Atheist Commercial (fake)

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “Atheist Commercial (fake)”

  1. Voice-over. The video reminded me a bit of the Apple Manifesto:

    “Here’s to the crazy ones.
       The misfits.
            The rebels.
                  The troublemakers.
                        The round pegs in the square holes.

    The ones who see things differently.

    They’re not fond of rules.
          And they have no respect for the status quo.

    You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them,
          disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.
    About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them.

    Because they change things.
          They invent.  They imagine.  They heal.
          They explore.  They create.  They inspire.

    They push the human race forward.

    Maybe they have to be crazy.
    How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
          Or sit in silence and hear a song that’s never been written?
    Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?

    We make tools for these kinds of people.
    While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.

    Because the people who are crazy enough to think
    they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

    Like

  2. Highly questionable.
    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

    Like

  3. 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.
    Yeah, right.

    Like

  4. 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.

    It’s not.

    Like

  5. 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.

    Like

  6. 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.

    Like

  7. 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.

    Like

  8. 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.

    Like

  9. 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…

    Like

  10. 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.

    Like

  11. Sabio, I don’t know you from imaginary adam, but you seem to be trying to make an issue out of nothing.

    Like

  12. Limey, did you research the etymology of “true” and its uses throughout time? if not, Sabio has something to say to you.

    Like

  13. 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.

    Like

  14. 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.

    Like

  15. @ William,
    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.

    Like

  16. 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?

    Like

  17. 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.

    Like

  18. 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?

    Like

  19. @ William,
    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.

    @ Nate,
    Yep, different posts.
    Sorry to bother you boys.

    Like

  20. 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.

    Like

  21. @William,
    “Anal, petty and grasping”. All that after assuming I was of another faith.
    Sure, that sounds resolved — unless you have further accusations.
    As for my opinion: Q.E.D. So good visiting this rational, skeptical atheist site.

    Like

  22. Sabio, while you’re up there on your high horse, you may be able to still read the comments you left. Your criticisms were grasping and accusatory. nate is one of, if not the most, easy going and fair bloggers I’ve run into. You jump in here as if he’s intentionally or mistakenly misleading about some video that he was only claiming was atheist (and it is) and that he thought was neat (which he seems to think it is).

    If he had made any claims regarding the origins of the video then you may have been justified. If you had simply commented on the origins of the video without your sneering accusations, then that would have been fine.

    Now you’re going act as if you’re being mistreated because of your “contributions.” And I made an assumption – which I corrected and owned up to. I am sorry about that and try to limit my mistakes, though I still fail from time to time. I just wasn’t graced with your example through my youth, so I’m human and aren’t nearly perfect.

    You were being anal. just like you were being petty and grasping. If you don’t like being described that way, then don’t be that way.

    Like

  23. Sabio, Nate is far to kind to say it, but please go away. You have contributed nothing at all worthwhile to this blog (at least in recent history). In fact, you’ve made an “anal” of yourself.

    Thanks.

    Like

  24. Ah, vintage Sabio… accuse and allude, be challenged, claim victimhood and misunderstanding of morally pristine intentions, blame others for ‘personal’ attacks, refuse to engage any further. Glad to see you staying true to form, Sabio. (William, he’d ban you if he could and claim you and your ‘tone’ were the problem, so don’t feel bad; the guy has a real problem with being challenged but no problem at all making all kinds of sly accusations. He’s a piece of work.)

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s