Underage Christian Double Agents Sabotage Atheist Ad Campaign

I think this is a riot:

www.timesonline.co.uk...

I confess that I have a weakness for interfaith squabbles, especially when so many of both religions involved, Christian and Atheist, take these things so seriously.

Please forgive me for chuckling about this.

how is that sabotage at all?

i dont see where thats coming from

the point of the ad was literally what it said "dont label the children"

in the god delusion dawkins points out that its absolutely absurd to call a 5 year old a christian when they arent old enough to have made that decision.
labeling children (and people) pretty much makes them whatever youre labeling them instead of letting them be who they want to be.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by eight bits

He said that the children’s Christianity had shone through. “Obviously there is something in their faces which is different

Oh for goodness sake , this is like saying I know my horse is fed organic food because you can see it in his smile.

LoL This article made me laugh so hard.
people need something better to do with their time.

reply to post by eight bits


great find. just forwarded it to a bunch of my friends. cracks me up. i have no idea why dawkins is running a creepy ad campaign and no idea why evangelicals are trying to infiltrate it. dawkins has all the same trappings of an evangelical religion of you ask me.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by eight bits

 

great find. just forwarded it to a bunch of my friends. cracks me up. i have no idea why dawkins is running a creepy ad campaign and no idea why evangelicals are trying to infiltrate it. dawkins has all the same trappings of an evangelical religion of you ask me.

They are doing exactly what they complain about the christians doing.

Doesn’t buy this “hilarious” business, sound the nafferty
The nafferty

Stock photos sites sell exactly that: stock photos.

My web hosting service website has pictures from a stock photo place of hot chicks with headphones used to represent tech support, it does not mean that they are in any way affiliated with the service. It just means they had their pictures available as tools to use in an advertising campaign.

I don't see where this is controversial or unusual.

Thanks to all who responded. A few comments on points arising:

the point of the ad was literally what it said "dont label the children"

I have rarely heard a young child referred to as a "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" except as a shorthand for "member of a Catholic family" or "member of a Muslim family."

If the authors of this ad had some other usage in mind, then they could clarify precisely which "social ill" they rise to oppose. Otherwise, the plain meaning of their words is that religion ought not to be pursued as a family, but by parents only, and separately from their children.

That is obviously contrary to the customary practice of many religions. It is also contrary to the explicit teaching of some religions.

Doesn’t buy this “hilarious” business, sound the nafferty

Loved the clip, and stayed to watch the entire 10th season (2006) two-part opener. Thank you.

Stock photos sites sell exactly that: stock photos.

Absolutely. There is nothing wrong with stock photos. Nevertheless, whoever makes an ad does well to ensure that no element of the presentation conflicts with the message.

The models in this ad are real-life "victims" of the specific social ill mentioned in the ad. They are "labeled" because of their father's professional expression of their family's shared faith. Nevertheless, these "victims" are the very picture of happy childhood.

The ad needs work. Agree with its message or not, the ad fails to communicate that message effectively. It makes its audience laugh at it.

It can only add to the fun when a self-righteous group whose members regularly label people of all ages irrational, illogical, stupid, and worse, screws up something this elementary.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by eight bits]

Originally posted by eight bits
Thanks to all who responded. A few comments on points arising:

the point of the ad was literally what it said "dont label the children"

I have rarely heard a young child referred to as a "Catholic child" or "Muslim child" except as a shorthand for "member of a Catholic family" or "member of a Muslim family."

Well then you must have missed the title of the story you're posting. "Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals"

The kids are evangelicals? Neither of them look old enough to say "evangelical"

If the authors of this ad had some other usage in mind, then they could clarify precisely which "social ill" they rise to oppose. Otherwise, the plain meaning of their words is that religion ought not to be pursued as a family, but by parents only, and separately from their children.

That is obviously contrary to the customary practice of many religions. It is also contrary to the explicit teaching of some religions.

That's because religion relies on the forced, and often violent (explicit or implicit) indoctrination of children. Get 'em while they're young, terrify and berate them into believing your religion is the only religion they will ever get to choose, and then sit back and enjoy as they abuse their own children in the same fashion later on.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

Well then you must have missed the title of the story you're posting. "Children who front Richard Dawkins' atheist ads are evangelicals"

The children are described in the body of the article as members of a family headed by a minor Christian Evangelical celebrity. The headline is an example of the usage described in my post.

That's because religion relies on the forced, and often violent (explicit or implicit) indoctrination of children. Get 'em while they're young, terrify and berate them into believing your religion is the only religion they will ever get to choose, and then sit back and enjoy as they abuse their own children in the same fashion later on.

You need to get on message.

The "humanist" party line is that the ad doesn't suggest that a pious upbringing is child abuse. So, you're not helping your beleagured co-religionists who really, really didn't intend to say anything like your rant. (Wink, wink, nudge, nod.)

Atheists could defuse this whole affair by laughing about it along with everyone else. "Yeah, we screwed the pooch. Score one for the God Squad." Shrug shoulders, move on, story ends.

But no, the typical atheist reaction is yours: defensive hostility, diffuse lashing out, and denial about what the ad obviously insinuates, however artfully it was worded.

That's why this story's so darned funny.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by eight bits]

I'm an atheist and i couldn't care less about Dawkins or religious adverts.

I think people should be left alone, if a child is old enough to decide for themself then so be it... but there's far more interesting things to care about than religious belief or the lack of it.

In my opinion of course.

Might just be me but those kids definitely dont look like they are seven and eight years old... They look more like under five. I wonder if this leading christian family are trying to claim its their kids to say "look how wrong atheism gets it, ha ha".
Wouldnt put it past them.
All makes no difference anyway. Who really cares?

Or they are just using old photos. But whatever, anyway.

I admire Richard Dawkins, the man is a great evolutionary biologist. And i think he did well in opening up people to the faults of religion or discussing religion more aggressively in general, but i think Sam Harris is the better man to talk to when it comes to such things. Plus his outlook is a better one than richard puts forward.

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
how is that sabotage at all?

i dont see where thats coming from

the point of the ad was literally what it said "dont label the children"

in the god delusion dawkins points out that its absolutely absurd to call a 5 year old a christian when they arent old enough to have made that decision.
labeling children (and people) pretty much makes them whatever youre labeling them instead of letting them be who they want to be.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

Well, since our favorite anti-God people in the world seem to believe that 5 year olds aren't capable of making a decision, at what age do you, the oh-so-wise, believe that people are capable of making the decision of whether they believe in God or not? Is this something that the government needs to, once again, step in and mandate because us humans are incapable of discerning the reality ourselves?

Anyone who says that a 5 year old isn't capable of making a decision is, yet again, showing their transparency and lack of thinking. Maybe it's you who isn't old enough to make a decision, but back when I was 5 years old, I made PLENTY of decisions on my own.

"Don't climb the counter."

What did I do? I climbed the danged friggin' counter.

"Don't leave the water running."

What did I do? Leave the water running while I was brushing my teeth.

"Stop picking on your brother."

HAHAHA.

So, as you can see, it's possible for 5 year olds to make decisions. And since you oh-so-wise anti-God people are, as I just pointed out, anti-God, at what age do you feel you realized that there was no God? At what age do you expect kids to speak up and say, "Mom, dad.... sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no God." If, as you say, children should be allowed to reach a certain age before they can say, "There is a God!", then how is it that there are SO MANY ADULTS THAT BELIEVE IN GOD.

I'm surprised the anti-God people think they are so intelligent, and make so many comments claiming their own intelligence and YET continue to make illogical statements.

Be as anti-God as you want, but don't make stupid arguments. As well, WHO IN THE WORLD do you think cares about this stupid ad-campaign? Do you really think that some Christian somewhere is saying, "Oh..gosh... well, I never thought of that. I want my child to smile like that, so I better wait on the whole 'God' thing." Oh, wait, wait... Christianity isn't the only religion. Let's think about how the Muslims would be affected...

Well, glad I took time to think of that.

Catholics and Jews might be affected by a slogan like that. Maybe. Catholics --in general-- have this whole messed up thing where they think they owe 'the virgin Mary' AND society for whatever reasons. Jews --in general-- have this whole messed up thing where they think they are the most prudent and practical people on the planet and that every joke and every smart-ass thing ever said was actually first said by a jew - apparently the same jew who thought it was funny to run amuck casting shenanigans to see who he could manipulate into his own little world - or atleast that's how some jews think of Moses or Jesus. So, yeah, the weak-minded and the egotistical could possibly be swayed by such a pointless campaign. Unfortunately, the end result isn't going to be that parents are better or more prudent. The end result is going to be that the morals that their children learned in conjunction with the religious histories are going to be DISINTEGRATED because if you break-down the religious history of a particular religion and call "shenanigans" on the whole 'God' thing, then you've put all the morals taught by the very same religion AT RISK. It is a very LOGICAL thought process that would say, "Well, 1 is part of 2. But, if 2 is untrue, then isn't also 1?"

I assume the people who have made this ad campaign realize the simple logic.

Despite having said all this, I believe it is up to the parents to make their own decisions about whatever they decide to teach their children regarding God, science, religion, or what-have-you. Do we need an ad campaign to TELL PEOPLE THIS?! NO!! DUH! People will do what they think is right (or wrong) regardless. In regards to religion, people most definitely always do what they -think- is right, so even more, this is all STUPID.

I'm an atheist and i couldn't care less about Dawkins or religious adverts...

May your tribe increase, mr-lizard.

in general, but i think Sam Harris is the better man to talk to when it comes to such things. Plus his outlook is a better one than richard puts forward.

Different politics than me, and different religion, of course, but meditators need to stick together. Here's his website:

www.samharris.org...

"Mom, dad.... sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no God."

Oh, Tarzan, have you never read the Atheist Scriptures? We are all born atheists. Babies tap out "There is no God" on mommy's tummy in Morse, while still in the womb.

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

Well, since our favorite anti-God people in the world seem to believe that 5 year olds aren't capable of making a decision, at what age do you, the oh-so-wise, believe that people are capable of making the decision of whether they believe in God or not?

So you'd let a five year old vote for your president or prime minister would you??

Oh, and stop labelling people by saying all anti-god people 'believe this'.

So ignorant.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by mr-lizard]