A Christian apologetics group “Answers in Genesis” unveils controversial billboards to challenge evolution and atheism.
Here we go with the shock advertising again. How does this advertisement strike you – as valid or infuriating?
Somewhere in Texas / Photo: Answers in Genesis
Here’s how Answers in Genesis describes themselves:
An apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively…we also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).
Apparently, AIG doesn’t seem to be the only one sprinkling such wonderful Christian sentiment around the US. Dangerous Talk has compiled, and asks people to continue sending in pictures, of the worst Christian AND Atheist billboards around the country.
Personally, I can’t believe they are implying that non-believers, or to whom God “doesn’t matter,” are going to take a gun and shoot someone in the face.
Striking yes; thoughtful, absolutely not.
Here’s the same kid featured in video campaign:
Although supposedly their beef is with evolution, I don’t see how that point is conveyed with this picture. So, according to them, believing what Darwin had to say means a person is lawless and will go on a killing rampage?
I’m honestly surprised they didn’t put an African-American or Middle Eastern child on there. But I guess they know it would completely show their prejudices. With a white kid, they can get away with “anyone can be lawless and moral-free who doesn’t believe in God.”
Equal opportunity to be a murderer, I guess.
What do you think about the message of this billboard? Share your thoughts below.
About the Author
More By This Author
Related Posts
112 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
moral of the story is to get on god’s good side or be shot by kid in wife-beater?
↵ -
this is a sick regurgitation of flat ideas in a 3D universe, perversion of thought is all religion really is, religion is really just an abject denial of death i.e. the belief in an afterlife, that all are eternal, even if you go and burn forever in hell you will still exist, and that’s still denial of Death. of the individual, the self. thy family and all humanity. none are eternal. and we all should realize that before the end.
↵ -
we should not be so objective when it comes to frames of mind, the individual MUST be Free thinking, and willing to take on new ideas, christianity has done nothing but halt progress and the spread of knowledge and all the while leeching the people of their wealth. it is a subtle mind control pyramid scheme. religion is an ancient, mystic, tribal, uncivilized way to understand the oneness of humanity, we could all be friendly, but then the carlyle group would lose out
↵ -
Please, kind sir, do share where you base your mandate that the individual MUST be free thinking and willing to take on new ideas? I get mine from Christianity. And I dare say–on this day of Independence–that the truths that our founding fathers found to be self evident (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) come from a christian world view. What say you?
↵ -
That the Founding Fathers weren’t Christian– they were mostly Deist.
↵ -
the founding fathers were NOT christians.
“One of the most common statements from the “Religious Right” is that they want this country to “return to the Christian principles on which it was founded”. However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true” –http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
also i really don’t see how christianity in any way encourages free thought or willingness to take on new ideas. that doesn’t make any sense
↵ -
i agree that not all the founding fathers were christians (some were; depends on which ones we’re referring to). but, my point stands that their sentiment “we hold these truths to be self-evident” was based on a view of morality in the world as grounded in natural law.
i’m not going to respond to your comment that christianity impedes creative or free thought. i’m not sure how i could, given your assumption…on the other hand, i’m engaging with you in a discussion about religion, history, ethics and epistemology and i happen to have a b.a from a christian university, a masters from a seminary and a thm (cand) from a major university…but, as i’m apparently a closed-minded, right winger i won’t make much of my background and education, as it might blow your stereotypes apart.
peace.
↵ -
Kelli, of course the founding fathers built the Dec. on a Christian worldview:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
I personally disagree with everything said in that sentence. Those truths are not self-evident. They aren’t truths to me. All men (humans?) are not created equal, but some are born into slavery, poverty, born with mental or physical disabilities. Rights are something that we humans install by law, and nothing else. A “right” to life doesn’t even make any sense. How could anyone not have a right to live? Only if we humans decided otherwise. Empty words all, that have been horribly interpreted.
↵ -
you seem to refute yourself, bjorn. the idea behind the sentiments of the declaration of independence are grounded in the tradition of natural law, which states that there are certain moral starting points, first principles in the universe. human rights is one such thing as is the “right to life.” i don’t understand your point of saying “how could anyone not have a right to live?” are you saying “of course we all have a right to live, but because humans say so and not because of some moral, universal, theological (et al….) mandate or principle?
if you ARE saying that, then my response would be this: human laws, if they are just, mirror natural law, and more specifically God’s law. human laws get their cred, if you will, in a higher source. without that sense of higher morality or purpose, human laws could be and often are unjust, unhelpful, etc. just think of hugo chavez or adolf hiter: they made laws that they liked and voila that was the law! didn’t matter what was right or wrong, hateful, etc. the idea with grounding human laws in something more foundational and basic than mere human desire or capriciousness is justice. thus the founding fathers said that all men WERE created equal and then in the world were mistreated etc. the difference is between design or prescription (created equal) and practicality (some are born slaves, not everyone has the same abilities, is as smart as you,
etc). so we are all endowed with basic human rights from the creator, but in the world we all have different realities, experiences. NONETHELESS we are mandated by our belief in equality and freedom to work so as not to hamper the rights of others. the founding fathers were trying to build a society in which basic human rights would become more and more a reality–prescription become description.without natural law all we are left with is: gee, if i can build consensus with others (big if) we can agree (for a time maybe) on how we should treat each other. the problem is who decides ultimately what is right and wrong? it’s flimsy at best.
↵ -
With this line, “I’m honestly surprised they didn’t put an African-American or Middle Eastern child on there.” you lose any possible credibility. What basis do you have for saying that the group is racist? If you looked beyond your own prejudice you would find that the organization is multinational, and not a whites only club. Why not try understanding what they are saying rather than writing another closed minded hit piece.
↵ -
i’m with you, sean. if anything the ad’s employment of a young, male white boy opens the group up to the reverse; the affirmation of a stereotype that some seem to make of conservative christian groups (that their comprised of hick, honkys who employ children to do their racist dirty work!).
it saddens me to see here in this story/thread and elsewhere the continual and seemingly willful stereotyping of groups that represent the “other.” it reminds me that i need to be careful not to return the favor when the shoe is on the other foot. it’s all to easy and evidence of laziness to deal in such stereotypes. why struggle to understand if you can slap a label on something and call it good?
a good thought to close the independence day weekend…
↵ -
Nah, they don’t oppress minorities… just women. I wish I wasn’t serious.
↵ -
God. = Love
You. = Opinionated
Me. = Weak
Us. = PeopleThe Golden Rule makes sense
↵ -
Truthful ad. If a person doesn’t respect or acknowledge God, what makes you think they’re going to respect you!
↵ -
What if I don’t acknowledge God, but I respect your decision to acknowledge God?
Are you really saying that you don’t trust anyone who doesn’t believe in God?
↵ -
i wouldn’t say that carlo, if i may chime in! i think it is presumptuous to say that “i only trust god-believers.” hey, there are some god-people whom i DON’T trust!
on the other hand, i do think that morality that is rooted in something other than a higher standard than human morality is more steadfast than that which is not. on the whole, i find humanistic ethics to be highly relativistic, blowing with the winds of change and whimsy. a person who follows a spiritual law–the torah, the bible–aims at least to root their morality in an unchanging standard.
that said, all of us fail to live perfectly and so i wouldn’t want to suggest that just because someone believes god’s law that they perfectly following and perfectly love others.
interesting stuff.
↵ -
Truthful ad. If a person doesn’t respect or acknowledge God, what makes you think they’re going to respect you!
Pfft, that’s easy. One piece of evidence is that atheists generally have as least as much respect for other human beings as religious people. This is well documented. Another is that we have a theory to understand why people respect and take care of each other, and it has nothing to do with God.
↵ -
hey, bjorn–
what theory are you referring to? curious.
↵ -
Gee, I dunno…I can actually SEE and INTERACT with other people. Other people have a proven ability to affect my life, for the better or the worse. God, on the other hand…
I don’t give a crap about God, even if he DOES exist. He has never responded to my prayers, even when I was an honestly fervent follower, so either he doesn’t exist, or he doesn’t care; either way, hardly someone I would care about.
↵ -
It really worries me that a supposedly modern western country is beset by the religious extremism that this advertising represents. I used to support a football team here in England until I was repelled by the actions of some of its so-called supporters. I think that the louder the extremist minority voice is raised, the more that normal, educated people will turn away from religion. So in all likelihood the scare tactics adopted by these people will do their cause more harm than good.
The worry is that if their scare tactics do not work then they will turn to the same violence that scars the Middle East and Afghanistan. Moderate church leaders need to recognise this sooner rather than later and do something rather than bury their heads in the sand.↵ -
andy–
did you blame the team for the supporters’ actions? what’s the logic there, if i may ask?
you believe that as people become educated they will turn away from religion. that is a familiar refrain, i’m afraid, but i believe in reality it has little merit. sure there are non-thinking religious people, just as there are non-thinking environmentalists. there will be non-thinking people in any group, i imagine.
finally, you think that moderate church leaders should recognize that scare tactics don’t work and do something, the logic being that moderate church leaders are “thinking enough” to do so and that moderate leaders actually exist, given the fact that educated people are falling away from religion in high numbers.
just checking.
↵ -
Thanks for your response Kelli. You make some valid points and I would like to address each of them:
did you blame the team for the supporters’ actions? what’s the logic there, if i may ask?……….
…..I did feel some guilt in losing faith in the team, but football supporters are a community in the same way that churchgoers are. And when I could feel their hatred all around me I started to question why I was spending quite a lot of money following the team. I started asking the same questions of the satholic church some years ago, followed closely by Islam and decided that the negatives of religion outweighed any positives. An interesting sideline is that in England there was a major problem of football related violence in the 1970s and 1980s but by tackling the problem head-on it was resolved and football grounds are generally safe, family friendly places, even though some of the language is colourful. I think the various religions could learn a lot about isolating and condemning the actions of their extremists. But as the child abuse scandal shows, they can be slow, defensive and downright obstructive of the law in such issues.
you believe that as people become educated they will turn away from religion. that is a familiar refrain, i’m afraid, but i believe in reality it has little merit. sure there are non-thinking religious people, just as there are non-thinking environmentalists. there will be non-thinking people in any group, i imagine…..
……There is a great deal of evidence that education leads people to question what they were brought up to believe and this may well be the biggest reason for the reduction in church attendance. You are right that there are non-thinking people in every community but I think a better response would have been to say that there are plenty of thinking people who remain religious. Your own President is probably the best example of this. But in my experience the ‘thinking’ people are drawn to the church for the sense of community and friendship it can generate, not because they believe literally in the gospels. These are the same people that will be alienated by the actions of the extreme, hateful minority. The challenge for the major religions will be to reinvent themselves by casting away the unnecessary and irrational doctrines that they ascribe to and winning over new generations of supporters by example rather than through fear.
finally, you think that moderate church leaders should recognize that scare tactics don’t work and do something, the logic being that moderate church leaders are “thinking enough” to do so and that moderate leaders actually exist, given the fact that educated people are falling away from religion in high numbers…….
……See my point above. Kelli, without wishing to sound patronising, I thought that your reply was thoughtful and I hope that you will take my response in the spirit intended.
↵ -
What does this mean? They’re desperate. This is despicable but it means nothing. Religious extremists will just nod their fearful, stupid heads in smug satisfaction, with one more piece of bullshit to reinforce their impossibly ignorant worldview. Otherwise, this can only hurt religion’s already-damaged cause. It is almost good to see – it shows just how pathetic, desperate, backwards, and downright evil the church is, and the beauty is that it’s doing this PR damage to itself. The church is on its way out, as its educated constituents are continually filtered out, leaving it with only the rabble who agree with this BS.
↵ -
I’ve seen that sign. Oh my god that’s horribly twisted. I dont believe in god, at least not in the way they may want me to, and i love my family more than life itself. This is just a blatant depiction of the worst case scenario of some godless or god fearing nut job. it goes both ways. anyone has the potential inside them to be a killer. its a matter of choices, free will and all that jazz. Although I may not conciously make the decision everyday, I have made the decision to live my life the best way I can for me and the people around me because you effect people in the smallest of ways, even if the effect is you setting them off which subsequently leads them to shooting you in the face for being nicer than they are. Everyone is probably just different on what it would take for them to point a gun at your head. sometimes it does have a lot to do with god, or someones lack of belief in your god in particular. other times people are just crazy.
From what I see, with the people I’ve met, church is just another way to cope with stuff that’s outside their understanding ( like counseling but no ones actively asking how you feel) or an easy out for forgiveness or, if you’re me, i like church because sometimes it gives me a warm fuzzy and reminds me of family.↵ -
As the insane f___tard who killed Dr. Tiller did so because he thought Christianity gave him a “Get out of jail free” card, I’d rather trust people who don’t think that a ritual cleanses them of responsibility for what they have done.
↵ -
it is not murder just very disapointing
murder is murder not words↵ -
People will respect anyone who treat them respectfully. Somehow the fundies have the idea that if you’re not one of them, you must be a person driven by the devil.
Stats show there are more christians in the jails than atheists. How can that be when
god(s) are supposed to be in control? The fundies are not acting very much like Christians when they judge others the way they sometimes do.↵ -
What’s the point in arguing/ discussing these issues? I have never met a group of people with such closed minds to the possibilities of the whole God vs evolution theory as Christians- Period… (almost like they have been brain washed in to there way of thinking) Oppps did I say that?
↵
