Creationist Group Launches Another Times Square Billboard Directed at Atheists

In October, Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis put up a digital billboard in Times Square reading “Suck It, atheists” “To All Of Our Atheist Friends: Thank God You’re Wrong.”

The Freedom From Religion Foundation quickly responded with a billboard of their own in the exact same location:

FFRF, a state/church watchdog and the nation’s largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics), has enlisted “Saturday Night Live” alum Julia Sweeney for its rejoinder. One cube of the billboard features Sweeney’s smiling face, the other her quote: “OMG, there is no god!”

FFRF’s message will be displayed on the same digital billboard at the corner of 42nd Street and 8th Avenue as the Answers in Genesis Christian message saying. “To all our atheist friends: Thank God you’re wrong.”

Today, Answers in Genesis came back with a new billboard directed, again, toward atheists. The 30-second ad, which will run through Christmas, features the message “To All Of Our Atheist Friends: All He Wants for Christmas Is You” (which, I can only assume, means that Jesus is coming to kidnap your family). It also includes John 3:16:

The Christmas billboard is located in a different part of Times Square than October’s billboard — and it’s on a bigger board! The new billboard measures 50′ by 100′ (the previous one was a 45′ by 90′ cube) and is located on Broadway between 46th and 47th Streets, in the “Duffy Square” part of Times Square. Because this board has more space, we have added a verse this time.

Our advertising agency JDA indicated that this new billboard will be viewed by about 45,000,000 people over the next few weeks — more than the last board. What’s even better is that we were able to obtain this prime billboard location at an excellent price, and a number of AiG supporters were so encouraged by the last billboard that they provided special financial support for this new billboard.

Well, I’m thrilled. I’d rather have the money of AiG supporters going to ineffective ads like this one instead of more propaganda at the Creation Museum.

Coincidentally, this billboard is only blocks away from the 15-second digital ad the Center For Inquiry launched earlier today:

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • ShoeUnited

    It’s all rather silly.

    • chicago dyke, TOWAN

      i tend to agree. i suppose the tourists may notice “outrageous” billboards in Sin City, but i seriously doubt even one local was moved by any of this.

  • DKeane123

    According to their theology, you’ll have everlasting life even if you don’t believe – just your father banishes you to the basement and has your evil older brother torture you for eternity. Sick bastard.

    • MNb

      Dunno. Sharing eternity with Ol’ Hambo and the likes is quite a torture as well.

  • Neko

    How galling to be out graphic-designed by Answers in Genesis.

    • C Peterson

      The new AiG sign is a design mess. The threat on the right side is in some sort of monospaced font, or kerned horribly, and is practically unreadable in caps.

      The Sweeney sign is very clean and well designed. The new CFI sign, however, is uninteresting in its design.

      • Neko

        You’re right about the kerning, but it’s still readable, the color scheme is good, and the message works. It’s upbeat: God wants you! [Somebody wants me!]

        The FFRF and CIF messages are negative: God doesn’t exist! [Oh, wow.]

        This is my problem with a lot of the atheist/secular campaigns. In addition to ongoing design woes, they’re couched in negative terms, or worse seemed designed more to stick it to the Christians than appeal to atheists or promote the cause of secular humanism. (Though I would support a bold Treaty of Tripoli campaign, since the greater good of refuting religious-right historical revisionism outweighs the downside of stoking hostilities.)

        The “Good without God” billboards hit the right note; they’re simple and affirmative.

        • C Peterson

          I don’t see “All he wants for Christmas is you” as positive at all! My first thought was “baked or fried?” Seriously, the message sounds like a threat. Scary.

          While the other two signs use syntactically negative constructions, they both come across to me as positive messages.

          • Neko

            Ha! Let’s just say you don’t strike me as the typical Times Square tourist.

            • C Peterson

              For sure not! But is there a typical Times Square tourist?

              • Neko

                Good point. But if there is, you’re not it.

        • Lagombi

          Only that, well, the AiG billboard is supposed to be aimed towards their “atheist friends”… “God wants you!” would be the same as “Frodo likes you!” or “Mr. Potato Head cares about your existence!”. I as an atheist don’t think (by reading that sentence) “Oh, that person’s fictional character wants me!”.

          And then they use John 3:16 which is one of the weakest verses unless you are a believer of some sorts. Yeah, right, He almighty gave Himself in the form of His own son so He could be killed (according to plan) in order to show His love and save us from the consequences of His own plan and took a 3 day nap…

          That billboard is for christians.

          • Neko

            I’m talking about the reptilian brain that propaganda is designed to access. No one is going to change their views based on flashing screens in Times Square. The aim is to produce enough of an emotional response so the message insinuates itself.

            There’s a movie called NO! about an opposition organization’s election campaign to unseat Augusto Pinochet. (It’s a reductive version of events, but we’ll let that ride.) A corporate advertising sympathizer agrees to participate, and his proposals to offer a happy, positive campaign is met with derision and hostility by his comrades, some of whom were tortured by or lost friends and relatives to the regime. He prevails and Pinochet is defeated.

            John 3:16 is nonsense. It’s also familiar and quite beautiful poetry. Some may bridle at it, but they are sure to be a minority.

            • C Peterson

              John 3:16 is nonsense. It’s also familiar and quite beautiful poetry.

              We have very ideas about what constitutes “beautiful poetry”.

              Of course, the Bible is often held up as an example of beautiful literature and poetry. Personally, I find very little in that book that is beautiful is style or tone, very little that is inspiring or stimulates any emotion other than boredom or disgust. John 3:16 is not poetry, it is obscene. Meaningless human sacrifice is not a thing of beauty.

              • Neko

                De gustibus.

                • C Peterson

                  Yet individual tastes change and evolve in response to rational (and sometimes not so rational) discussion.

                • Neko

                  That may be true, but art doesn’t operate as a moral system. How much human sacrifice, or at least misery, was involved in the construction of the pyramids? Or the Brooklyn Bridge? Are they not beautiful? A hero who comes “to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” is a universal trope. Is the entire genre of heroic epic “obscene”? Once you start down the road of assigning artistic value on the basis of moral feeling you might as well forget engaging with art.

                  Meaningless human sacrifice is not a thing of beauty.

                  Of course not. But assuming Jesus was a historical person, it seems his followers were, on the contrary, determined to rescue his death from meaninglessness. It led to an historical moment when God was envisioned not as the ultimate alpha male but as the ultimate submissive and degraded human (the Piss Christ).

                  One of the fascinating things about Christianity is the barbarism at the heart of the religion, but also the longing of ordinary people to salvage meaning from suffering, not just in the collective sense, but as individuals. John 3:16 expresses the hope and the conviction that the shitty lives most people in history experience need not be for nothing. In that sense it’s a very human and moving sentiment. That’s not the case with the FFRF message. For starters, who on earth is Julia Sweeney?

        • Little_Magpie

          Though I would support a bold Treaty of Tripoli campaign, since the
          greater good of refuting religious-right historical revisionism
          outweighs the downside of stoking hostilities.

          Hellyah. Hey, if some group promised to do that, I’d even throw some dollars their way.

  • Anton

    Fundies usually spell it athiest, so I assume this is some sort of prank.

  • Frazzah

    For god so loved the world that he killed a man.

    • Amor DeCosmos

      Not just a man, His only begotten Son, which is actually Him, so His son IS actually Him, but not the same, so they’re the same, but not the same, and this all proves that He loves us so much He brutally tortured and killed His Son, which was actually Him, so that we can all be forgiven for the sins of Adam, who was the first human and was betrayed by a woman who talked to a snake that He made in first place.

      Get it?

      • TheUnknownPundit

        Well, when you put it that way it all makes perfect sense,

      • Frazzah

        So suicide but not suicide…

        • randomfactor

          Completely necessary. You can’t have a Holy Ghost without a Holy Murder Victim.

      • Ann Onymous

        He also did it so that anyone who failed to believe in him (rejecting all the evidence that is a 2000 y/o, self-contradictory book) could experience a loving God and his eternal torture chamber.

  • Jasper

    I kinda wish “our” [edit: The FFRF one] billboard wasn’t making a non-demonstrable claim.

  • Obazervazi

    Do they not realize that message is incredibly creepy?

    • C Peterson

      Do they mean he wants you for dinner? Or are they talking about their pastors and priests wanting your [young] sons? Or are they talking about satanic soul collection?

      It’s hard to read in a positive light!

  • riddles

    Well at least this one isn’t as bad as the previous one, claiming we should thank a god that sentences us to eternal torment for not believing it exists.

  • Baron Von P.

    wow, these people are SO threatened when someone points out their hypocrisy. But, the mentally ill rarely know they are…..

    • Emmet

      You’re pathologising a difference of opinion?

      *That’s* creepy.

      • C Peterson

        No, he’s pathologizing those who believe there is some magical “he” that “wants you”. That’s reasonable.

        • Emmet

          No, it’s not reasonable to say that those who believe in God are mentally ill. That’s not reasonable, that’s a good few steps along the road to tyranny.

          • 3lemenope

            You were doing so well, right up to the last clause of the last line.

            • Emmet

              Ha – yeah, I thought that was a bit of hyperbole but thought I’d leave it. I was thinking of Peter Hitchens’ comments here

              from about 54.20. Listen from 52.00 for the lead-in question, and to the end for Savage’s extraordinarily mad comment that perhaps abortion should be mandatory for the next 30 years to deal with “over-population”.

              On a side note, I always enjoyed listening to Christopher Hitchens – it’s fun to be able to hear echoes of his voice in his brother’s.

              Peter Hitchen’s “dangerous idea”?

              The belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and rose from the dead.

          • cyb pauli

            Explain why calling out a delusion is unreasonable. It’s done all the time both in medicine and in the wider world… nobody would seriously accept a billboard referring to Zeus wanting our souls/lives, or Voldemort, or some other fictional character. Why are AG and his followers exempt?

            • Emmet

              Of course it’s unreasonable to make a medical diagnosis based on no evidence. Good grief.

              This is the sort of thing that gives atheists and atheism a bad name. You can’t claim to love reason on the one hand and make unreasonable statements on the other. You end up looking a fool.

          • C Peterson

            Tyranny? Really?

            I do think it is reasonable to view theism and religiosity as pathologies. They fully meet the clinical definition of delusions, with the exception that clinically, dogma is exempted from classification as an illness. That exception is hard to justify on any scientific or medical grounds.

            I think it is likely that in the not too distant future, theism and religiosity will be formally recognized as the delusions they are. Just because something is unclassified today doesn’t mean it isn’t a disorder.

      • Baron Von P.

        a difference of opinion is debate and conversation. Insisting on posting huge billboards in heavily populated public places to voice an “opinion” and direct it AT a group of people IS bizarre

        • Emmet

          Sure. I might agree with you – but the atheists are doing it too, so presumably you’re saying that they are bizarre too?

          • DavidMHart

            There is a subtle difference, which is that AIG are explicitly addressing atheists in the billboards pictured here, whereas FFRF and CFIare simply stating their position – only AIG are actually having a go at people who disagree with them. But given that AIG presumably actually believe what they say they believe*, I don’t find it bizarre that they would want to publicise it with billboards.

            *Although, obviously, what they believe is bizarre, but that wasn’t the question.

            • Emmet

              I think you’re being too subtle. Of course FFRF and CFI’s billboards are directed at a group of people – Christians.

              • DavidMHart

                Not exclusively though. They’re directed at people who are already non-religious but not yet feeling safe or willing to come out – and indeed at people who are hovering on the verge of non-religiosity, saying come over to our side, we have all the best arguments.

                And to the extent that they are directed at religious people (not exclusively Christians of course), at least the billboards shown here are not taunting, passive-aggressive ones like the ‘Thank God you’re wrong’ one from AIG (though not the ‘All he wants for Christmas’ one – I find it hard to read much malice into that). That’s the difference – between A stating a position that necessarily entails that B’s position is factually incorrect, and A gloating at B at the same time.

      • amycas

        Thank you for calling out the bullshit “religion is a mental illness” rhetoric. Can we just kill that phrase with fire now?

      • cyb pauli

        Would you like to visit some delusional schizophrenics who have a difference of opinion with you on whether they are Elvis, JFK or Jesus? Or that the government has placed tracking devices in their brains? Or that God (the same God millions of Christians pray to) is communicating with them through the daily weather report?

        Difference of opinion my rear end.

        Hallucinations and delusions do exist. Why religion is exempt from that is cultural prejudice.

        • Emmet

          You’re conflating two things – a Christian who is mentally well and a Christian who is mentally unwell and believes they are Elvis.

          A Christian might be mentally ill, sure. So might an atheist or anyone. That a person is a Christian, however, is not evidence they are mentally ill/deluded.

          • DavidMHart

            To be fair, it isn’t evidence that they are mentally ill, but unless the core claims of Christianity are true (which we have seen no good evidence for in 2000-odd years), it is evidence of their being deluded (for most normal understandings of the word ‘deluded’. Theism and atheism are logically incompatible – whichever position is correct, those who subscribe to the other must be deluded by definition.

            • Emmet

              Depends on your defintion of deluded. If deluded means believing something that is not true,a s a symptom of mental illness, then no, neither believing in Christianity nor being an atheist is evidence of delusion.

              For it to be true, one or other of those camps has to prove that their belief is true – and despite best efforts from proponents of each side of the debate, that can’t be done.

              Saying “I am a toaster” is delusion.

              Saying “I believe Catholicism is true” is not delusion.
              Saying “There is no God” is not delusion.

              • Feminerd

                “The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” -Sam Harris

                I would call claiming to be in a dialogue with God a pretty serious delusion, yet it is a common claim that is treated as unexceptional in many ways. And no, not all Christians claim that God talks to them, but an awful lot of them do.

                • Emmet

                  Sure, you would call it that, but you’re not actually qualified to make that judgement, are you?

                  It *seems* deluded to me that people could think it’s OK to kill foetuses – but it’s not delusion (as in mentally illness), just faulty reasoning. So I wouldn’t ever call someone crazy for thinking it’s OK to kill foetuses, but I would call them wrong, and dangerous.

                • Feminerd

                  Okay, two very separate issues here.

                  1) Please explain why Sam Harris’s reasoning is flawed. Do you really think people who claim God talks to them aren’t delusional? Some people are, some people aren’t? How do you tell the difference?

                  2) Please explain why killing fetuses is more wrong than enslaving women.

                • Emmet

                  1. I can’t tell the difference, so I don’t try and make that call. They may or may not be delusional. No Catholic needs, or is bound by, any private revelation, so I’m not missing out on anything if I don’t pay heed to any account of a conversation with God. I tend to take any such conversation with a grain of salt, and warn/encourage others to do that same.

                  2. I’m not sure drawing a scale of wrongness is useful, but murder has to be worse than enslavement doesn’t it? I think any rational person would agree.

                • Feminerd

                  1) But if someone does something “because God told me to”, do you see it as a possible or plausible explanation for their actions?

                  2) Really? “Give me liberty or give me death” is a rather common sentiment. People kill for, and die for, freedom all the time.

                  Besides, it’s self-defense, not murder. If you try to inject me with hormones that are harmful to me and could kill me, steal my blood, “borrow” an organ, and otherwise leach nutrients out of my body, I am entirely within my rights as an autonomous human being to kill you in self-defense.

                  That doesn’t even begin to touch on the fact that a fetus isn’t a person by any meaningful standard until 30+ weeks of gestation. Nor does it go into the incredible hypocrisy of requiring women to donate their bodies to entities who will otherwise die, but not requiring the same of men. If you’re pro-life, own it. Own the forced organ transplants, the lack of bodily autonomy. Admit that you think your own personal body doesn’t belong to you if someone else needs part of it to live.

              • baal

                Transubstantiation is a delusion. Believing in supernatural forces is delusional. Some folks’ delusions get so severe that they appear to have mental illness. Many of the YECs seem to fall into this category.

                • Emmet

                  What’s your definition of “delusion”? If your definition is “believing something that isn’t true, and therefore exhibiting a sign or symptom of mental illness” you have to prove that transubstantiation isn’t true/real, to a level of proof that allows you to diagnose that illness.

                  Good luck with that.

                • baal

                  Way to speak for me and say something I did not.

                  A delusion is a belief held in the face of evidence that it is a wrong belief. Holy wafers are mostly flour and never anything else. You only have to eat one to know it. I suspect you could set up any sort of detection device you like and no matter what a priest says, it’s still a wafer alone.

                  The earth is very old. All of the relevant evidence (except one interpretation of one very old and bizarre book) suggests more than 4 billion years. You can get past 6-7000 years by looking at tree rings alone btw.

                  A ‘psychosis’ is a break from reality. It’s when folks don’t seem to really understand that they are in a real world anymore. Somewhere along the way, extreme religious belief that runs counter to reality (lots of delusions!) looks like psychosis. This isn’t all that hard to sort out. So good luck yourself.

                • Emmet

                  We can go around in circles here.
                  There’s evidence that the belief that there is no evidence that God exists is wrong. That doesn’t mean I can call atheism a delusion.

                  Not sure about your point about the age of the Earth. I’m with you on the Earth being 4b years old.

                  What’s “extreme religious belief”? You need to define your terms. Did Damien of Molokai display “extreme religious belief”? Teresa of Calcutta? Maximilian Kolbe? John Henry Newman?

                • Andy_Schueler

                  What’s “extreme religious belief”? You need to define your terms. Did Damien of Molokai display “extreme religious belief”? Teresa of Calcutta? Maximilian Kolbe? John Henry Newman?

                  Nothing against the three dudes, Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu however was actually a very unpleasant woman that accomplished little except for letting countless people die in misery instead of giving them appropriate medical care and stealing millions of dollars from well-meaning donors who thought that their money would be spent on helping the poor and sick.

                • Emmet

                  Ah, a Hitchens devotee.

                  Is that why Teresa remains a well-loved figure to this day in India, well-regarded by people of all religions and none?

                • Andy_Schueler

                  Yup, well-regarded by those who did not suffer personally or had relatives who died in her “hospices”.

                • Emmet

                  Mm. And the relatives of those who would have died alone in the gutter instead of in the hospice?

                  Have you read anything about Teresa apart from Hitchens’ book?

                • Andy_Schueler

                  “And the relatives of those who would have died alone in the gutter instead of in the hospice?”
                  - And the difference between a gutter and her “hospices” would have been what exactly? Both would have been dirty and both would have offered no help whatsoever with the pain.

                  “Have you read anything about Teresa apart from Hitchens’ book?”
                  - What makes you believe that I´ve read Hitchens’ book?

                • Emmet

                  Because he took the same line as you are.
                  Where are you getting your information from?
                  That is, what’s your evidence for your claims?

                • Andy_Schueler

                  There is plenty of information available from people other than Hitchens. Including articles in medical journals, and articles written by people that actually live in India.
                  Some examples:



                  And, if you speak french, this one is very comprehensive:

                • baal


                  Check the many comments by Steph Tutle. While I don’t know Steph Tutle nor the intent behind that person’s series of posts, I am wondering if that poster’s thinking is well ordered or might do better with decent mental health care.

                • DavidMHart

                  No you wouldn’t, because transubstantiation is a collossally unlikely claim, so improbable that no one who hadn’t been indoctrinated into Catholicism could take it seriously, whereas the position that transubstantiation isn’t true is very likely on present evidence. It has of course been carefully crafted to be invulnerable to proof or disproof, but that isn’t a point in its favour – that which is indistinguishable from the imaginary should be treated as imaginary.

                  If I may reference Sam Harris again, because it’s a very good analogy, the belief that saying a magic spell in Latin over your pancakes can make them literally turn into the body of Elvis is as strongly supported by the evidence as the belief that saying a magic spell in Latin can make your wafers literally turn into the body of Jesus, and yet even someone who is themself a Catholic would most likely call you delusional if you seriously believe the Elvis claim. The only significant difference is the number of believers – it is a curious quirk of the human brain that if you take a belief that would, by itself, be good evidence of delusionality, but then multiply the number of believers without adding any more reasons in support of the belief, believing it somehow becomes compatible with non-delusionality.

                  The problem is not that religious people are metally ill. The problem is that our belief-forming mechanisms are kludgy enough (particularly in the way we tend to take on the beliefs of the majority simply because they are the majority) that it is possible for vast numbers of sane, healthy people to believe things that would be a sure sign of delusion if they were the only believer.

                  It’s something maladaptive about us – like our tendency to be susceptible to optical illusions. The fact that most people fail to see the lines as parallel (or of equal length,etc – you know the sort of images I’m talking about) does not mean that they actually aren’t. Likewise, the fact that millions of people actually believe the wafer becomes the meat of a 2000 year old Jewish preacherman does not make that belief reasonable.

                • Emmet

                  Fundamentally flawed analogy.

                  If Elvis was God, and said that bread was his body, and gave his priests the ability to turn bread into his body, then it wouldn’t be delusional.

                  However, he wasn’t, and Christ was.

                • DavidMHart

                  Well, the joking answer is that the First Presleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine would disagree*.

                  But the serious answer is: that doesn’t work. The claim of Jesus’s divinity is part of the narrative that claims that wafers can turn into bits of him when a suitable incantation is spoken by a qualified practitioner of Catholicism. The claim cannot be presupposed and then used to corroborate the transubstantiation.

                  There is no more good evidence that Jesus was a god than that Elvis was a god – all you have is a collection of myths from a superstitious corner of the Roman Empire, and even you wouldn’t take that sort of thing to be good evidence in any other contexts (see, for instance, Hinduism, or John Frum).

                  *Yes, I know it is a spoof. But that doesn’t make the contents of its claims less plausible than the equivalent claims made by mainstream religions.

                • Little_Magpie

                  Also, we have a lot of evidence of Elvis as a real historical person who lived (aside from any arguments about his divinity or lack thereof.) Jesus? Not so much.

                • Andy_Schueler

                  Fundamentally flawed analogy.

                  If Elvis was God, and said that bread was his body, and gave his priests the ability to turn bread into his body, then it wouldn’t be delusional.

                  However, he wasn’t, and Christ was.

                  Nope, that doesn´t work… Let me fix that for you:
                  If unknown people wrote a text about Elvis, in which Elvis is being quoted as saying that he is God, and some people believe that Elvis actually said this and was also correct to say this because he actually was God, and furthermore believe that they can utter some magic words which will turn bread into something that is completely and utterly indistinguishable from bread but is still literally the “body of Elvis”, then this would be delusional – unless enough people believed it, then it would be a religion.

                • Gehennah

                  Now you just have to provide evidence that Jesus was god. You need to provide evidence that the miracles that showed the divinity of him were real.

                  The Bible alone is not sufficient evidence to prove this as extraordinary claims, such as that of miracles, require extraordinary evidence to provide sufficient evidence, otherwise there would be no difference between Elvis claiming to be divine and Jesus claiming to be divine.

              • baal

                I have no idea what you mean when you say “I believe Catholicism is true””. The question is whether or not you hold a set of beliefs (under the umbrella ‘catholicism’) that fly in the face of the available evidence. Virgin births, water walking, raisin ghte dead, curing lepers, transmuting water into wine etc is all magic and not consistent with any reasonable evidence (your holybook is not evidence, it’s hearsay).

                • Emmet

                  Pretty simple. I’m a Catholic because I believe that the claims the Catholic Church makes are true claims. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be Catholic.

                  If you think that “reasonable evidence” is only evidence that can be measured with a scientific device, then you’re right. Is that the only kind of reasonable evidence?

                • baal

                  Yes, fever dreams and story books are not evidence. I’m pretty much an empirical, reproducible evidence only type person.

  • Sven Pride

    “If you really an all powerful deity, would you really torture your son to death to get your minion’s attention?”

    • the almighty dog

      all powerful, but certainly not all loving. as they so claim him to be.

    • MindofGod

      Your* after son.

      • Amor DeCosmos

        Listen to the MindofGod – He loves you and wants you to know the difference between “your” and “you’re”.

      • Drakk


      • Matt D

        There is no * at the end of the word “Your”.

  • Fiona DeLaMere

    The only thing I regret about the lack of an afterlife is the fact that Ken Ham will never find out that he’s wrong.

  • CultOfReason

    Honestly, I have no problem with them wasting their money on such ads. First, I doubt it’s going to convert any atheists, and secondly, it’s less money applied towards more insidious things such as lobbying for ID/Creationism in public schools.

    • LutherW

      More publicity for us. And now they are calling us friends.

      • Roger Peritone

        Too bad they don’t act like it in all of their articles that constantly attack atheists and “evolutionists”, eh?

      • Ann Onymous

        Condescendingly, which isn’t too helpful.

  • David Bainbridge

    “All I Want For Christmas Is You” is a song about wanting sex for Christmas. Are they saying God wants us carnally? Ew.

    • LizzyJessie

      Zeus has this inability to keep his penis within his toga.

      • MindofGod

        Hera is just a trophy wife, I guess.

        • LizzyJessie

          Hera is also his older sister.

          • randomfactor

            Old man Zeus he kept a heifer in his yard
            Hera smelled a … rat and took the matter hard.

  • Keras

    Zombie Jesus: All he wants for Christmas is your mortal soul…and your brains.

    • randomfactor

      In the meantime, send money.

    • Little_Magpie


  • axelbeingcivil

    Sweet mercy, to think how much money could’ve gone to charity, or at least back into the economy in some other form…

    • Captain Cassidy

      Some billboard company salesperson somewhere in NYC is having a good laugh.

  • Karl Goldsmith

    I think it means, be careful Santa is going to bend you over.

  • Dennis Vander Houwen

    This spring on A&E “Billboard Wars”

    “Who will come out with the pithiest retort?”
    “Who will spend the most money?”
    “Will the Mormon’s get involved in the game?”
    Tune in this spring for the battle of belief -vs- non-belief…

    • Kellen Connor

      All of the up-votes for you.

    • Pseudonym

      I was just thinking that both AiG and FFRF really do belong on a trashy reality show. They’re made for each other.

  • Don Gwinn

    What is a 45′ x 90′ cube? That’s two unequal dimensions, not three equal ones.
    (I do know how this makes me look, but I choose to do it anyway. Make of that what you will.) :)

    • C Peterson

      I assume they mean that each of the two faces of the visual cube presented by the sign are 45 feet on a side, meaning that that actual displayed content is designed to be 45 feet high by 90 feet wide. The sign doesn’t look that big in the images, though.

  • randomfactor

    Most of us were given Him years ago. Thank Macy’s for the return counter.

  • Robert MacDonald

    Just think of all the food banks & soup kitchens that this could have supplied.

    • Emmet

      “This” meaning the atheist one too of course.

  • cyb pauli

    The answer is always the same, provide empirical data that such a being as your God exists and I will duly reconsider my position. Until such time, I consider you a liar and a fraud.

  • Captain Cassidy

    Sorry, Jesus is just too damned needy. It’s downright creepy how Christians portray him like a stalker ex-boyfriend. “Twilight” came by its boundary-stomping, weirdly-obsessive love interest quite honestly.

  • willchain

    Well, at least they’re not threatening us with hellfire, as some of them usually do.

  • LoveTWD

    He’s teaming up with Uncle Sam? He wants us to join the military?

  • kickinitincrik

    I’m a Christian and I don’t care for the AIG billboards. They seem to work at cross purposes with each other. The first is like a punch in the nose and the other wants to give you the sweet smelling rose of Jesus’ love. The first is polemical and the other is evangelical. There’s a time and a place for both. They shouldn’t be mixed. FFRF has some witty ones. But I think most people take them as seriously as an episode of South Park or whatever the back of a cereal box says. I don’t think anyone is going to base their theology on something so snide and trivial, and if they do then you can have them.

    • Amor DeCosmos

      We just want you to know that you are not alone… so if you ever wake up one day and say, “Waaaaait a minute – this religion stuff doesn’t make sense…” you will not be afraid, because you know there are millions of us who agree.

    • Anna

      Ah, that coveted demographic of people who can be converted by billboards! I’m with you. If someone is swayed by a billboard, he or she’s clearly not a deep, critical thinker. Not someone I’d want representing my “side” either way.

      • faithnomore

        Ah the power of advertising! I also do not care for the ads, billboards etc. But as evil as they are, some people are willing to pay big bucks to get their word out…on some level, advertising is effective. The Xians should have just photoshopped the old “Uncle Sam Wants You” ads…they are designed to appeal to the same basic demograph. Ads are more simple than you give them credit for…the more irritating (such as the ones where they keep saying the same phone number over and over for example), the more likely to get noticed, focused on, and remembered. As the religious learned long ago, if you keep saying something often enough, it becomes automatic truth. So as much as I dislike billboards etc, I do believe that anytime we hear or see the unfounded rhetoric we need to try to answer in kind.

  • Jeff

    Why is this becoming a “My dad can beat up your dad” argument you would hear on a preschool playground? Is this really the best answer to Ken “Bananaman” Ham?

    • Obazervazi

      I thought Ray Comfort was the one who committed the banana fallacy. Or are we just calling creationists “Bananamen” now? I’m game.

      • Jeff

        I stand corrected. I’m suffering a particularly nasty cold, I’ll blame my confusion on the medication. Sorry.

        • Obazervazi

          No worries. You’ve just made my vocabulary more awesome.

          • baal

            If I had a banana, I’d banana in the morning, I’d banana in the evening all over this land! I’d banana for justice and for freeeee-e-dom.

  • Rene Belloq 12 inch figure

    I can’t believe creationists have better design sensibilities than atheists. Our billboards are hideous. I’m a designer, I can help out. Because I’m about to become a creationist looking at how badly designed those atheist billboards are. And who the fuck cares about Julia Sweeney. And WTF is with that weird message.

  • Rain

    Publicity war! Run!

  • Roger Peritone

    Screw it. Here’s my ONETIME reply to any and all AIG billboards:

    “Citation needed!




    (and no, the bible doesn’t count, that’s question-begging)!”

  • m6wg4bxw

    I can’t think of a better way for a super god to tell someone he wants to meet and be friends.

  • $925105

    Oh no, I hope that didn’t cut into their science research fund.

  • Robster

    Well if this god thing is sooo powerful, why not send the old jesus down to collect whatever it is the god thing wants. It’s all here waiting…just don’t hold your breath.

  • Anna

    Well, I’m thrilled. I’d rather have the money of AiG supporters going to ineffective ads like this one instead of more propaganda at the Creation Museum.

    Ditto. The more money they spend on things like this, the less money goes to their more harmful endeavors. The billboard will have absolutely zero effect on their target audience, and I’d wager a good number of theists will be turned off by it, too.

  • Mark Tarr

    All he wants for Christmas is you? So the son of God, who is God, wants to celebrate the fact that the woman he raped, gave birth to himself so he could kill himself for sins he invented, by beings he created, in a world he made? I think what he really wants is a good psychoanalyst.

  • Shazam

    They (The Delusional God believers) truly should start learning about history and the fact that the earth has been around for MILLIONS of years and thus trumps anything they could ever say! Genesis is so wrong on what it says that ANY Logical person should clearly see how Absurd it is, For anyone wanting to follow that up please go to this link: cheers ;-)

    • Ann Onymous

      Not all theists are creationists. Some of them ratchet up the cognitive dissonance in order to have reasonably liberal/reality-based views (on science and other topics). I’m not saying that cognitive dissonance is good, though it does mean that many theists won’t vote for creationism in schools. That pic doesn’t really apply to all theists, only creationists, and it’s unwise to lump all theists in with the fundies.

  • Dan Robinson

    quoting bible verses to people who don’t believe in the bible seems….stupid.
    Of course it’s standard operating procedure for fundies.
    Fundies…Fun Dies…yep.

  • busterggi

    “He’s coming to get you Barbara”
    One zombie is just like every other zombie.

  • thunderridge

    I saw a Ken Ham post on FB about this. He does the atheism is a religion bullshit. All his followers agree. Lots of why fight against something that doesn’t exist comments by his FB followers. I liked Ham because I find his posts entertaining. But I do get frustrated.

  • Quint Daulton

    God exists by two falls to a submission….

  • TiffanyinTexas

    The ad at the bottom is much more appealing. Happy families are a much better sell than anyone in the entertainment industry. By using an entertainer you open yourself up to “all entertainers are liberal leftwing crazies” and a pastor is going to rip you apart during his next sermon.

    Put “normal” people up there…. factory workers, families, business owners, doctors, elementary teachers, etc.