Agnosticism, Atheism, ReligionAtheist Commercial (fake) October 30, 2013October 30, 2013 Nate Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading... Related Published by Nate View all posts by Nate
38 thoughts on “Atheist Commercial (fake)”
Thought this was a cool video, though I’m not sure why the voice changed at the end there…
Voice-over. The video reminded me a bit of the Apple Manifesto:
So, I looked it up:
Friendly Atheist post this on 2/4/13
Where a commentor said:
It didn’t run anywhere. This was originally an ad for Scientology, but Dusty Smith took it and reworked the ending to make it an atheism ad.
And Hemant replied: “I was being sarcastic in the post. I guess that didn’t come through clearly. Sorry!”
Where we fight theists stories which get changed over time into urban legend, why put this up without an explanation — if you knew it, Nate? Even the channel this comes from doesn’t doubt it.
Skepticism before Confirmation Bias
This is a lie
Ooops, I mean, a myth or an archetype or …
We can put Progressive Christian spin on this video’s origin and still embrace that it was an Atheist Commercial.
It is a cool video: be curious, dare to think for yourself, seek and respect knowledge.
These principles are not religious; they stand incompatible with the kind of woo Sabio likes to respect (too often mistaking complexity as evidence for mysticism) so it’s no surprise to me that his he doesn’t deal with these enlightenment principles straight up and honestly (and why they are embraced by atheists) but slides a sideways criticism into his comment as if meaningful.
Nate, not sure, but that voice at the end sounds like Dusty, from the Cult of Dusty. I think you might have uploaded a version he tweaked. His catchphrase is “Logic.”
Brilliant ad, though.
Here’s the original (for Scientology):
Now I get why the ending was overdubbed. I still like it though. And I think it functions way better as an atheist commercial than a religious one.
Sabio, it’s hard for me to tell, but are you criticizing nate for not researching the origins of the commercial and then writing a summary of those findings?
Isn’t that a little extreme? It almost resembles a lot of effort to find fault.
Look, it’s a video that is advertising atheism. maybe it was originally for something else, but in its current form, it’s an atheist commercial that nate thought was “a cool video.”
it doesn’t prove anything and nate doesn’t seem to imply it does. Are you suggesting nate was wrong about his own opinion?
I may be confused… it happens.
I had never heard of Cult of Dusty, but after watching one of his videos, I agree that the voice is similar…
Well, Nate, after prompting, you did a little research and found the actual video which no longer discusses it being a SuperBowl Ad. And now you can see why the voice over.
As you can see, skepticism isn’t as highly valued among some Atheist as we’d like to imagine. When something supports the cause — to hell with reason, retractions and doubt.
Sabio, this is about a video. My purpose in posting it wasn’t to discuss who made it and for what reason, it was just to view it. I still think it’s a cool video, and that it seems to support the ideals of most atheists and humanists more than it would support religious ideals.
Why should I retract it? I’m having a hard time understanding your criticism here…
That last sentence at the end of the original one, “what’s true is what’s true for you.”. That phrase makes me shudder in a very bad way. What’s true has no dependence on what I wish it to be.
Sabio, I don’t know you from imaginary adam, but you seem to be trying to make an issue out of nothing.
@limey — agreed!
Limey, did you research the etymology of “true” and its uses throughout time? if not, Sabio has something to say to you.
As limey says — the Scientology comes out. It is a cool commercial of tweeked deception with deception inside and then with the widely bought foolishness of the SuperBowl thing — read Hermat’s thread — people were sucked in.
Keep it up, of course. I am having a bad day today, here is an atheist site putting up a fake story about a girl committing suicide because she wanted to join Daddy in heaven. And some Atheists went running to it. And when confronted, just said, “Yeah, but it still gives a good story.”
I get the same rationalizations from theists — and the same disgust for doubting.
ah, so you’re upset because the heading said it was a Superbowl ad and it isn’t going to be shown during the Superbowl. I didn’t notice until now. Thankfully you brought that lie to the surface. thanks.
and sure, people of all religions and non-religions are people. and are at time devoid of logic, reason and doubt. Good catch on that one too.
Whhheeeew, that was refreshing. I thought it was going to be an all out “Attack Sabio” fest here.
Yes, I would replace the video of the post with the original and in the article tell that this was a scientology video — touched up by an atheist — try to find by who.
Maybe the title should be “Atheist Modified Scientology Superbowl Ad”
That would be instructive and not all this confusion because a video was seen, loved and posted.
I think there’s a difference between this video and a false story about a girl committing suicide.
For one thing, I wasn’t posting this because I thought it was actually aired during the super bowl. I doubted that it had been — and even if it had, I didn’t really care. But maybe I should have clarified that.
I only posted it because of its content. It may have been originally used for something else, but I still thought it was cool (still do). Just like if I posted this image:
Am I using it unfairly, since the picture was probably taken for another purpose?
I think a false story about a girl committing suicide is very different. The purpose of that story is to elicit an emotional response to the horrible tragedy of such a thing occurring. If it didn’t actually occur, then the story doesn’t accomplish its goal.
I see this video differently because what it states has nothing to do with whether or not it actually aired during the super bowl.
Does that distinction seem reasonable, or are these two things more similar than I’m suggesting?
Just updated the title.
Sabio, I guess.
I dont agree, though.
nate posted a video he thought was cool… I dont think there needed to be full disclosure for anything, or that there was anything to disclose. And I dont quite get the confusion aspect since the only thing that might be confusing was the source of the video – something nate never spoke on.
I have to admit though, I find it odd that you’re so anal about a video being posted as “a cool video” but then defend a religion that centers around a miraculous conception, a messiah who is his own father, who died but brought himself from the dead, walked on water, and flew into heaven… but yeah, the world needs to know that video never aired during the superbowl.
Admittedly, they are apples and oranges, but i would have thought the other way around from your position.
thanks for changing that nate. Now when are you going to fix your gravity picture so there is no confusion surrounding it?
I mean, for starters, the lamb is in the air, but gravity would prevent him/her from staying there. You may want to ensure any passerby to your blog knows that picture is only a moment in time when the lamb is at the apex of his/her leap.
is it me or is it ewe?
OK, I’ve contributed all I can here.
Calling me “anal” (ad hominum?) kind of such the conversation.
I’ll let your final criticism stand.
Yep, different posts.
Sorry to bother you boys.
No bother. Sorry if my post was misleading.
Sabio, I didnt look at your blog till now, and have only glanced at your “about” section. I may have been mistaken about your religious views, but i do think your issues with nate on the video he posted were petty and grasping.
That being said, maybe I just don’t appreciate the gravity of it. Either way, i think it’s resolved now.