The Freedom from Atheism Foundation is wrong about everything

If you’re at all interested in how religion wrecks people’s brains, take a look at the Freedom From Atheism Foundation (also on Facebook, where it’s updated more frequently. All the worst shit is on Facebook.) I thought the cartoon on the right was typical, because the little kid’s reply in no way addresses the point Cartoon Dawkins was making, but apparently they think it’s cogent.

It turns out they’ve been claiming that I support them, which is weird. That claim was noted on RationalWiki.

This webshite website is so biased and full of hate that many would consider it to be a “hate group”, as it frequently uses lies, generalizations, and intentional misrepresentations to defame atheists — but then of course, if they do all of that, then they are totally not a hate group, you intolerant, militant atheist. In fact, the FFAF even claims to “love” the very people whom they work so hard to dehumanize. In a brilliant display of deliberate dishonesty, the Freedom From Atheism Foundation also falsely claimed that they were “endorsed” by PZ Myers, despite the fact that he openly stated in his blogpost that he does not at all agree with them, criticizes their claim that “atheism is a religion”, and states that their goal is “all about restricting religious freedom.”

Never be ironic in titling your posts about them, because they won’t get it…or will deliberately misrepresent it.

Conservapædia doesn’t get it, either.

Atheist activist PZ Myers issued a statement on May 9, 2014 called “I support the Freedom From Atheism Foundation”. In this statement, Myers stated “I am happy to agree that atheism should be kept out of the public square, if religion is also excluded. There’s this principle called secularism that I think is a good idea, and the only way to accommodate a religiously diverse community.”

I hope the title of this post clarifies everything for those little minds.


  1. says

    The argument Cartoon Dawkins uses sounds more like the arguments used against the Big Bang. “Where did the stuff the Universe exploded out of come from? It couldn’t just be there, so something must have created it. And something had to make it happen. Obviously it was God!”

  2. says

    Ow, that face palm hurt. How do these folk feel about removing “under god” from the Pledge of Allegiance? How do they feel about taking “In god we trust” off of our money? These are the same folk who freak about about us saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”.

    Think about this, if we didn’t have theists, there would be no atheists. That’s not the world we live in. We have people who believe in god so we have people who don’t believe in god. We will always have people who don’t believe in god. It’s easier to NOT believe in something than it is to believe in something. I’m using a Russell’s Teapot argument here. You could “believe” that there’s a teapot in orbit in between Mars and Earth, but the rest of us not so much.

  3. says

    This George Carlin quote feels appropriate.
    “You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he’s a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn’t fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.”

  4. whheydt says

    Re: Ray Ceeya @ #2….
    It’s not so much about removing “under god” from the pledge, as questioning why it was added. It wasn’t part of the text as originally written.

    A bigger question is: Why do people keep adding “so help me god” to end of the oath of office? For president, it is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution and DOES NOT HAVE that clause at the end. One could argue that every president but one, was never validly sworn in because all but one have added that to their oath.

  5. unclefrogy says

    that’s a good cartoon in that it shows that the theist arguments are on the level of about a 6 year old