Is Atheism on the Rise?

[Miller]

@JohnnieEnigma

But it is masculine behavior. And maybe I’m wrong to identify it as such, but that’s how I perceive it.

If you are wrong to identify it as such, should you not then work to alter your perceptions of it?

Actually, this has happened to me in the past, and the demands came from a group of women who did not share my politics; they had a difficult time accepting me or anything I said mostly since my beliefs contridicted their own beliefs. So they would demand, ‘back it up’. But these women were mostly harassing trolls, so I’m not sure they should be considered as legitimate examples in this.

And yet, you still don’t see the problem this presents you in labeling this “masculine” behavior.

Look, here’s the meat of the problem I have with you. Let us stipulate, for the moment, that women prefer an intuitive method of discussion, and men prefer a more confrontational method. (To be clear, this is bullshit. But I want to put that argument aside for a moment.) The purpose of this forum is to engage in what you term “masculine” debate. If you are posting in this forum, the assumption is that you are willing to abide by the convention of debate that prevails here. Now, personally, I’d prefer that people unwilling to follow that convention not post here at all. However, barring that, you could at least not act aggrieved when people expect you to follow it. If you didn’t want to base up your original ridiculous claim (as opposed, of course, to your subsequent ridiculous claims) then you could have elected to simply not respond. Instead, your first response to me was to question my motivations for even asking you to defend your position. Well, my motivation, as should have been obvious, was to engage you in debate, which, once again, is the purpose of this forum. Rather than do that, you instead suggested that you should receive different treatment in this forum on account of your gender. Which brings us back to the subject of your sexism. Because, it seems to me, the essence of discrimination is the expectation of different treatment on the basis of the discriminating characteristic. If you are going to post in Great Debates, you should expect to be held to the standards of Great Debates, regardless of the number of X chromosones you happen to possess. If you are unwilling or unable to meet those standards, at the very least, you should not complain when people call you on it.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Miller

If you are wrong to identify it as such, should you not then work to alter your perceptions of it?

And yet, you still don’t see the problem this presents you in labeling this “masculine” behavior.

Look, here’s the meat of the problem I have with you. Let us stipulate, for the moment, that women prefer an intuitive method of discussion, and men prefer a more confrontational method. (To be clear, this is bullshit. But I want to put that argument aside for a moment.) The purpose of this forum is to engage in what you term “masculine” debate. If you are posting in this forum, the assumption is that you are willing to abide by the convention of debate that prevails here. Now, personally, I’d prefer that people unwilling to follow that convention not post here at all. However, barring that, you could at least not act aggrieved when people expect you to follow it. If you didn’t want to base up your original ridiculous claim (as opposed, of course, to your subsequent ridiculous claims) then you could have elected to simply not respond. Instead, your first response to me was to question my motivations for even asking you to defend your position. Well, my motivation, as should have been obvious, was to engage you in debate, which, once again, is the purpose of this forum. Rather than do that, you instead suggested that you should receive different treatment in this forum on account of your gender. Which brings us back to the subject of your sexism. Because, it seems to me, the essence of discrimination is the expectation of different treatment on the basis of the discriminating characteristic. If you are going to post in Great Debates, you should expect to be held to the standards of Great Debates, regardless of the number of X chromosones you happen to possess. If you are unwilling or unable to meet those standards, at the very least, you should not complain when people call you on it.

your post is completely filled with wrong assumptions. it’s as though you placed blinders on your eyes when I stated to the moderator that I was more than willing to comply to the board debating rules.

I think you just like to argue.

[fluiddruid]

@JohnnieEnigma

But it is masculine behavior. And maybe I’m wrong to identify it as such, but that’s how I perceive it.

Do you have any evidence at all that this isn’t simply your perception, rather than a fact?

Frankly, as a female, who grew up with sisters and no brothers, and few male friends – I have no idea what you are talking about. The structure of debate is neither masculine nor feminine.

[Miller]

@JohnnieEnigma

your post is completely filled with wrong assumptions.

Demonstrate, for me, where I have assumed incorrectly, and show me why.

it’s as though you placed blinders on your eyes when I stated to the moderator that I was more than willing to comply to the board debating rules.

I saw where you said you were willing to do so. I have yet to see evidence that you are willing to do so. You have not offered any sort of evidence for a single thing you have said in this thread. You claim are willing to debate. Fine. Get started.

I think you just like to argue.

And once again, the name of the forum is…

[JohnnieEnigma]

@fluiddruid

Do you have any evidence at all that this isn’t simply your perception, rather than a fact?

Frankly, as a female, who grew up with sisters and no brothers, and few male friends – I have no idea what you are talking about. The structure of debate is neither masculine nor feminine.

The structure of the debate may be neither masculine or feminine, but the debaters I am referring to are masculine and as a result there’s a vein of testosterone or aggression that I seem to lack. I am speaking about when you’re in the heat of a passionate debate where it gets emotional; there are times where I’ve argued with others but not with the same aggression. I wouldn’t expect you to understand simply because you’re a woman. It’s just something I’ve observed.

It’s not a complaint, merely an observation of how there are different arguing styles with “some” women and men. Not all though, apparently.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Miller

Demonstrate, for me, where I have assumed incorrectly, and show me why.

example#1

I saw where you said you were willing to do so. I have yet to see evidence that you are willing to do so. You have not offered any sort of evidence for a single thing you have said in this thread. You claim are willing to debate. Fine. Get started.

I need to be in the middle of a heated debate to show this kind of evidence. And even if I did, it’s probably something that you would never acknowledge regardless of the evidence. Although we can acutally use this thread as an example… see example #1 above.

see, you need detailed examples for something as irrelevant as my personal observations, and I don’t feel like giving any. My word is my word… accept it or don’t. it’s your call. I dont’ care either way.

There’s that laissez faire attitude showing up again…

.

[Miller]

@JohnnieEnigma

The structure of the debate may be neither masculine or feminine, but the debaters I am referring to are masculine and as a result there’s a vein of testosterone or aggression that I seem to lack.

My first post in this thread, which started this hijack, was a request that you provide evidence for your claim that the mainstream media in the US tended to “frown” on religion. That’s all. That is the structure of debate. A person makes a claim, and then provides evidence or argument that supports that claim. If this constitutes “masculine” debate, then by your definitions, all debate is masculine.

I am speaking about when you’re in the heat of a passionate debate where it gets emotional; there are times where I’ve argued with others but not with the same aggression. I wouldn’t expect you to understand simply because you’re a woman. It’s just something I’ve observed.

Your decision to label debate tactics you do not like as “masculine” appears to be entirely arbitrary. And, again, more than a little sexist.

It’s not a complaint, merely an observation of how there are different arguing styles with “some” women and men. Not all though, apparently.

How much counter-evidence can you absorb before you’ll admit that your “observations” are inherently flawed? Are we eventually going to get to a point where you and you alone are “feminine,” and everyone who disagrees with you, regardless of their gender, is “masculine?” Are you familiar with the term, “No True Scotsman?”

[Miller]

@JohnnieEnigma

example#1

I’m not clear on what you’re refering to as “example #1.”

I need to be in the middle of a heated debate to show this kind of evidence. And even if I did, it’s probably something that you would never acknowledge regardless of the evidence. Although we can acutally use this thread as an example… see example #1 above.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I’m beginning to suspect that you and I have that in common.

see, you need detailed examples for something as irrelevant as my personal observations, and I don’t feel like giving any. My word is my word… accept it or don’t. it’s your call. I dont’ care either way.

Your post is your cite? Do you understand how this does not, in any way, constitute an attempt to debate on your behalf? We have an entire forum where you can post your “personal observations” all you want. It’s called IMHO. If you can’t debate, post there. If you’re going to post here, fucking debate already. Otherwise, what is the point of you posting here at all?

There’s that laissez faire attitude showing up again…

That’s not laissez faire, that’s intellectual laziness.

[XT]

@Miller

I’ve never seen the show myself, but from what I understand, isn’t House also a complete and utter bastard?

My wife watches it and loves the show. I’m unsure of your point here. You asked for a major character in a TV show that was an avowed atheist. Regardless of whether the character is portrayed as an ‘utter bastard’ or not is irrelevant…no? The entire series revolves around this character…it’s named for him after all.

How about the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? Though I would consider him more an agnostic he wasn’t negatively portrayed. How about the main character in the movie Contact? She was decidedly atheist. Weren’t most of the characters in Star Trek atheist/agnostics? Weren’t several of the characters in MASH atheists including Hawkeye?

You originally asked for ANY atheists in movies, TV or books.

-XT

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Miller

I’m not clear on what you’re refering to as “example #1.”

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I’m beginning to suspect that you and I have that in common.

Your post is your cite? Do you understand how this does not, in any way, constitute an attempt to debate on your behalf? We have an entire forum where you can post your “personal observations” all you want. It’s called IMHO. If you can’t debate, post there. If you’re going to post here, fucking debate already. Otherwise, what is the point of you posting here at all?

That’s not laissez faire, that’s intellectual laziness.

you really know how to pick your arguments (not), a debate about debating. this has to be the most uninteresting passionless argument in the history of the board - yet you proceed. And I’m thinking what the frig did I start. it must be all the aggressive testosterone that’s driving you to prove some pointless point, is all I can think.

[Revenant_Threshold]

Yes, it must be his aggressive testosterone filled nature that causes him to argue in such a passionless way. The logic is airtight and inescapable!

Any response to my point that your view means we’re right upthread?

[Miller]

@xtisme

My wife watches it and loves the show. I’m unsure of your point here. You asked for a major character in a TV show that was an avowed atheist. Regardless of whether the character is portrayed as an ‘utter bastard’ or not is irrelevant…no? The entire series revolves around this character…it’s named for him after all.

I asked for a sympathetic protagonist who was an avowed atheist. House, from what I understand, doesn’t count, because the purpose of his character is to be the “guy you love to hate.” Again, I haven’t seen the show, so I’m just going on second-hand information there.

How about the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan? Though I would consider him more an agnostic he wasn’t negatively portrayed. How about the main character in the movie Contact? She was decidedly atheist.

Carl Sagan was openly atheistic, but how much did that play into his appearances on Cosmos? Did it ever come up in the context of the show?

Contact is a good example, although Brown-Eyed Girl beat you to it.

Weren’t most of the characters in Star Trek atheist/agnostics?

I’ve no idea. Were they? Maybe in TOS. I do recall that the Baijoran religion was a major part of the plot to DS9, and the focus of their religion, The Prophets, were explicitly shown to exist in the course of the series.

Weren’t several of the characters in MASH atheists including Hawkeye?

I seem to recall Hawkeye being religious, but I could be mistaken.

You originally asked for ANY atheists in movies, TV or books.

Actually, I just asked for movies or TV, and not just any atheists, but atheists whom the audience was clearly intended to sympathize with.

My point, which you asked about at the beginning of your post, was that JohnnieEnigma’s contention that religion is generally “frowned on” in popular culture is plainly unsupported by the facts. Which I think has been amply demonstrated, as so far the only concrete example we have so far is Jodie Foster’s character in the movie Contact. I’m sure there are more than just her, but they are few and far between, particularly when contrasted with the number of religious or spiritual characters whose beliefs are positivly portrayed.

But apparently, I only think this because I have a penis.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Revenant Threshold

But this assumes that your perceptions, intuition, and observations are valid. I mean, I prefer the more harder evidence because all of these things from me would depend only on one person, me; why on earth should I accept my views alone when clearly, by the very fact that others disagree with me, I could be wrong?

that’s the thing. You don’t have to accept my views whether they are valid or not. I would think just sharing different opinions and arguements on a subject should be enough without having to try to change anyone’s minds. Believe me, I’ve learned so much by simply discussing differing beliefs. The recent atheists threads were so completely interesting to me, and I learned so much from them … although it doesnt’ mean that I’m going to stop believing in God. I just have a better understanding of atheists.

When you believe or think something, aren’t you basing your opinion on your personal prejudices or values, your perception of the world, as well as the facts? There are many factors that determine why we think as we do or what influences us. How are you suppose to cite that? That’s why I’m always stumped when I say something and someone says, prove it. And that’s why I think many times this need for proof is a way to shut down or discredit someone who does not share the same beliefs.

And I perceive it otherwise - and therein lies the problem, because if we don’t use harder evidence, our views are of exactly equal merit. Except that if you value perceptions, intution, and observations - and more people disagree with you than agree, from their views - then by your own system of reasoning you are wrong in this case.

I agree, if your argument is based on facts that you can be cited, and others are calling for “proof”, then indeed prove your point. But like I said, there are many factors that go into why we think as we do which cannot be cited unless you had a complete history of the person’s life.

[Miller]

@JohnnieEnigma

I agree, if your argument is based on facts that you can be cited, and others are calling for “proof”, then indeed prove your point. But like I said, there are many factors that go into why we think as we do which cannot be cited unless you had a complete history of the person’s life.

Your original claim in this thread, the one that started all this bullshit, was one of objective fact. It’s not like you claimed that God prefers his eggs sunnyside up instead of over-easy. You claimed that popular culture in America was distinctly and noticiably anti-religious. This should be a trivially easy claim to demonstrate. Instead, you hijacked the thread into an utterly ludicrous defence of your inability to form a coherent argument on account of you having breasts. If I may be so bold as to refresh your memory, the first person to bring up the nature of debate was you, in this this remarkably incoherent post. So please spare us the attitude about how boring this conversation is. If you don’t like the fight you’ve found yourself in, you only have yourself to blame for picking it in the first place.

[XT]

@Miller

I asked for a sympathetic protagonist who was an avowed atheist. House, from what I understand, doesn’t count, because the purpose of his character is to be the “guy you love to hate.” Again, I haven’t seen the show, so I’m just going on second-hand information there.

Well, mileage may vary. My wife loves that character and obviously others do to. Here is the thing…a lot of popular characters in films and on TV are pretty obviously atheists or at least agnostics…they just don’t come right out and SAY they are and beat you over the head with that stance. Just as there aren’t all that many characters that come right out as avowed born again Christian types in popular TV/Movies either…though there are obviously religious types in those media as well.

@Miller

Carl Sagan was openly atheistic, but how much did that play into his appearances on Cosmos? Did it ever come up in the context of the show?

Sure…it comes through in several episodes I can think of off the top of my head (the one about the ocean of time certainly). I suggest you watch the series…though I suggest that more because if you haven’t you have missed a real experience. Certainly his religious stance comes through in several of his books…such as Demon Haunted World as the best example but not limited to that one.

@Miller

Contact is a good example, although Brown-Eyed Girl beat you to it.

I obviously haven’t followed the whole thread…my apologies. To Brown-Eyed Girl as well.

@Miller

I’ve no idea. Were they? Maybe in TOS. I do recall that the Baijoran religion was a major part of the plot to DS9, and the focus of their religion, The Prophets, were explicitly shown to exist in the course of the series.

Well, that merely shows that there were theists types as well. I think the implication was that most were atheists (Spock for instance but not limited to him). Again, they didn’t really beat you over the head with it…it was more an implied thing. But it wasn’t all THAT hard to pick up on.

@Miller

I seem to recall Hawkeye being religious, but I could be mistaken.

I never saw any indication of that myself. I think most of the cast were, again, implied to be atheist or agnostic…even the priest (I can’t recall his name…Father Mulchay, something like that) had regular fairly regular crisis of faith thingies.

@Miller

Actually, I just asked for movies or TV, and not just any atheists, but atheists whom the audience was clearly intended to sympathize with.

Well, it’s sort of a No True Scotsman type situation then. I think most American TV/Movies are deliberately bland. You aren’t going to see many bible thumpin theists types portrayed in a manner ‘clearly intended to sympathize’ with either. In fact, you aren’t going to see a lot of such characters for the same reason you won’t see many avowed atheists portrayed positively. Mostly what you will see is characters that don’t need to have ATHEIST or BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN tattooed on their foreheads. Their religious stance (or lack there of) is implied. And I think by and large the majority of the characters in US TV/Movies are pretty much agnostics or maybe slight theists who have no particular fervent faith but still ‘believe’, at least to a certain extent. Of course, being an agnostic myself may influence my own perceptions, ehe?

@Miller

But apparently, I only think this because I have a penis.

Well, I have a penis myself last time I checked. All I can say is ‘penis ensues’ and leave it at that…

-XT

[Revenant_Threshold]

@JohnnieEnigma

that’s the thing. You don’t have to accept my views whether they are valid or not. I would think just sharing different opinions and arguements on a subject should be enough without having to try to change anyone’s minds. Believe me, I’ve learned so much by simply discussing differing beliefs. The recent atheists threads were so completely interesting to me, and I learned so much from them … although it doesnt’ mean that I’m going to stop believing in God. I just have a better understanding of atheists.

But you think they’re valid. And I think my views, differing from yours, are valid. So hey, i’ll go out tomorrow and vote to ban Christianity, because my views are equally valid as yours (I don’t think that, don’t worry).

The problem with your approach is that sometimes we want to change people’s minds. Sometimes we care enough about an issue that we want others to think the same way. Surely there are subjects where you are invested enough that you would want to argue? Surely if someone said “History shows that 90% of all Christians are bastards” you’d care enough to try and prove them wrong? Hey, i’d care enough to try and prove them wrong.

When you believe or think something, aren’t you basing your opinion on your personal prejudices or values, your perception of the world, as well as the facts? There are many factors that determine why we think as we do or what influences us. How are you suppose to cite that? That’s why I’m always stumped when I say something and someone says, prove it. And that’s why I think many times this need for proof is a way to shut down or discredit someone who does not share the same beliefs.

I do base it on those things - but I shouldn’t. Why? Because all those things are just me. My personal prejudices, values, perceptions and so on are entirely different from yours, or from Miller’s, or from xtisme’s. At the least, all but one of us are wrong; at most, we all are. How can I pretend that my own personal feelings on a matter are worth anything in terms of actual debate, when they can be so easily different?

Like i’ve said before; if you think that personal views are an acceptable means to believe a particular way, then since me and Miller and fluiddruid and Sophistry and Illusion all disagree with you, we are four times as likely to be right, because that’s four personal views against one. You should believe exactly what the majority thinks. And that’s silly, isn’t it?

I agree, if your argument is based on facts that you can be cited, and others are calling for “proof”, then indeed prove your point. But like I said, there are many factors that go into why we think as we do which cannot be cited unless you had a complete history of the person’s life.

And those factors are pretty much worthless. Personal factors are a horrible measure of evidence; they can be so easily wrong. Plus it’s a self-defeating argument, as i’ve said.

We could just sit here and say “The world is like this” “No, you’re wrong, it’s like this” “No, you’re wrong, it’s like this”; but where would that get us? How can we get at the truth of the matter without asking and saying why? If you’re happy with your laissez faire attitude to your views, fair enough. But I am invested in seeking the truth.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@xtisme

My wife watches it and loves the show. I’m unsure of your point here. You asked for a major character in a TV show that was an avowed atheist. Regardless of whether the character is portrayed as an ‘utter bastard’ or not is irrelevant…no? The entire series revolves around this character…it’s named for him after all.

Is he an utter bastard, though? The few episodes I’ve seen invariably hinted that deep down, he was a big ol’ softie who wept while flipping through his collection of kitten-themed greeting cards, i.e. there’d always be a moment during the show, if not at the very end, that made an effort to take his edge off and show how much he genuinely cared for his patients and co-workers, which would be interrupted by someone entering the room and him getting reflexively caustic to cover the moment of tenderness.

Weren’t most of the characters in Star Trek atheist/agnostics?

When they addressed the issue at all, the original series characters spoke approvingly of God. TNG had a tendency to bash 20th-century religion (and 20th-century everything, really) while suggesting approval for aliens that were “spiritual”. Characters on Voyager more-or-less followed this, without the bashing, and cheerfully accepted mangled versions of Native American rituals involving “spirit guides” and whatnot. Overall, they were dismissive of or indifferent to Judeochristianity, preferring a mishmash of beliefs barely removed (if at all) from worshipping crystals and whatnot. I don’t think the writers ever had the guts to have a character who was casually atheistic, but that wasn’t the show’s focus.

Weren’t several of the characters in MASH atheists including Hawkeye?

I don’t recall anything along those lines during the series, but the movie had a moment when Pierce and McIntyre ridiculed Burns’ bedside prayers, and to me looked like real assholes for it.

You originally asked for ANY atheists in movies, TV or books.

Anybody mentioned Cybill Shepherd’s character on Moonlighting yet?

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Revenant Threshold

But you think they’re valid. And I think my views, differing from yours, are valid. So hey, i’ll go out tomorrow and vote to ban Christianity, because my views are equally valid as yours (I don’t think that, don’t worry).

The problem with your approach is that sometimes we want to change people’s minds. Sometimes we care enough about an issue that we want others to think the same way. Surely there are subjects where you are invested enough that you would want to argue?

Yes, sometimes I would like to prove to people where they’re mislead in something… For instance, just this evening I was telling someone how I prefer to learn about facts regarding our economy, and not just count on a slanted media to report their slanted spin on the economy or withhold news for their own political agendas. I gave him the names of two sources that I can count on for real information. And right off the bat he needed to discredit one source, and assumed that I only read the editorials of another source. What can you do. You cannot stop people from making wrong assumptions which are based on their own prejudices. I know that Fox Financial Network is an excellent credible source for economic and market trends. I know the Wall Street Journal is a solid news source for the market and current trends, both without prejudice. But I cannot make this person believe it… He’s probably never picked up a WSJ or watched a Cavuto show to understand how excellent a source of information they really are. Yet he’s ready to discredit the sources. And for the record, it seems as though a lot of people have a warped perception of Fox News when they’ve probably never had the tolerance to watched it. Don’t misunderstand, there are clearly opinion shows in the mix, but also news programs. And believe me, there are times where they have reported economic trends which were never picked up by the cnn’s or msnbc’s of the world. This makes me wonder why CNN has never been accused of being slanted for withholding real information for what seemed to be political motives. OK I went off topic, but there’s an example for you.

So yes, sometimes I would clearly like to “enlighten” others, have them open their minds to new sources, and snap out of their poorly informed ignorant prejudices. But they’re unable to do it (based on their own personal prejudices, perceptions, values). Plus, I think it would be incredibly arrogant to assume that everyone needs to think as I do.

Surely if someone said “History shows that 90% of all Christians are bastards” you’d care enough to try and prove them wrong? Hey, i’d care enough to try and prove them wrong. I do base it on those things - but I shouldn’t. Why? Because all those things are just me. My personal prejudices, values, perceptions and so on are entirely different from yours, or from Miller’s, or from xtisme’s. At the least, all but one of us are wrong; at most, we all are. How can I pretend that my own personal feelings on a matter are worth anything in terms of actual debate, when they can be so easily different?

Your personal feelings can have worth in a debate if they are based on cited proof, I suppose. There are clearly differing opinions for most everything. Of course an opinion does not have to be correct or factual, or agreed by everyone. But some opinions are based on perceptions as well as facts.

Although my perception here tonight wasn’t wrong, it’s my perception which is my reality. It’s how I perceived things based on experience, observation, and so on. How we perceive things is very real for each of us.

Like i’ve said before; if you think that personal views are an acceptable means to believe a particular way, then since me and Miller and fluiddruid and Sophistry and Illusion all disagree with you, we are four times as likely to be right, because that’s four personal views against one. You should believe exactly what the majority thinks. And that’s silly, isn’t it? And those factors are pretty much worthless. Personal factors are a horrible measure of evidence; they can be so easily wrong. Plus it’s a self-defeating argument, as i’ve said.

Or maybe the four of you disagreed with me because you didn’t want to acknowledge the points I was trying to make. Could be… Personal factors should’t always be discounted though. You can’t just write them off especially if the argument is so strong and you have logical justification or “backup” for it - which is necessary in your debate format.

We could just sit here and say “The world is like this” “No, you’re wrong, it’s like this” “No, you’re wrong, it’s like this”; but where would that get us? How can we get at the truth of the matter without asking and saying why? If you’re happy with your laissez faire attitude to your views, fair enough. But I am invested in seeking the truth.

Yes, I agree…

Thanks!

[Miller]

@xtisme

Well, mileage may vary. My wife loves that character and obviously others do to. Here is the thing…a lot of popular characters in films and on TV are pretty obviously atheists or at least agnostics…they just don’t come right out and SAY they are and beat you over the head with that stance. Just as there aren’t all that many characters that come right out as avowed born again Christian types in popular TV/Movies either…though there are obviously religious types in those media as well.

That’s probably true. For the most part, they try to be scrupulously neutral, without ever really defining anyone’s beliefs one way or the other, beyond being vaguely Christian, or “spiritual.” I’d say that, for the most part, the default assumption for most characters in films and television is that they’re probably some sort of Christian, or maybe a Jew. If they’re clearly anything else, it’s usually because it’s plot relevent. And if it’s plot relevant that a character is an atheist, it’s usually because that character’s being a prick about it. In fairness, of course, there’s usually not much reason to bring up atheism unless you’re being a prick about it. It’s not really an active factor in most atheist’s lives the way religion is for theists.

But all that just goes back to my original point, which is that one cannot reasonably claim that American pop culture is noticably anti religion. If a show is going to make any point about religion, it’s going to be, “We should all just get along, regardless of our beliefs” or maybe, “Those fundamentalists are jerks, but we moderates are okay.” And while there are plenty of shows that explicitly affirm or endorse religious belief, I really can’t think of any that explicitly affirm or endorse atheism. Which, again, is sort of inherent in the concept of atheism itself. You can’t really do an atheist version of Touched by an Angel.

I’ll cut the rest of your post, except to mention that there was at least one episode of MASH that was explicitly supernatural. It’s the one where Klinger is in the hospital with a raging fever, and can see and speak to the ghost of a dead GI. They play it as kind of ambigous wether he’s simply hallucinating, or it’s really happening, but I recall it being weighted a bit towards, “really happening.”

[Miller]

@JohnnieEnigma

Yes, sometimes I would like to prove to people where they’re mislead in something… For instance, just this evening I was telling someone how I prefer to learn about facts regarding our economy, and not just count on a slanted media to report their slanted spin on the economy or withhold news for their own political agendas. I gave him the names of two sources that I can count on for real information. And right off the bat he needed to discredit one source, and assumed that I only read the editorials of another source. What can you do. You cannot stop people from making wrong assumptions which are based on their own prejudices. I know that Fox Financial Network is an excellent credible source for economic and market trends. I know the Wall Street Journal is a solid news source for the market and current trends, both without prejudice. But I cannot make this person believe it… He’s probably never picked up a WSJ or watched a Cavuto show to understand how excellent a source of information they really are. Yet he’s ready to discredit the sources. And for the record, it seems as though a lot of people have a warped perception of Fox News when they’ve probably never had the tolerance to watched it. Don’t misunderstand, there are clearly opinion shows in the mix, but also news programs. And believe me, there are times where they have reported economic trends which were never picked up by the cnn’s or msnbc’s of the world.

Man, the irony in this paragraph is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Your friend was “prejudiced” because he assumed you only read the editorial page, but you blithely assume that he’s never read the paper at all. Folks who disagree with you about Fox News have “probably” never watched it. Have you ever tried to figure out why these people disagree with you? I rather doubt it, because when I tried to figure out why you thought something in this thread, we got two pages of justifications and gender slurs. This does not bode well for your ability to accurately judge the motivations of others.

This makes me wonder why CNN has never been accused of being slanted for withholding real information for what seemed to be political motives.

They have been. Frequently. Have you really never seen this happen? What does that tell us about the ability to make accurate and useful observations in general?