Talk:Freedom From Atheism Foundation

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon christianity.svg

This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Do some more research[edit]

Hi all,

I think that this article could really use some better sources. I would like to ask you to help me find sources to back up its claims!

Thanks,

BP9See what I've been messing around with 01:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Uh, hello? Why isn’t anyone other than me editing this? I’ve seen many people add links to this article each day, but for some reason, nobody seems to be actually editing it- it could still really use some improvement, especially since people keep linking to it. (sigh) Fine then. I’ll do it myself. In science we trust🇺🇸CircularREmail2.gifasoning🇺🇸🇺🇸-->See what I've been messing around with 22:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I know this is not a helpful response but you seem seriously concerned, so I can only provide the "why not" for why I'm not helping. I personally don't normally put effort into documenting fringe things I've not seen "in the wild". People talking about, shitty media orgs promoting, and the like. There's so many no-name websites with small followings pumping crank ideas. I tend to find the ideas themselves worth debunking, but the promoters on a case-by-case basis of my exposure to their bullshit. I have no idea how you found these people. I have no idea why they're important. After reading the article, I still don't know that. I only know the kind of crankery they spew. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Joke site[edit]

Poe's Law and all. Having read the page a few times, I'm 90% sure it's a joke page. — Unsigned, by: Super Saiyan Musashi / talk / contribs 20:41, 30 Mar 2020 (UTC)

Militant atheism and red-baiting[edit]

I was about to add a side-note/mini-essay in the "obsession with militant atheism" section, but since I found myself speaking for RationalWiki as a whole without any firm references to the mission, community standards, or existing articles to use to warrant such spokesmanship, I decided to run it by the talk page first. (I speak on behalf of RationalWiki as a whole in mainspace because I feel that it's improper to speak in first-person or outright express my own opinions there, even in mini-essays; mainspace and funspace are designed for collaborative writing first and foremost. First-person speech and expression of individual opinions is better-suited to talkspace, essayspace, and userspace.) The intended attachment point is the end of the sentence reading "This is shown by their constant substitution of the word "communism" with "militant atheism" (an imaginary threat that the FFAF loves to imagine is persecuting them whenever just about any atheist dares to say that they don't believe in God within earshot of a religious person who has grown accustomed to their beliefs never being challenged)." Here is the side-note:

Does it count as red-baiting when it's atheism that's actually being attacked? We'd say the answer is "yes" because "communism is bad" is being presupposed and the association between communism and atheism is being used to poison the well against atheism, but the FFAF doesn't show any indications of perceiving any distinction between the concepts anyways.

What do you guys think of this? Is this statement suitable for inclusion? --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)