Mr. Kyle tells a story about two people, both of whom wear yellow wristbands in support of the Armstrong Foundation's cancer research. One of discovers in a book that Lance Armstrong is an atheist. His friend was not pleased:
The young man then ripped off his wristband and threw it toward the garbage (he missed). He explained that now that he knew that Armstrong was an atheist he no longer wanted to be identified with him.
His friend said that the wristband didn't really have anything to do with Armstrong's religion, but was about cancer or something.
Showing my support for Christ, the young man said, is more important that showing my support for cancer.
So, because Lance Armstrong is an atheist, it's no longer possible to support the cancer research he collects money for? Supporting research to end a disease represent a failure to "support Christ" if one of the leaders of that research is an atheist? If many of the doctors involved in the research were atheist, would that be reason to withdraw support? If many of the people who are cured are atheist, would that be reason to withdraw support?
The same "logic" would appear to hold in all those cases. There's no indication that the story here is true, but it is consistent with the views of too many evangelicals — namely, that the involvement of atheists in a project so taints it that it can no longer be supported by "godly" people.
Read More:
I hope that kid stops using light-bulbs, watching TV, listening to music, or even using his Microsoft products as all those things were individually or often “invented” by atheist people as well.
I hope jeff will stop driving cars and not using the stop light cause christians invented them
I hope that “tooo” realizes he/she is not getting the point. Instead they are just acting like a child and defending stupidity.
Brilliant retort, ‘tooo.’ Now picture something rather large flying right over your head.
(Atheists don’t care who invented the car or traffic lights. That’s the point.)