Google+ Followers

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

The Amazing Extent of Bill Muehlenberg's Hypocrisy

One of Bill Muehlenberg’s more recent rants was an article entitled “Atheists Say the Silliest Things”. In it, he throws as many ad hominem insults as he can at those who have decided to reject mythology and use evidence and reason to decide what they believe. He then acts all surprised and hurt when some atheists respond to his attack by using their secret weapon – reason.

What’s set off this infantile wailing is the Global Atheist Convention in Australia, which attracted support from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Russell Blackford. To Muehlenberg, such eminent people are simply pushing their “anti-god agenda”. (Remember folks: if you disagree with dear old Uncle Bill it is because you have an “agenda” to “push”. Which he wouldn’t dream of doing, of course.)

I’m not interested so much in the mud Muehlenberg chooses to sling at those who don’t embrace his fantasies in this article, as he recycles the same old canards ad infinitum to an already brainwashed readership. What caught my eye was the exchanges he had in the comments section with atheists who attempt to use reason and evidence to put Bill right on a few unsubstantiated charges. Dear, oh dear. Boy, does it show up Muehlenberg’s infantile mind, his hypocrisy and his stupidity.

First of all Bill spins his usual gross error that Christians have the monopoly on charity because he’s personally not aware of any “aid group set up specifically by committed ideological atheists”. When contributor Ben cites the Red Cross (there are dozens of others: Doctors Without Borders, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, Non-Believers Giving Aid etc.) Bill tells him that the cross in the Red Cross stands for the Christian Cross. This is a lie Bill has spun before, but Ben does his homework and comments afresh that the Red Cross is a reversal of the Swiss National flag. Having been caught out, any reasonable person would apologize. What does Bill do? Change the goalposts and say the founder of the Red Cross was a calvanist and therefore it is a Christian charity after all!

Despite the extreme fatuousness of Muehlenberg’s defence of his delusions, a few other rationalists attempted to add the soothing balm of logic to Bill’s site. Note the extremely temperate and polite language of poster Heath, who says:

I will not make any derogatory points here as I am not in the mood for a debate, merely to lay my thoughts on the table and show some reasoning.

He goes on in this vein, patiently explaining why he is an atheist and how atheists not only can, but also of course do have morals.

Here are a few choice quotes from Bill’s heavy-handed response:

You do not seem to have read carefully what has been said here.

Hitler and the Nazis thought what they were doing was right. Do you agree with them?

Despite the idiotic responses, Heath attempts a few more posts, responding to Bill’s flimsy arguments that atheists can only be moral by accidentally hijacking the code of conduct of theocrats. But Bill has heard enough of Heath’s defence of living a good life without god and responds with his usual delicacy of touch, compassion, grace and tolerance. Here’s the edited highlights:

They went wrong big time and embraced the Nazis. Why do you assume you and your society will not?

What a frightening and arrogant place to be.


Wow, what a sad place to be in.

I must ask why you have even bothered to come here in the first place. If you were on a search for truth and seeking answers to the big question of life, I would happily spend all the time necessary with you. But if you just like to have little debates, and get your jollies out of having your intellectual palette tickled, then sorry, I am not at all interested.

But if you see this as just a little mind game, then I will have to move on to more serious commentators here.

What should merit an apology is an attitude which arrogantly says I have made up my mind and don’t plan to change anything, as you have told us. That is a scary place to be in.

But the most important point is why you even come here. As I said, if it is simply to engage in little mind games, please consider going elsewhere. These issues are far too important to simply engage is futile intellectual sparring. And you should not be so presumptuous that you will be blessed to live to be 60. If tragically your life is cut short, you really want to be ready for that fact.


You’ll see at once, when Bill’s comments are reduced to nuggets, that he repeats himself ad infinitum, regardless of what the rationalist has posted. And considering his treatment of Ben, his demand for an apology is breathtakingly hypocritical. Rationalist Heath, bless him, asks Bill to:

please respect my point of view and stop repeating yourself

but you may as well ask a clergyman to stop raping children. Bill’s irony meter reaches critical in his next response to Heath:

Thus I have abandoned my atheism and embraced theism. If any solid counter evidence is forthcoming, I will examine that as well. I have been open to change. Are you?

So you really need to get up to speed on some of these debates, instead of throwing out completely reckless and wild charges lacking a grain of truth. It simply highlights the flimsiness of your ‘arguments’. If you don’t like my replies, then no one is forcing you to keep coming back here.

Against more atheist posters, Bill replies with his characteristic humility, charm and openness:

you are woefully out of your depth


I have heard plenty of atheists argue ad infinitum, ad nauseam, just like you.

...thankfully I have moved on, while you atheists are still stuck in your narrow little world

You claim that you are “not trying to convert anyone”. But of course you are. Why even bother to come here otherwise?

It is such a sad, pitiable and foolish worldview these atheists force themselves to live with.

And theists can certainly seize the day, but for atheists their tiny reductionist box seems to make that difficult to achieve to any worthwhile degree.
And then has the audacity to say:

Of course the good thing about a democracy is that we can have these debates, although so many of the famous god-haters really want to see all such debate shut down, since they believe all religion is pure evil, and can only harm society.

After which Heath posts a response to Bill. Bill’s response to Heath, as we can tell from Bill’s above quote, is to “debate”, right? Because it’s those evil atheists who want to have “debate shut down”. Right? Well, how’s this for hypocrisy:

Our friend Heath has just submitted yet another comment, but it just the same old same old, so I have nipped it in the bud. I have exercised my unofficial ‘three strikes and you’re out’ policy here. He has had a good run, but shows not the slightest sign of genuine inquiry – just argument for argument’s sake. As I have said many times before, I simply am not interested in wasting my time – or anyone else’s – with those who have their minds made up and simply want to engage in their little debates for whatever reason. I will spend all the time in the world with genuine seekers and those asking honest questions. But I am not into playing little debate games. So the invitation is this: honest inquirers are welcome, but those who just want to push their agenda or engage in mind games are not.

Since Bill’s definition of “pushing an agenda” is “anyone who dares to post anything that disagrees with me”, he’s found a neat way of censoring all opinions that he disagrees with, and still, to the uncritical, braindead readership he attracts, pass himself off as reasonable and interested in “truth” and “debate”. I can barely find words to describe such nauseating hypocrisy and self-deception.

Having been censored, Heath responds with the entirely accurate, warranted and still temperate:

I consider myself a fool for trying to argue with an evangelist, especially one as ignorant as yourself. I don’t mind if you don’t post this, but at least you read it.

Have a good day!

Which Bill allows to be published because it shows how “evil” these atheists really are with their “agendas” to “push”. He wastes no time in rushing to point this out to his regular godbotherers:

I always love it the way atheists come to a site like this. At first they are all sweetness and light. They can put on such a good act. But before you know it their real nature starts to emerge. Their ugly, hate-filled intolerance starts to shine forth big time. They pretend to be oh so tolerant and accepting, but then they bare their fangs. Of course most of their hate-filled comments I have to send straight to the bin. But I let the two recent ones by you two in to show the world what we are up against.

Any irony meters the world over lie in smoking ruins. How dare he accuse Heath of posting “hate-filled” comments? Anyone who reads the comments objectively will see that all of the intolerance, hatred, lies, deception, agenda-pushing, smearing, narrow-mindedness and crass stupidity comes entirely from Bill Muehlenberg.

He’s like a barely-literate King Lear: a stupid old fool shouting at the wind. He is a true exponent of the weakness of the theistic mindset. It’s not just narrow and intolerant, but specifically, it’s childish. Muehlenberg’s mind occupies a tiny little space in which only his delusions and preconceptions are allowed to exist. Anyone who tries to shed a little light is met with a screaming tantrum and flailing arms. He’s so pitifully idiotic that one almost feels sorry for him. However, he does fulfil a great public service. I can think of no better advertisement for the folly, inanity and shallowness of the religious mindset.

Yes indeed. Muehlenberg one of the best adverts for atheism.

Keep up the good work, Bill!