Good to see the 'WHACK-A-RELIGIOUS' person is getting a whack from the whackers of the whacking :)

David F says:

"They think they have THE truth. Then they murder others who do not accept their truth."

That's a 2 part statement... the first part is usually true, the 2nd part is WAYYY off the mark.

PART 1 "they think they have THE truth"

PART 2 "then they murder others who do not accept their truth"

No David.. you are presupposing so much there. I had a pleasant lunch with FH and didn't even blink sideways at him...and he is a Muslim. I've had 2 enjoyable afternoons with Col Rouge and he is an atheist and a supporter of Abortion....

Look at Geneva..it was a theocracy under Calvin.. ONE person was executed. John Servetus and he was already under 2 death sentences by non protestants.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1034068/john_calvin_and_the_execution_of_michael.html?page=1&cat=37

Hmmm now the last time I know of this happening on a large scale was the Iranian revolution when the Revolutionary guards slaughtered 10,000 Marxists/socialists as soon as they got power. (in case you think that's a beat up..I found it in the SA mag)

To determine IF a group is likely to 'murder it's opponents' you need to do 2 things.

1/ Ascertain IF such ideas are present in their foundation documents.
2/ See if their founder did such things.

In Christianities case..neither are true though I've seen some colorful mental gymnastics and creative grammatical distortions trying to say it is :) sometimes by ...'you'.

BUGSY.. you wont find many slogans "believe or perish in hell" but granted...you will find some. But even those kind of slogans hold a bit of hope.

$12,000.00 hmm at $30/month that could sponsor 10x 3rd world children for 40 months. But what is it used for ? to attack/destroy beliefs (not the 'only' beliefs) which promote the help and assistance of such children.

David N ur looking very much the bad guy here.

So many variations within some religions suggest to me that a religion divided is really no religion at all, just a collection of similarly-minded cults.

HEY GANG it seem that this is turning into a turf fight.
Again as an atheist (A)there is a moral aspect to either perspective which in many posts seems to be ignored.
Given that Evangelists (E) on either side has no ABSOLUTE proof therefore the issue is clearly one person’s view being imposed over another. Morally neither side has the “right” to force their views on others either overtly or by subterfuge. Proselytizing in any form is predicated on a false assumption of superiority/ dominance, moral/intellectual forced colonization.
On the emotional side EA's have no ‘right ‘to dictate another’s personal feelings. Much is the pity Megan Gale I fancy as a love slave. Besides which which amongst us doesn't know of the either argument?
E Christians have far deeper conundrum. They by actions appear to be saying that God will only give grace to those who believe one particular version of Christianity. If this were not true then conversion is only then a matter of corporeal self satisfaction not in the interest of God. Where in the bible does it say that only Pentecostal or seven days will be saved? It doesn’t.
Then the implication is that if you don’t have access to ‘God’s ‘teaching you are doomed …It’s going to be lonely up there in heaven!
In reality God will give grace.
1. to those who HE thinks are worthy
2. To the ignorant.
Therefore it’s gross arrogance to assume your version is best and to second guess god is uppity (refer Satan’s fall from grace).
Then there’s the illogicality of if some one has grace why then why should an E then jeopardize that by potentially teaching the wrong will (version) or introducing confusion, conflicts which may lead to ungodly behaviour?

For that reason I plead give to Caesar what is Caesar’s science etc. and leave humanity to their ‘free choice’ …. Respect “Each to their own”
To do otherwise is clearly morally tendentious

David writes

'We will not introduce scientific fantasy into classrooms onto unsuspecting children. We will not indoctrinate our children with one of the thousands of religions as though it is unquestionably true.'

You have already done that nicely through secularism which has far more dogmas than most religion. The dishonesty of calling it science is obvious to anyone interested in truth.

Polycarp,

“…looking like the bad guy here”. My goodness, that is innovative as much as it is inaccurate.

Are you sure you don’t mean the money would be better spent on sending bibles to uneducated people in the developing world so as to create more strife and social divisiveness in the future. You might be surprised to know that people of no religion donate to the less fortunate as do the religious. As a rule, non religious donations do not end up indoctrinating children in support of adult fantasies. Interestingly enough, religious donations to such causes are not accountable and no one really knows how much goes where.

My assumption is you would have thought of all this before you blabbed this purposed incitement to falsity.

The AFA is a philosophical/educational organisation whose aim is to disseminate factual knowledge. Philanthropy is not our mandate but we do give spare cash to charities such as bush fire and tsunami appeals etc.

That you have to use such a superficial argument demonstrates the shallowness of your own thinking. Our advertising venture doesn’t, at least in the eyes of rational people, as you posit, reflect badly on me or the AFA, it plainly exposes you as someone desperately attempting to support a delusional mindset at any cost. I suggest you think before robotically writing such twaddle.

What the advertising campaign says about the AFA is that we see the problems caused by religion and we would like people to think about them.

David

David
As an atheist I have never felt the need to join an Atheist group. Otherwise it is just another group flogging its own dogma. What is the point other than perhaps meeting like-minded and interesting individuals?

Ultimately, atheism will evolve as societies evolve. It is not something that can be achieved via propaganda. I don't think the slogan (or any other like-slogan) will convert people away from religion.

You can see from this forum alone, that those who are truly indoctrinated into their faith will not be swayed by logic or rational thought - it is a waste of money in my view.

Better the money be spent on providing genuine humanitarian assistance to those in need (as opposed to the sort of aid I find offensive - that with an indoctrination agenda).