,” he said.

Pro-tip: read the material you purport to want to rebut.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that Tamara Scott is engaging in some projection. She is willing to misportray the position of someone she disagrees with, why wouldn't someone else?

But, I'd like to conclude by considering just what she's implying in this (now deleted) post. Atheists are by definition dishonest, so there is no need to even go read their arguments. There is no way they could have an honest critique of a Christian position, so all she needs to do is dig her heels in and cross her arms.