The AiG ad
Offline Kevin and I got into a spat on Hamby's blog over the AiG ad
Seriously, this is fucked-up. This ad is telling kids to fucking shoot people who don't believe in God in the face. There is no alternative interpretation.
I then posted this link from the AiG website. Which says that the ad does not mean shoot atheists in the face
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/you-matter-to-god
For those who do not want to increase their traffic
Why do young men walk into schools and start shooting? From Columbine to Dawson College to a small Amish community, today’s newspapers report stories of young people without hope, without a sense of right and wrong, who end up destroying the lives of others with just the pull of a trigger. And it’s not just young men in schools—this year in America, more than 1.8 million people will suffer a violent crime1 and up to 1.4 million babies will be killed2. And what about Africa? The Middle East? South America? Around the world, senseless violence destroys lives because some people no longer value life. Is there any hope? Is there any truth? Are there answers?
Every day we are inundated with evolution-based messages intended to remove the Creator from the fabric of our society, our lives, our thoughts. But if we evolved from lower life forms, then the Bible can’t be trusted and life’s supposed billion-year history is one of continual death and struggle.3 If the Bible isn’t true, then why should we be fair and kind and love our fellow human beings, as the Bible teaches?4 After all, evolution relies on survival of the fittest—no matter who gets in the way.
The Bible says something very different. Genesis tells us that we are created in God’s image.5 We matter to God6—we are fearfully and wonderfully made.7 We were not created through millions of years of violence and death, as evolutionists believe; God did not create us to be violent! Therefore, when we commit acts of violence and evil toward our fellow man, God is grieved. And God has been grieved by these recent acts of violence in the headlines.
The Creator holds each person accountable for their sinful deeds. But God chose to send His perfect Son8 to the Cross to pay the penalty9 for our sin—our failure to obey Him. He did that for us.
Those who feel that neither they nor their actions matter to God lose their motivation to care for the lives of others or for their own life. God’s Word—beginning in Genesis—can rescue people from hopelessness. Help others find hope, truth and answers. Please take some time to read and share the articles linked below. We trust you’ll find them helpful.
- The ‘missing link’ to school violence?
- The “Why?” question—why is school violence in the headlines again?
- Life—a gift from God
- The human body—God’s masterpiece
For the record, this ad is stupid and moronic, and I refuse to have any part of it.
I however refuse to call it something that it's not.
- Login to post comments
Offline When I watched the ad I immediately viewed it as saying, "If you don't matter to God, you might as well not be alive." I thought this because that's exactly what it says. If you watch the ad without presuppositions about it, that is the message it conveys. It's virtually impossible to "watch it in context" if it's shown at random times of day on TV.
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline No. The "Imagine no religion" ad depicts precisely, an image which might be in the absence of religion. It calls to mind what religion can do, as is intended, it does not depict it. There's a difference, you might want to double check what you think depict means.
Oh brother, why not just pick up a dictionary yourself, and then judge of i used the word "depict" incorrectly here.
Here you go:
verb [ trans. ]show or represent by a drawing, painting, or other art form.• portray in words; describe : youth is depicted as a time of vitality and good health.
Or in other words an image with a caption that represents what religion can do, is an image with a caption depicting what religion can do.
Do you think this ad is potent in it's intended message, as a stand alone piece?
It depends on what you mean by potent? If you asking if the ad was potent enough to even inch me towards the view that godlessness leads to the mentality of child shooters, than no, but I doubt any ad, no matter how well made would convince me of that. But the ad was not made for such individuals as myself, who are not so easily persuaded by plays on the emotion.
I do believe that ad is potent it what it tended, potent for those who already associate child violence with a sense of disbelief and meaninglessness. Just as the Dawkins ad is potent for individuals who already associate the 9/11 attacks as being religiously motivated. I find it to be an affective ad to rally their masses, to cheer their choir.
Wow, you've really missed the point there. Let me make it simple:
The sun rising over a spectacular skyline - not a violent image
Someone holding a gun to your head - inarguably a violent image
ah, silly rabbit tricks are for kids, let's reread what you originally wrote, for which i responded to:
"you'd be an idiot to think that God Delusion was trying to evoke violent reactions because they aren't making a violent demonstration in their ad, the same cannot be said for the AIG ad."
You seemed to have this silly belief that only images that make violent demonstration evoke violence. Images of swastikas can evoke violence, cartoons of Mohammad can evoke violence. In fact Individuals can use such images to evoke violence.
Apparently you can't grasp that we're not talking about skylines, but a picture of the twin towers captioned with words "imagine no religion". Recall in my example of an ignorant person the individual only had this image, and the knowledge that individuals intentionally flew planes into the twin towers, their motivation is what the person in the example was ignorant of, just like individuals seem to be ignorant of the child shooter in the videos motivation, even though they video conveys the motivation as meaninglessness in the shooters life.
For such individuals ignorant of the motivation for 9/11, it can be a possibility that 9/11 was committed by atheist who wanted to rid America of Christians. They could have seen the image of the twin towers, and the motivation of the 9/11 hijackers to be this as well. And the intention of the ad was to evoke violence in atheist, so they go around killing theist.
Let's break this down for our slow to reason ones.
What assumptions being made here?
assumptions about the motivation for the child shooter, assumptions for the motivation of the 9/11 hijackers.
if we assume the 9/11 hijackers were motivated by atheism (that they were atheist) the ad would be interpreted quite differently, and incorrectly when the surrounding context is understood
if we assume the child shooter is a believer (rather than a disbeliever or a child who found his life meaningless), and is motivated by his theism, the ad would be interpreted quite differently, and incorrectly when the surrounding context is understood.
You'd be stupid to associate violence with an image which is not violent. It's that simple.
I say you compared apples with oranges. Looking at an image of a gun pointed at your head and saying "this seems to be endorsing violence" is not like looking at a sunset and saying "this seems to be endorsing violence" can you not see the difference?
Well you seem to keep forgetting that we're not talking about sunsets, or just a picture of a random building, rather than a building with a history, whose picture alone recalls 9/11. But for my purposes I wasn't talking about solely the picture of the twin towers in the ad, but the caption as well. The image conjures up the events of 9/11, and we are then inclined to ask if the image condones or condemns the act.
A mere picture of a child holding a gun to your head, is not necessarily an image condoning child violence, it could just as well be an image condemning it. We would have to understand the surrounding context to know what was intended with it.
Well that was a mistake, wasn't it? The ad was not easy to understand at all. It was confusing and disturbingly poorly written.
Easy is relative right? I thought it was easy to understand, and I despise what the ad suggests. And I'm not exceptionally smart, I only have a bare-bone knowledge of AiG, but i understand what the ad was depicting even before I saw the AiG quotes in the OP.
It doesn't allude. That's just the problem. It's not subtle and suggestive, it's direct and disctating, that makes it a push not an allusion. And the problem is it's unclear about what it is pushing.
I'm sorry but I don't find it unclear. Creationist claim that Theory of Evolution is unclear to them, and doesn't make sense. Our ravaging atheist on the forum believe the same about the AiG video. And I'd wager that the intended audience for that video, would understand exactly what it implies.
I doubt you're going to find a theist confused and wondering if AiG is looking to have his children go around shooting atheist.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Well, imagine this: all you knew about 9/11 was that some individuals ( u had no clue as to their nationality and religious affiliation, if they were atheist or not) hijacked a plane and crashed it into the towers. If you saw the image depicted in the ad, would you be an idiot to assume the ad might be endorsing the 9/11 attack. This is one such interpretation based on your limited data, is that the ad is claiming that we should rid the world of religion (which the ad actually is to some degree advocating), but you assumed that it was advocating to do so by violent means, such as the means used by the 9/11 attackers.
But there is no hint of violence in the ad, in fact it shows the scene absent of violence unlike the actual scene. You can say shwarstica all you like but we associate that sign with violence we don't do the same with a sunrise. It would be controdictory
It's only clear to us what the Dawkins ad is claiming for a few main reasons, we know Dawkins background, and because we know the 9/11 attackers were Arab Muslims, and that some individuals believe the attack was religiously motivated.
You may want to take away dawkins background part, I have no clue it was his untill now.
Now if we placed the AiG ad in similar context we would understand the same. AiG has long been harping about school shooting as being caused by teaching evolution and children not believing in God, long before the ad. We also know the sketch of the shooters, as depraved children, who were hopeless, and viewed their life and the lives they taken as meaningless. We also know that some theist have long associated the teaching of evolution, and the spread of atheism with this phenomenon.
It's only by understanding the context of the image that we understand what the Dawkins ad means, that Dawkins is not endorsing the act. Those who claimed Dawkins was advocating violence after being made aware of the context of the ad, would be idiots.
I had no clue AiG has been going about that before now, just like I didn't know that picture was dawkins. But I do know about the school shootings like I do know about the identity of the 9/11 hi jackers and I could not tell they were related. It was a bad advert, witch could be interpreted as christians shooting atheists but more likely people kill if they don't know god. Your initial reaction may be the first but it is likely you would come to the second if you thought about it for a minite.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
Offline Manynames, if you can't see the difference between an image which simply reminds you of violence or pain and one that depicts clear and imminent danger toward your life (a gun being pointed at your head) then you'll find yourself in the minority.
My first impression of the video was that they were trying to toss off some old, debunked morality argument about how non-religious/non-christians can kill because they don't have there values. So I understood what there original intentions were from the start but that doesn't take away the fact that the video was still horrible in the message it tried to send. They wanted a shock factor so the video would stick in people's minds. While the other arguments presented in this thread ran through my mind shortly after I watched the video I knew my first interpretation was probably correct since I'm somewhat familiar with Christian/AiG tactics.
- Login to post comments
Bah, forgot the blog link
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/04/14/campus-killer-and-indoctrination/
For the record, I think our dear Captain is right that the ad wasn't designed to be bat-shit crazy. The result, however, is decidedly on the bat-shit end of the crazy scale.
I mean, I'm sure they were thinking, "If children don't fear God, they're going to shoot everyone," but it turns out children with access to firearms will shoot everyone, regardless of their belief or geographic location. Maybe they even thought people would understand what they had in mind. But because they aren't sane, the message is violently ambiguous, and easy to mock as terribly inept (see the comments on YouTube).
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'd add some mouse droppings to the scale as well.
I think it stinks of horse shit.
If you have god in your life you won't feel worthless and go out and shoot people...is that what I am reading?
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
I think that's what they were trying to get across, yes.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm tempted to say that bat-shit would be just shy of ape-shit, which would be the rough equivalent of "it goes to 11".
Mouse-shit crazy would be "a little eccentric", wouldn't it? I'm thinking like Dean Radin. I mean, the guy seems to be an okay guy, but he's a little eccentric. Nothing against him, just a little mouse-shit crazy.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
yes, that indeed seems to be what they're saying.
This is a picture of an aircraft carrier. Because I said so.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Kev, that's the most awesome yo-yo I've ever seen. If you're going to make a comment about how bat-shit crazy something is, don't distract people with awesome yo-yos. Now I just want to know where I can get one. And I suck at using a yo-yo.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
For the last time Kevin, the link is from AiG which ran the ad. The link explains why they ran the ad.
Let's do a run down
I have seen AiG try to link evolution and atheism to the downfall of society, I however, have never seen them say "shoot atheists in the face", why would they start now?
So shall I take Sam Harris' remarks as permission to kill religious people?
I have no idea when the ad campaign started, but the video Kev linked to is two years old. Probably released near the time that the "naturalselector" youtube user pulled a murder/suicide.
Not that it matters, the irony is still palpable.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
AiG explains a lot of things, Alison. Here they are explaining how archaeology supports the Bible. Why the Hell would a statement from a website that runs on nothing but lies suddenly be the gospel to you?
The video shows a kid pointing a gun at the viewer and follows-up with a threat. How is that somehow not promoting violence? Because AiG says it's not? Awesome logic.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Out of context, I'd have to go with Kevin's interpretation. I read this post first, and then went to Kevin's thread to watch the ad, and even forearmed with the knowledge of what the ad is supposed to mean, it still says, "If you don't matter to God, you don't matter to anyone," with some strapping well-armed blue-eyed blond kid making threatening gestures with a sidearm. What it intends to say and what it actually says may be at odds. The ad itself may be violently ambiguous. But my initial reaction was definitely very much like Kevin's: "That little fucker with the gun thinks I don't matter because I don't believe in god!"
If the ad takes several paragraphs to explain, it's a terrible ad to begin with (which is pretty much what you seem to be saying, Cpt: it's a terrible ad, but it doesn't advocate killing atheists).
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I have to admit, when I watched the video cold, i was unclear on the message it was sending. I kinda thought it was the kid who was the atheist, though I can't tell you why.
god -- I tried you on for size.... you were a little long in the crotch, loose in the waist, short in the length and you made my butt look extra flat. I had to take you back for an exchange.
1] Why didn't they say that you might as well kill atheists? AiG HAS to lie about archeology, and evolution, why would they lie about the intention of the ad? I've seen them pull the "evolution makes you shoot people" message before.
2] Like I said, nothing else on the website remotely implies they want to kill atheists. Why start with this ad?
3] It was probably a shock tactic to get your attention so you come to the website. yeah, it was poorly planned, but nothing on the site says kill atheists
Every time you guys fight like this, I think you're dating. Kev, I told you to find some sluts. What are you doing still on the internet?
Surely you can agree that the message is weird enough to be unclear. Obviously they're not saying "go forth and kill atheists, for it is your tank-top duty!" but it does take you a second to figure out what the hell they mean.
Especially if you're an atheist, and your thought process goes:
"Hey, what's with the gun, kid?"
"If you don't matter to God--"
"Yeah, I don't. I'm an atheist, so--"
"you don't matter to anyone"
"Whoa! What the fuck is with the gun and the I don't matter??!? Holy shit, guys! Calm the fuck down!"
Honestly, it made me laugh it was so crazy. I didn't know what the message was, I just knew there was a kid with a gun and a voice-over telling me I didn't matter. Yikes!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
CptPineapple can not concede that the ad could be interpreted as "hunt the unbeliever".
Kevin can not concede that there are other potential interpretations of the ad.
Because, were either or both make those concessions, it would essentially be polar opposites finding common ground. There would be a massive shift in the world, with much joy and triumph, the skies would open and rain manna on the people and dogs and cats would live in peace, Osama Bin Laden would convert to Judaism and the Pope would preside over his next mass worshiping Isis while skyclad, then Canada would break off from the rest of the northern American continent and sink into the oceans there to join Atlantis as the second nation to achieve pure enlightenment.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Apperently a mint chocolate chip cone would do the trick.
Yes. To be honest, when I first watched the video, I saw the AiG title, and pretty much knew what they were saying. Take away the AiG title and tag at the end, then it would be creepy
For the record, I believe Kevin and I both think the picture he posted is an aircraft carrier
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
"...Oh, hey guys. How's things been? Oh, yeah, wish you'd have done a bit more wateproofing... everybody wishes that at some point. Oh, JillSwift says hi, by the way..."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
They're claiming they didn't intend the ad the way Kevin took it, sure, but I've got to say in his defense, it is reallly hard to believe that. The voice over directly proffers that you can "not matter" to God and hence to anyone at all (perhaps not to this guy here with a gun, even, now wouldn't that be a tragedy).
I mean, what is the implication of being told such a thing with the virtual image of a gun barrel directed at your head? If it's that being an atheist will render you lost, desperate and gun happy .... Hello, I'm Uncle Monkey mice to neet you!
PS. The yoyo is seriously cool looking.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Think of it this way:
If that ad was exactly the same, except it had a middle-eastern man in a turban walking towards the camera and he sights an AK on the camera we would all be denouncing it as advocating that the Muslims hunt us down and kill us. I can imagine it now: "If you don't matter to Allah, you don't matter to anyone." The fact that it is a kid in a wife beater makes it a bit ambiguous, but my first thought was that he was a Christian about to kill someone who 'doesn't matter to god.' After visiting the AiG site I see that they meant the ad to mean the opposite. They should have made it clearer in the ad. I really thought it was a thinly-veiled threat against those who 'don't matter to god.'
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
I agree, the add was definitely not advocating shooting atheist in the face, but rather suggesting that the kid shooting felt like he didn't matter to anyone, so he went around shooting. It was cheap attempt to make a comparison to the columbine shooters. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the arguments of AiG, would have perhaps understood what the add was implying.
But at the same time, I can see why some people, who hastily viewed the video, might have assumed like Kevin did. But Kevin now having some time to think about the video in context, particularly with the accompanying articles by AiG, should at this point understand that his interpretation of the add was incorrect. And should admit that he jumped the gun on this one.
I don't think Kevin jumped the gun at all. The very fact that anyone could view this crap in such a light suggests that THEY jumped the gun by publishing such garbage in the first place. It's a lie, no matter how it is viewed. And worse, some could see it as advocating killing. It happened, it can't be argued against.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
surely what AiG wanted it to mean is irrelavant? If I wanted a ad to show love and I put a video of someone who looks like a prostitute that doesn't mean it shows love. The ad shows whatever you see. If Kevin saw a christian shooting an atheist well then that is what he took from it. Just because AiG wanted it to show something different doesn't mean thats what comes through.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
But it's so vague as to be an almost random collection of threatening words and images at first. I mean, it really took me a second to figure out what they were on about. But I sure as shit knew I wasn't on their team!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Mmmmm ... mint chocolate chip ice cream ... wait, what were you saying?
Then it would be creepy? I'm sure you mean "even creepier".
They're so crazy. Like Turbo Crazy with Zing Woop Boing sauce, and a side of Yamma Yamma P'kow Zoom.
And when you agree, it no longer seems that you're dating.
I'm clearly projecting the fun of my love life onto you. I apologize.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
When I watched the add I thought it meant exactly what Kevin concluded. Although I think AiG might have wanted a different message to reach me, to mix a young kid and guns in a video is just plain stupid anyway. I think any non-religious person (who doesn't go around killing people) would feel that Kevin's interpretation was what the video was implying. Perhaps AiG realized this and made sure to mean something else although allowing for other scary interpretations to easily exist.
I think those guys are so bent that there's no telling what they're thinking.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
What this boils down to is a sort of martyr syndrome in atheist, who would like to feel that theist are out to kill them. Anyone who believes Ken Ham, and the AiG crew desire for theist to murder atheist is just plain delusional, no different than the bipolar chick living next door to me, who feels her mom and sibling are trying to kill her. l
I don't know what's dumber, to believe that by being taught evolution children can end up killing others because they find life meaningless, or to believe that even with a passing knowledge of the organization the AiG video is out there promoting the shooting of atheist.
Seriously dudes, get a life, it ain't that serous. Don't head for the bomb shelter just yet.
Wow. "Martyr symptom in atheist (sp.)" huh? That's a new one. Pretty serious projection, there.
Uhm...it takes serous projection to believe that the AiG video is promoting the killing of atheist. To see such shapes in ink blotches, only speaks for the interpreters desire to see it there. One sees this sort of mentality in those cheesy christian martyr plays, where well off and shallow suburban teens attempt to envision a world in which their beliefs get them killed by the Atheist of the future. Such fantasy allow such believers to render more importance to their belief system than it deserves.
What's on display hear is no different. As with the multiple responses, after the original poster made it abundantly clear with supplemental material from AiG what the video is intended to depict, of individuals whose delusional desire to believe that Ken Ham and crew are out to kill them because of what they believe. These sort of delusions are no less cringe inducing when they come from atheist.
Are you serious? A young kid pointing a gun in a direction of the camera (ie. viewer) with no audio would give me the impression that I was meant to feel targeted. I'm not afraid of the video nor of AiG, I was just giving my initial impression of the clip. I even stated that they probably intended a different message, but could not think they did not realize other possible interpretations.
I think horror movies are meant to scare me too, but I don't blame the directors.
You are ridiculously full of fail.
I apologize but if you understood what they were trying to say within context, like actually read what AiG wrote as the OP already quoted:
"Why do young men walk into schools and start shooting? From Columbine to Dawson College to a small Amish community, today’s newspapers report stories of young people without hope, without a sense of right and wrong, who end up destroying the lives of others with just the pull of a trigger. "
...and still believed that the video suggests that we should start killing atheist, you're just being delusionally paranoid.
In the American context, for those even quaintly familiar with the news, the image of a child shooting conjures up memories of the Columbine shooting, the Virgina tech massacre, pointless acts of violence, without cause, by children in despair, who find their own lives, and the lives of other meaningless, that taking their life and the lives of others was easy. Though the answer proposed by the video may be cheap, the question it raises is a serous one. Despair often leads individuals to give into their destructive impulses. Some of the worst instances of human cruelty sprung from a surroundings of despair, hunger, poverty, isolation, apparent meaninglessness. And what sort of viable worldview can orient us away from that? Perhaps, humanism?
AiG proposes that it's only a religious worldview that can do so, and regardless if this is a naive assumption, or outright wrong, this is the point they were trying to paint. It take a real nut, or at least someone quite ignorant of AiG, and recent American headlines dealing with child violence, to propose that the video is suggesting even subtly that we should start shooting atheist.
It speaks far more of what the delusional desire to see in the video, than what the video actually has to say.
duplicate post
I have a desire to interpret a kid pointing a gun at 'me' as him wanting to kill me? Damn my desires.
The clip itself doesn't claim any apparent stance about the kid and my assessment was on the clip alone, meaning as if I had no other knowledge of AiG or their motives.
I took the clip 'within context' you want me to take the film plus all the knowledge of AiG and all their apparent motives. It is very possible that many people who see this know nothing of AiG, and I think a clip with a kid pointing a gun at them will be interpreted as a threat.
I'm not claiming I know all motives of AiG through this clip, I was merely stating what my initial impression was.
For those seeking context: all of us should be familiar with that popular God Delusion ad, with the image of Twin Towers still intact, and the words "imagine no religion". We understand what the image suggests, that without God Beliefs those towers would still be here, those lives would not have been taken. The AiG video attempts to convey something similar, but rather suggesting that with a God belief, children wouldn't be shooting people, the Columbine Massacre would not have happened, Virgina Tech would not have occurred, etc......
I'm sure most of you would go, "what an idiot", if you heard someone come on here believing the ad suggested that Atheist should go blowing up buildings in this supposedly dominantly Christian nation, there by ridding the world of believers one by one. If you could get how stupid this would sound, than you'd have an idea how ridiculous some of you sound to me.
Well, i guess i could say that the idiot believer in my example wouldn't be as dumb, if he was totally ignorant of 9/11, besides the buildings being blown up. Then I guess he wouldn't be so dumb in assuming that "imagine no religion" meant imagining no religious by killing them off. But then again, I would tend to believe that someone so ignorant, is perhaps not the sharpest tool in the shed.
But I already said, in my previous post, that it's not as dumb to interpret it as a threat if an individual is ignorant of the context in which the video is framed. But it is pretty dumb, and delusional to believe the video is a threat when the context is given, such as after reading the OP's quotes from AiG.
Apples and oranges, mate. The God delusion ad doesn't depict people commandeering airplanes with stanley knives, the AIG ad doesn't depict happy peaceful learning at going on undisturbed at Virginia tech.
You'd be an idiot to think that God Delusion was trying to evoke violent reactions because they aren't making a violent demonstration in their ad, the same cannot be said for the AIG ad.
Its dumb that the creators of the promotion themselves set out a page of rationalisation and "context" so people can be expected make sense of what they intended to say, for a start. Doubly dumb is that it's not a very good rationalisation anyway.
All round it's a crowning achievement in fail - there was never realistically any way that image could convey the message they claim to have intended with it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I think everyone's been taking this one interpretation to its extreme because it's a possible interpretation at all. With the twin towers, that was put pretty well. It wasn't confusing, and it didn't take you a second to figure out what they were on about.
With the kid and the gun in your face, it's pretty vague for a minute, there. Keep in mind that I know I don't matter to God, because the odds of God existing are infinitesimal. So to me, the ad goes from being vague to fear-mongering. I don't think they're really threatening me themselves, they're just fear-mongering.
If that's the case, then with the Dawkins ad, you have "wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about this shit?" and in the AiG ad, you have "If you don't get with God, kids are going to be pointing guns at you."
I'm sure you can appreciate the difference.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I understand AiG has a rationalization of their video. I took no real offense, nor was I terrified. I merely stated that, like Kevin, my intial impression was of a religious kid pointing a gun at me (the person who doesn't matter to god). I'm not afraid to leave my house now... I just felt that was what I was being told.
I think we can all agree that if we need to go look up websites and disclaimers to understand the intent of a tiny commercial... it isn't a very good commercial. I merely suggested that maybe AiG realized my interpretation would occur to the non-religious and maybe desired this effect.
How is this delusional or stupid?
I'm not angry at them. They can say all they want.
it's far from apples and oranges mate, in fact you could even say they're both apples, one add may be a bit more decipherable, only because, besides from people living under a rock, we all know what happened during 9/11, and an idea of about who did it. One add is a depiction of what religion can supposedly do, and the other is a depiction of what supposedly having no religion can do, I don't think anyone with even a semi-sensible mind at this point would argue this.
Well, imagine this: all you knew about 9/11 was that some individuals ( u had no clue as to their nationality and religious affiliation, if they were atheist or not) hijacked a plane and crashed it into the towers. If you saw the image depicted in the ad, would you be an idiot to assume the ad might be endorsing the 9/11 attack. This is one such interpretation based on your limited data, is that the ad is claiming that we should rid the world of religion (which the ad actually is to some degree advocating), but you assumed that it was advocating to do so by violent means, such as the means used by the 9/11 attackers.
It's only clear to us what the Dawkins ad is claiming for a few main reasons, we know Dawkins background, and because we know the 9/11 attackers were Arab Muslims, and that some individuals believe the attack was religiously motivated.
Now if we placed the AiG ad in similar context we would understand the same. AiG has long been harping about school shooting as being caused by teaching evolution and children not believing in God, long before the ad. We also know the sketch of the shooters, as depraved children, who were hopeless, and viewed their life and the lives they taken as meaningless. We also know that some theist have long associated the teaching of evolution, and the spread of atheism with this phenomenon.
It's only by understanding the context of the image that we understand what the Dawkins ad means, that Dawkins is not endorsing the act. Those who claimed Dawkins was advocating violence after being made aware of the context of the ad, would be idiots.
The OP already provided what the context of the AiG, I'll repeat it again for the second time: "Why do young men walk into schools and start shooting? From Columbine to Dawson College to a small Amish community, today’s newspapers report stories of young people without hope, without a sense of right and wrong, who end up destroying the lives of others with just the pull of a trigger. "
Any semi-intelligent individuals, not fixated on their own delusions, after being made aware of this context would be quite dumb to assume the AiG was advocating shooting atheist.
Well, I believe the Dawkins ad, and the AiG ad were effective in what they intended to do, in getting cheers from their respective choirs. But both ads are relatively clueless to what religion, and being non-religious can do. I'd wager that most theist, at least American theist would understand what the AiG ad is claiming. I highly doubt a child some where is going to see the ad and feel compelled to pick up a gun and shoot atheist.
A discrepancy in this interpretation rises among anti-theist, atheist who are so deluded by their passions, that they're paranoid that Ken Ham wants kids to shoot them.
I find it quite delusional, and paranoid to believe that AiG intended for people such as yourself to take the ad to mean they advocated kids (not even adults) shooting you. That's a real stretch of the imagination.
Imagine a world in which we would have to provide disclaimers for fringes. Disclaimers for moon landing conspiracy theorist, nut jobs who believe the Governments out to kill them. Imagine if Richard Dawkins had to write a disclaimer for idiots who might take the imagine no religion ad the wrong way.
The fact is the world can't always be accommodating for people on the short bus.
The interpretation of the ad, as one advocating children shooting atheist, is hardly a sensible interpretation of it, and for those who hold it, it only reveals theit desires to see it there, a delusion created by their passions.
Well, if you believe the AiG ad was fear-mongering, and the Dawkins ad wasn't, it goes to showcase your confirmation bias rather than your keen reasoning.
But I would love to have my fun. So what makes the AiG ad "fear-mongering" and the Dawkins ad not?
I really loved how you attempted to distinguish the two with the oh so sweet: "wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about this shit?" for the Dawkins ad, and the harsher "If you don't get with God, kids are going to be pointing guns at you."
Let's try this interpretation of the Dawkins ad for fear-mongering purposes: "If we don't spread atheism, religious nuts are going to kill you", and a sweeter interpretation of the AiG ad: "wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about this shit (school shooting)?"
What's weird is that if anything, the Dawkins ad is attempting to evoke your fears, of another 9/11 happenings, evoking our everyday fears of another terrorist attack happening to us, claiming that atheism is the protection from it. It's being the victim that's on display in the Dawkins ad. That the spread of atheism is for our own protection.
While the AiG ad, it's the perpetrator, it's not the victims of school shootings, but the shooter himself who is of concern. The ad speaks of rescuing him, giving him meaning. The ad is not intending to invoke our hostility towards the shooter, as the Dawkins ad does towards the 9/11 perpetrators, but rather our affection for them, being that they are children. What's on center stage of the ad is the saving of the child shooter, to give his life a sense of meaning and purpose, what's not on stage is saving our own skin.
The Dawkins ad attempts to evoke our anger and fears concerning 9/11. While the AiG ad attempts to play on our sense of compassion for children, even when they are the shooters.
Even though it has happened a few times here, you'd be hard pressed to find individuals fearful of being victims of a mass child shootings. I know of no mothers fearful that some crazy kid at their child's grade school is going to bring a gun and go on a rampage. A top criteria for electing government officials is not how well they can safe guard us from future columbine shooting, like it is for how well they can protect us from another terrorist attack.
For school shootings, and such acts of child violence there isn't much fears to evoke. While on the other hand fears over another terrorist attack are real, for many people. We have a national warning system to tell us when the risks are high. We're also ripe with anger and resentment towards terrorist. So fear mongering, and playing on the anger of individuals is fresh for the picking for those conjuring up images of 9/11 to sell books.
So you tell me, which ad is fear mongering here?
No. The "Imagine no religion" ad depicts precisely, an image which might be in the absence of religion. It calls to mind what religion can do, as is intended, it does not depict it. There's a difference, you might want to double check what you think depict means.
Well it's intended that it is, according to the AIG website. But honestly it fails to do so in epic fashion, it really does. It positions it's motley assortment of dramatic instruments ambiguously at best, and just plain backwards at worst.
Do you think this ad is potent in it's intended message, as a stand alone piece?
Wow, you've really missed the point there. Let me make it simple:
The sun rising over a spectacular skyline - not a violent image
Someone holding a gun to your head - inarguably a violent image
You'd be stupid to associate violence with an image which is not violent. It's that simple. That is why it would be stupid to associate Dawkin's ad with endorsement of violence and for this reason, I say you compared apples with oranges. Looking at an image of a gun pointed at your head and saying "this seems to be endorsing violence" is not like looking at a sunset and saying "this seems to be endorsng violence" can you not see the difference?
You don't need Dawkin's background to make sense of it at all. It helps to know that the twin towers were felled by religiously motivated attacks, but even if you were ignorant of that back story you would not have any reason to percieve an endorsement of violence, it simply associates a pretty picture with secularity.
Your premise is flawed so there's nothing more I need to say.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com