Originally posted by Devil King
That's what I'm saying. All groups are stereotyped in media.
of course. Wait, as a male, you are a sex crazy booze drinking, beer bellied, slob jock right? don't have 3 working brain cells? Obnoxious friends your wife/partner hates?
men are oppressed!
Originally posted by Devil King
But there are no atheists channels because atheists see no need for one, because they aren't propogating an agenda. Atheists or non-denominationalists don't need anyone to agree with them.
I just think it is that there is no demand for programming that just re-iterates atheists believe to themselves, largely because atheists normally define themselves by other lines, like political or social, rather than religious, and have massively various tastes.
That being said, the plethora of atheist books have done gangbusters, so to say there isn't a market or that atheists don't want propoganda is a mistakes imho. Sam Harris talks about something related at the atheist alliance banquet: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c.
Especially pay attention to the woman who introduces her. It is exactly like she is describing a religious experience when describing Harris' book. And I agree with everything he has to say about why calling oneself an atheist is unhelpful. Personally, I'm more a fan of Jonathan Miller's reasoning: http://www.abriefhistoryofdisbelief.org/ (I don't have a special word for disbelief in faeries and unicorns) but it is good.
But ya, a general skeptical/atheist channel on TV... maybe its just a numbers thing, I largely don't think there are many differences between large organized groups. If atheists become so organized, a propoganda outpost would probably be in their interests.
Originally posted by Devil King
They simply need not to be bashed over the heads with christian's opinion and condemnation. But when it happens to a christian, they cry prejudice and unfair persecution and immeadiately profess their right to do the same thing as protected by freedom of speech and religion. They seem to think that they should be protected from criticism or rebuttal simply by virtue that they are christians. Well, those rights don't magically become more important when the person possesing them is a christian.
we are in total agreement.
In a country where calling someone possibly having at one point been a Muslim could make them unelectable, it seems laughable to think Christians are oppressed.
However, they think not saying prayer in school is oppression of their beliefs.
(and by they I am refering to christians who think this. If you don't thats great, I'm not the idiot you should be pissed at. Its not like I'm making stuff up).
Originally posted by Devil King
It's why they always make up the argument that America was founded by and for christians.
Which, were I an American, I would spend the majority of my time trying to debunk. Most founding fathers, at least those I am familiar with, were very strongly against the power of the church and religion in the political sphere.
Originally posted by Devil King
As for the last sentence, why not just say "mainstream tastes"? Why does it have to be "American" mainstream tastes?
Its all I am really familiar with, aside from Canadian, which is ok. We make good art house movies, better than some American, but there isn't enough of a distinction to warrant them being different genres, more just different flavours.
It wasn't a put down, more just specifying what I was talking about.