Deceptive Manipulative Propagandist Activist Atheists are at it Again – Unbeknownst to them: their New Ads Compliment Christianity

FYI: this post has been moved here.


  1. Excellent blog!

    Let us know if you would like us to cross post any on eChurchWebsites Blog with links to you.

    You are in our feedreader now.

  2. Mariano,

    You said that the humanist education director missed the point, but then what is the point? Isn't the point that it is ironic for atheists to choose children raised in a devoutly religious family for their billboard? But why would it be ironic unless the campaign was misunderstood to be besmirching Christians or telling them not to raise their children in a religious environment. You don't really think that these children are happy specifically because they have been labelled as "Christian children" instead of "children raised Christian", do you?

    I guess that I lack a sense of irony or something. Can you spell it out for simpletons like me? Where is the irony?

  3. That's odd DontGetit, you seem to have linked your name to our blog?

  4. It is actaully pretty funny that those children were from a Christian family, but it does help to highlight the point that they shouldn't be labelled as 'Christians' before they've had a chance to decide for themselves. A point the Mr Mason seems to miss in his statement. Now that's ironic. I made a longer post at

  5. There isn't a shred of objectivity here. From your very title, it shows a skewed way of thinking. All that really needed to be said was "Atheist New Ads Compliment Christianity."

    You are so scared of what the Atheists are saying that you've stopped listening all together and are jumping to conclusions. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to indoctrinate Children whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish or any other kind of religion. There are basic points that should be taught to the child, all children should be made aware of these religions, but the choice should not come until they are much older. You mentioned Bar Mitzvah's and Confirmation, but I find that making the choice to commit to the Jewish or Christian faith after being raised as Jewish or Christian is a pretty lacklustre one.

    I don't know how you can see this as indoctrinating children compared to the myriad of Christian programs and camps that do just that. Sunday School is indoctrinating children, bringing them to church is indoctrinating them into your religion and your way of life. At least with the Atheist way, they'd have more of a choice.

  6. First of all, charity must come from one's sense of empathy. One's specific religion and philosophy has little to nothing to do with it. You either feel empathy toward other life or you do not, very much like one hears a sound or one does not. This is very much evident in the fact there are empathic atheists and christians or other monotheists seemingly with no empathy at all. At any rate, charity can only be what one chooses to do. "Compulsory charity" is a contradiction. It isn't something does because one is compelled physically or coerced in other ways. You cannot command charity and brow-beating an individual or group of individuals to act charitably is decidedly uncharitable and isn't likely to get what it is you're looking for. Suffice to say, if an individuals' sense of empathy is strong, it's likely they behave compassionately and charitably quite frequently and on their own terms. If they have no sense of empathy or a very weak one, no religious or governmental commandment is going to induce compassion or charity within them. If they do, in fact, give from their own time, energy and resources, it will be an act of compliance, not charity.

    At any rate, it's a myth that "atheists" aren't or are less likely to be charitable. There are, in fact, some very notable "atheist" or atheistic persons who are incredibly charitable - The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Warren Buffett are just two who come to mind. Their particular charities are in the billions of dollars. I'm certain, if one had the will to do so, one could compile a growing list of charitable atheists ... if that were one's honest goal.

    Honest goals aren't altogether common among theists.

  7. Ignoring most of the rubbish you have said here...

    ...if Christianity was so obviously true and wonderful, free-thinking people would flock to it.

  8. Lol. And this article isnt propaganda for religion? Clearly, you have no understanding of athiesm and are threatened by the FACT that the apocalypse will never come, that the world is older than the bible says (re: DINOSAURS), and the whole scam that is religion and churches may stop making fat-cat televangelists rich.

    Honestly, is it so bad to finally realize that you've been scammed your entiure life by religious propaganda? My girlfreind is a RECOVERING Catholic, who finally read a book that didnt fill her head with self loathing, guilt, and sin. The Bible has some historical nuggets of truth in it, but the fundamental belief that the world was created in 7 days, that humans were created in Gods image (which race I wonder is it that YOU picture god as being?), and that the world will end in (oh what was it? 1999? 2000? 2002? 2012? when will your vaunted prophecies get this RIGHT?).

    Religion is BS, and finally Dawkins is trying to get peoples heads out of thei @$$3$. Boy you guys are thick.

  9. After seeing your comment on my blog post (http://thomcummings.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/why-wont-somebody-think-of-the-children/) I'd thought that I'd come over here and answer some of your rational arguments against the Don't Label Me campaign. But it seems you don't have any at all.

    The other commenters are doing a good enough job to point out all the holes and misleading logic in your post that there's not much left for me to do. I think Edward Baker says it best.

  10. Would you consider joining a Yahoo group that we could have correspondence?


  11. Anonymous said... Religion is BS, and finally Dawkins is trying to get peoples heads out of thei @$$3$. Boy you guys are thick.

    Speaking of thick...

    Stein - "So you believe it is liberating to tell people there is no God?"

    Dawkins-"I think a lot of people when they give up God feel a great sense of
    release and freedom."

    Stein- "Why do you tink that? You're a scientist, what's your data?"

    Dawkins-"Well, I've had a lot of letters saying that."

    LOL , I bet dawkins gets a lot of letters telling him he is an idiot as well,
    something tells me they were'nt part of the control group :p


    @ 1:30

    Stein-"There are eight billion people in the world Mr. Dawkins."

    Dawkins - "Yeah, I know, I know, I know. I know." .

    Stein continues - "Professor Dawkins seems so convinced that God doesn't exist
    that I wondered if he was willing to put a number on it."

    Dawkins - "Well, it's hard to put a figure on it but I'd put it as something
    like 99% against."

    Stein - "How do you know it's 99% against and not something like 97%?"

    Dawkins - "You asked me to put a figure on it and I'm not comfortable putting a
    figure on it. I think it's just very unlikely."

    Stein - "But you couldn't put a number on it?"

    Dawkins - Of course not."

    Stein - "So, it could be 49%."

    Dawkins - "Well, I think it's unlikely and quite far from 50%."

    Stein - "How do you know?"

    Dawkins - "I don't know.

    LOL very scientific richard



    Stein - "Well then who did create the heavens and the earth?"

    Dawkins - "Why do you use the word "who?" You see you automatically beg the
    question by using the word who."

    Stein - "Well, then how did it get created?"

    Dawkins - "Well, um, by a very slow process."

    LOL Fermentation maybe ? Perhaps aged ?

  12. Certainly not by a man in the sky!!