Does the media promote atheism?

[TheAtheist]

The obfuscation starts when people associate ‘secular’ with “no religion”.
90ish% of this world believes in God/s therefore no media (or nation) has the authority to call themselves secular.

Well i wouldn’t go that far either - at least in terms of avowed status of a nation.

Eh, i might as well say it - its never received well in any forum I’m on be it a Muslim one, a Christian one, heck even atheistic one.

The secular culture which is prevalant in the modern world is essentially a compromise position.

Why the compromise? Simply put, because while you all my be dreaming of a Catholic country - there’s a whole bunch of other people living in the same country dreaming of their own little perfect denominational culture, or a different religion, or no religion at all.

So if were to say, take all these viewpoints shake’em up in a hat and pull out let’s say that the moral ethics of Scientology should govern your particular country - chances are that if you are a scientologist you’d be happy.

I wouldn’t. You wouldn’t. The Shi’ite Muslim wouldn’t. etc.

So we’re stuck where we are because the alternative…well…you’ve all seen the alternative in places like Syria.

…unless you folks want that alternative…

 

[ManOnFire]

Yes. They see religion as the cause of wars.

 

[The_Reginator]

Thank you, TheAtheist!

The obfuscation starts when people associate ‘secular’ with “no religion”.
90ish% of this world believes in God/s therefore no media (or nation) has the authority to call themselves secular.
I just read that there are 3ish% atheists in the USA but citizens believe the number to be 25%. This demonstrates that their perception has been whitewashed; most probably by “the media”.

Peace be with you, TheAthiest.
Simon.

As often happens we have a problem with language and perception.
With their default position being ‘secular’ l find that the portrayal of religion, especially in fictional shows (as opposed to news), is for more sympathetic towards atheism.

irreverentPS: Don’t you know that 75% of statistics are made up on the spot?

 

[TheAtheist]

As often happens we have a problem with language and perception.
With their default position being ‘secular’ l find that the portrayal of religion, especially in fictional shows (as opposed to news), is for more sympathetic towards atheism.

Now part of me really really wants to run a Cohort study with a group of you in one room watching the same show as a group of the Dawkinites in another room and gathering your opinions on what you see…

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I can’t think of a single fictional TV show that portrays atheism as a positive.

Can you? Maybe 1 or 2?

Ones that poke fun at certain belief systems, but not at belief per se.

 

[irreverentPS]

As often happens we have a problem with language and perception.
With their default position being ‘secular’ l find that the portrayal of religion, especially in fictional shows (as opposed to news), is for more sympathetic towards atheism.

irreverentPS: Don’t you know that 75% of statistics are made up on the spot?

As I got the numbers off the Gallup Pole (did I spell that correctly?) perhaps they weren’t made up on the spot…

 

[irreverentPS]

Well i wouldn’t go that far either - at least in terms of avowed status of a nation.

Eh, i might as well say it - its never received well in any forum I’m on be it a Muslim one, a Christian one, heck even atheistic one.

The secular culture which is prevalant in the modern world is essentially a compromise position.

Why the compromise? Simply put, because while you all my be dreaming of a Catholic country - there’s a whole bunch of other people living in the same country dreaming of their own little perfect denominational culture, or a different religion, or no religion at all.

So if were to say, take all these viewpoints shake’em up in a hat and pull out let’s say that the moral ethics of Scientology should govern your particular country - chances are that if you are a scientologist you’d be happy.

I wouldn’t. You wouldn’t. The Shi’ite Muslim wouldn’t. etc.

So we’re stuck where we are because the alternative…well…you’ve all seen the alternative in places like Syria.

…unless you folks want that alternative…

Ah! I was hoping you’d get to this:

The alternative, as you so engagingly put it, is not Syria.
Since 90ish% of humans are God/s fearing, the alternative is atheism.
You’re correct: "we folks don’t want that alternative!

 

[TheAtheist]

Ah! I was hoping you’d get to this:

The alternative, as you so engagingly put it, is not Syria.
Since 90ish% of humans are God/s fearing, the alternative is atheism.
You’re correct: "we folks don’t want that alternative!

But that “90ish%” believes in God(s) in all different ways…and within that 90ish%, there’s enough personality types in each particular category that has an unfortunate habit of not taking too kindly to when other people don’t believe in the same manner.

Hence…Syria…or Secularism.

Option 3 - where a predominate faith occurs over a whole nation-state is possible.

But how often are those whose beliefs are at variance with the predominate faith necessarily respected?

 

[irreverentPS]

But that “90ish%” believes in God(s) in all different ways…and within that 90ish%, there’s enough personality types in each particular category that has an unfortunate habit of not taking too kindly to when other people don’t believe in the same manner.

Hence…Syria…or Secularism.

Option 3 - where a predominate faith occurs over a whole nation-state is possible.

But how often are those whose beliefs are at variance with the predominate faith necessarily respected?

Um…, TheAthiest, I’m trying to understand what you’re trying to say so please clarify:

Personality types also occur within the atheistic community and so also have “the unfortunate habit of not taking too kindly…”.
Your conclusion “hence…Syria…or Secularism.” fails to distinguish between 90ish% God/s and 5ish% atheists.

How in the world did you include secularism with syria?
What are you trying to say? Please be clear (not cryptic).

Where did “option 3” come from?
Was the hyphen you used at “nation-state” meant to be a comma?

Your final sentence is a nice roundhouse but what is the relevance?
Again, clarity not cryptography, please.

 

[TheAtheist]

Um…, TheAthiest, I’m trying to understand what you’re trying to say so please clarify:

Personality types also occur within the atheistic community and so also have “the unfortunate habit of not taking too kindly…”.
Your conclusion “hence…Syria…or Secularism.” fails to distinguish between 90ish% God/s and 5ish% atheists.

How in the world did you include secularism with syria?
What are you trying to say? Please be clear (not cryptic).

Where did “option 3” come from?
Was the hyphen you used at “nation-state” meant to be a comma?

Your final sentence is a nice roundhouse but what is the relevance?
Again, clarity not cryptography, please.

Ok…let’s try this again.

The thread was started on the idea that somehow the media promotes atheism.

Many of your co-religionists have denied this. I also join them in denying this - precisely because I know a ton of atheists who feel just as slighted by the current culture in the media as some of the members of your religion.

The issue at hand is how to interpret “Secular.” For some Secularism = Atheism. Hence the whole “the media must be promoting atheism.”

I would contend that’s bad logic. Ultimately, Secularism doesn’t care about religious affiliation or lack thereof. As has already been stated - it promotes a spectrum of beliefs from what can be defined as “Classical Liberalism” to PostModernist Relativism.

For the religiously motivated or those who adopt nontheistic philosophies (Ayn Rand, Marx, Scientism a la Dawkins/Hitchens/et al) - this is an anathema.

However, its the option we are stuck with. Because the alternative may raise your specific religious code above all others - but it does so at the expense of everyone else (to varying degrees).

the result of this usually means a Fight. And when I mean a fight, I mean dead bodies. Lots and lots of dead bodies.

Hence the example of Syria - where a coalition of Alawites and Christians have run the country, sometiems at the expense of the Sunnis and Shi’ites. If/When the Assad regime falls - what do you think is going to happen over there? Are they all going to sit around the campfire, sing “koombaya,” and speak of mutual respect and admiration for each others beliefs?

Or are people just going to die.

Hence - two choices - 3 outcomes.

1.) We stick with the secular culture which at the very least allows us go about our business. Most of the time.

2.) We Fight. Somebody Wins.

The other folks who lose either Die or Live in a repressed situation worthy of something akin to Saudi Arabia.

I suppose someone here (as they have on other forums) will raise the inevitable 'But we can convert them all to our viewpoint!"

…
…

Convert them? All of them? Without a hint of violence?

…
…

To which i’ll say to any who might espouse such a viewpoint - i’m very happy that your particular religion has a hierarchy that deals with affairs like these instead of leaving it up to a random person to decide.

 

[RobbyS]

But that “90ish%” believes in God(s) in all different ways…and within that 90ish%, there’s enough personality types in each particular category that has an unfortunate habit of not taking too kindly to when other people don’t believe in the same manner.

Hence…Syria…or Secularism.

Option 3 - where a predominate faith occurs over a whole nation-state is possible.

But how often are those whose beliefs are at variance with the predominate faith necessarily respected?

Robespierre and Danton were secularists.Talleyrand, the ex-bishop was an atheist of the worst sort. I should say skeptic. The Devil is a skeptic. Some say he knows God, but his ago is such as to fill the universe.

 

[TheAtheist]

Robespierre and Danton were secularists.Talleyrand, the ex-bishop was an atheist of the worst sort. I should say skeptic. The Devil is a skeptic. Some say he knows God, but his ago is such as to fill the universe.

Does the modern definition of secularism, with its penchant for relativism fit the examples you stated?

Robespierre and Danton did not respect alternative viewpoints - they both attempted to force a set of principles down the throats of the French people. The Parisians took to it quite well, the rest of France did not.

This isn’t the political correctness that is currently held up as an icon for civic discourse.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Robespierre and Danton were secularists.Talleyrand, the ex-bishop was an atheist of the worst sort. I should say skeptic. The Devil is a skeptic. Some say he knows God, but his ago is such as to fill the universe.

Which definition for “skeptic” are you employing here?

Odd coincidence: there’s actually an article in World News right now about the French protesting the construction of a Mosque. How do you feel about that skepticism?

 

[irreverentPS]

Ok…let’s try this again.

The thread was started on the idea that somehow the media promotes atheism.

Many of your co-religionists have denied this. I also join them in denying this - precisely because I know a ton of atheists who feel just as slighted by the current culture in the media as some of the members of your religion.

The issue at hand is how to interpret “Secular.” For some Secularism = Atheism. Hence the whole “the media must be promoting atheism.”

I would contend that’s bad logic. Ultimately, Secularism doesn’t care about religious affiliation or lack thereof. As has already been stated - it promotes a spectrum of beliefs from what can be defined as “Classical Liberalism” to PostModernist Relativism.

For the religiously motivated or those who adopt nontheistic philosophies (Ayn Rand, Marx, Scientism a la Dawkins/Hitchens/et al) - this is an anathema.

However, its the option we are stuck with. Because the alternative may raise your specific religious code above all others - but it does so at the expense of everyone else (to varying degrees).

the result of this usually means a Fight. And when I mean a fight, I mean dead bodies. Lots and lots of dead bodies.

Hence the example of Syria - where a coalition of Alawites and Christians have run the country, sometiems at the expense of the Sunnis and Shi’ites. If/When the Assad regime falls - what do you think is going to happen over there? Are they all going to sit around the campfire, sing “koombaya,” and speak of mutual respect and admiration for each others beliefs?

Or are people just going to die.

Hence - two choices - 3 outcomes.

1.) We stick with the secular culture which at the very least allows us go about our business. Most of the time.

2.) We Fight. Somebody Wins.

The other folks who lose either Die or Live in a repressed situation worthy of something akin to Saudi Arabia.

I suppose someone here (as they have on other forums) will raise the inevitable 'But we can convert them all to our viewpoint!"

…
…

Convert them? All of them? Without a hint of violence?

…
…

To which i’ll say to any who might espouse such a viewpoint - i’m very happy that your particular religion has a hierarchy that deals with affairs like these instead of leaving it up to a random person to decide.

That’s not quite what I asked for but never mind, let’s not waste any more time.
As far as theclarifications I requested go, please explain this sentence:
“where a predominate faith occurs over a whole nation-state is possible”.
Did you mean to say:
“where a predominate faith occurs over a whole nation, state is possible”.
Your explanation begins with a strawman fallacy: secularism = atheism.
From that point onwards, as entertaining as your rhethoric and hyperbole is, it fails to tackle the question of “Does media promote atheism?”.
Since you say and therefore understand “secular=religions+atheism”, you still do not clarify how your stipulated “personality types” (see my previous) distinguish between 90ish% God/s and 5ish% atheists.
Your “I mean a fight, I mean dead bodies. Lots and lots of dead bodies” requires that distinction.

 

[ahs]

Your explanation begins with a strawman fallacy: secularism = atheism.
From that point onwards, as entertaining as your rhethoric and hyperbole is, it fails to tackle the question of “Does media promote atheism?”.

In fairness, I don’t think this is an accurate statement and TheAtheist is not using a strawman. He said plainly that the media does not promte atheism.

Others have said that media promotes secularism, and deduced that therefore the media promotes atheism at least to some degree. What TheAtheist said is that this is a problem of THOSE persons equating secularism to atheism.

The issue at hand is how to interpret “Secular.” **For some **Secularism = Atheism. Hence the whole "the media must be promoting atheism."

This is not a strawman, it is a reasoned response to why there is this issue between those who think media promotes atheism (by merit of it promoting secularism) vs those who prefer to call the medias agenda “moral relativism”, or the like.

For example, if I say the media promotes secularism and moral relativism, but not atheism…it’s because I believe these terms are not equal. It’s then my responsibility (if this were an actual debate) to explain why I believe these terms are not equal.

If another person says the media DOES promote atheism by merit of it promoting secularism or moral relativism…then that person then bears the burden (if it in an actual debate) of showing why these terms are synonynous. No?

 

[edwest2]

1. The media is not all about making money. Only a handful of corporations control most media in the United States. The owners of those corporations don’t go to work every day just to count their pennies. They have and do use their access to millions of eyeballs to support certain things and to ignore and disparage other things.

A) The media is hostile to religion, with Christianity at the top of the list. It does promote people who rail against religion, like Penn Jillette.

"On Monday evening, magician, comedian, author and outspoken atheist Penn Jillette spoke at a Barnes & Noble in Manhattan, New York, about his thoughts on secularism and his most recent book, “God, No!” "

So, let’s look at secularism: “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.”

And let’s look at Secular Humanism: secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what_is

It is quite clear that secular humanists and secularists, don’t want anything to do with God/gods or religion, and would not mind you joining them. The very strong - dogmatic - disconnect with religion means that they are not theists, and in the example with Pen Jillette, are active in promoting a Non-God way of living.

B) While the “other religion” receiving criticism is handled a bit more gently, Catholics are not. A bit of history:

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=606

C) Bill Maher. "Nuff said. George Carlin is no longer with us.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Robert_Sock]

1. The media is not all about making money. [snip]

No, the media is there to guide the way people think (mostly passive thinking at the present time). The media shapes our values and morals. The media is an important part of our national security. On a more positive note, the media also keeps everyone in the population on the same page in a rapidly changing world. I firmly believe that someday religion will dominate the media! Not during our lifetime perhaps, but in due time.

 

[Bradski]

So, let’s look at secularism: “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.” The very strong - dogmatic - disconnect with religion means that they are not theist.

I don’t think you understand the term secularism as I do.

Yes, it’s the exclusion of religious considerations - which means all religions. That is, a specifically Muslim or Hindu view has no more influence on decisions than a Christian or Jewish one. That is not to say that a person espousing secularism is not a Christian or a Hindu. It’s just that he or she is discounting religious viewpoints from the matter in hand.

So you can be religious and be a secularist. A Muslim secularist, for example, is not a contradiction. Turkey is 99% Muslim yet is a secular state.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t think you understand the term secularism as I do.

Yes, it’s the exclusion of religious considerations - which means all religions. That is, a specifically Muslim or Hindu view has no more influence on decisions than a Christian or Jewish one. That is not to say that a person espousing secularism is not a Christian or a Hindu. It’s just that he or she is discounting religious viewpoints from the matter in hand.

So you can be religious and be a secularist. A Muslim secularist, for example, is not a contradiction. Turkey is 99% Muslim yet is a secular state.

Catholics are encouraged to be involved with politics. So, when we enter a debate or a decision-making process involving other people and ourselves, do we shut our religious part of the brain off and leave the secular part on?

There are some instances where religion is not useful in coming up with an answer, like 2 + 2 = ? But, we do not park our religion at the door when entering the public square.

Secularists will quote men from the past here all the time. While Christians think along different lines to arrive at the true answer. Those who own the media have temporal power. They can be influenced by others. I recall a true story dating back some years where a newspaper owner was threatened with the loss of advertising from a certain company because they heard the paper was about to print a negative story about them.

Somewhat more recently, a TV ad that featured the singer, Madonna, was pulled due to complaints.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bradski]

Catholics are encouraged to be involved with politics.

And why shouldn’t you be involved? But at least you are admitting that you have a secular viewpoint as well as a religious one.

…do we shut our religious part of the brain off and leave the secular part on?

In regard to politics for example, you can, indeed must, base your personal decisions on your religious beliefs. But within a secular society (in which we both live), your arguments for a particular viewpoint must be secular and not religious. So for example, if you wanted gay marriages to be illegal because they are sinful, then that argument wouldn’t be valid. It is specifically a religious argument.

You’d need to turn on that secular part of your brain and make a secular argument such as there would be a specific harm to society and you’d have to make your case. Then everyone can debate on equal terms.