As you may or may not know, ABC has a show called "What would you do?". The point of it is to have paid actors play out a scenario and see what the bystanders would do. In one of their latest episodes, they depict an Atheist thrashing on a family for praying before a meal. I don't like religion as much as the next guy, but I would *never* in my life tell somebody to stop praying before a meal. Sure, I'd feel a bit annoyed, but I'd never make a scene over it. But, I *am* offended about how ABC dehumanizes atheists in this situation. It is not a believable scenario and, quite frankly, I'm a bit pissed that they would allow something like that to go on public TV, especially a family friendly channel. What are your opinions on this?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I do not watch T.V., but if what you say is true ( and I have no trouble believing so ) I agree with you entirely.
Perhaps we could take it up with the A.C.L.U
Being that A.B.C. is a corporation, I doubt that you'd get anywhere.
I suggest you send this post to David Silverman and let the American Atheists handle the insult.
He's really good at this sort of thing.
Can you get a copy of the video in question ?
That would help a lot.
I originally saw it off of Xfinity's automatic recording system (On Demand), but here's a link of the scenario from YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4SkVFrQFW4
They do whatever people will watch to sell ad space to corporations. They care nothing about truth or fair play. You're beating a dead horse
Actually I would be interested in that scenario.
I have no problem, if it is true or not.
They are just putting up a scenario, which does not matter if it happens in real life.
Though it would be fair to see the other scenarios where theists got to send their children alone on a bus tour with a priest convicted of child rape.
Wanna see what they do in that situation. :)
Faith vs Reason
While scenarios are a great way to see what would happen, the scenario at hand is very offensive and inaccurate, which a public T.V. show, that isn't a comedy, should never present.
1: The Atheist does not act like an actual Atheist would, she does everything that an Atheist would never do in this kind of scenario.
2: They use the term Atheist incorrectly. The correct term in this situation would be Anti-Theist. This leads to more people believing Atheists are only Anti-Theist. Which, as you should know, could not be more far from the truth.
3: They chose an Atheist *specifically* for this scenario. Out of all other beliefs and non-beliefs, why did they have to choose Atheism? They could have chosen Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, or some other Religion, and gotten the same backlash as they would have from the Atheist community.
Oh, wait, that's right, most of society sees Atheists as vile, horrific people, and this is only proof of it. They made the Christian family able to be related to, while the Atheist is, quite literally, the antagonist of the situation. THESE reasons are why I am sickened by ABC.
"1: The Atheist does not act like an actual Atheist would, she does everything that an Atheist would never do in this kind of scenario."
I do not think you are realizing that you are doing a generalization fallacy.
How do you know that an atheist/or any person would not do that.
I hope you meant a decent Atheist, or a good mannered Atheist.
Also he would do that not because he is an atheist but he has bad manners and is stupid.
"2: They use the term Atheist incorrectly. The correct term in this situation would be Anti-Theist. This leads to more people believing Atheists are only Anti-Theist. Which, as you should know, could not be more far from the truth."
I'm quite offended that you think that an Anti-Theist would act like that.
Again generalizing about what an anti-theists or atheist would do makes you look dumb. No offence, but you should seriously learn the proper definitions of those positions before insulting us all with such claims.
"This leads to more people believing Atheists are only Anti-Theist."
That is close to the truth, If you are not an anti-theist then you are immoral or ignorant of the suffering that theism brings with it.
If you agree that innocent child indoctrination is wrong, you are anti-theist.
You can be both an atheist and anti-theist and most atheists that understand their atheism are also anti-theists.
" They could have chosen Judaism, Muslim, Hindu, or some other Religion, and gotten the same backlash as they would have from the Atheist community."
"Out of all other beliefs and non-beliefs, why did they have to choose Atheism?"
Maybe because they all hate atheists more, since we really do show them how wrong they are and they know it.
I loved the reaction though:
Though it is funny because, it is the same reaction I would expect if a Satanist(actor) was making a satanic prayer in front of them while eating.
I said to myself, those Christians are digging their graves with it lol.
"I do not think you are realizing that you are doing a generalization fallacy."
"You can be both an atheist and anti-theist and most atheists that understand their atheism are also anti-theists."
Uh, can we just take a moment to realize that you just used a generalization fallacy?
"If you are not an anti-theist then you are immoral or ignorant of the suffering that theism brings with it."
So, because I'm not an Anti-Theist, I'm immediately immoral and ignorant? Thanks... I really appreciate that.
I'm not an Anti-Theist, and not all Atheists are Anti-Theist. That. Is. A. Generalization. Y'know, the thing you flagged me down for?
After this, I think I'm done having this conversation with you. We both have different opinions, let's just leave it at that.
"Uh, can we just take a moment to realize that you just used a generalization fallacy?"
It would be if i did not say "most atheists"
"So, because I'm not an Anti-Theist, I'm immediately immoral and ignorant? Thanks... I really appreciate that."
Welcome, the thing is that I think you are an anti-theist and you do not know it.
Most do not, it is not just you, it is very common.
"I'm not an Anti-Theist,"
You sure?
" and not all Atheists are Anti-Theist."
Agree
"That. Is. A. Generalization."
it would if I said "all", not "most"
"Y'know, the thing you flagged me down for?"
I corrected you generalization fallacy, so you learn for next time, you can learn from it or hate me for it,
It is up to you, I feel nothing towards you personally, actually I' happy for you since now you would surly be more careful.
It should help you in real life debates too.
You failed to answer my question which I think solves the problem.
Do you agree that children should be indoctrinated in a particular religion before they are mature enough to understand what is being forced upon them?
If yes, then we can end our discussion here, I would not wish to speak to you either.
If no, then you are a fellow moral atheist and anti-theist since you care about the mental health of innocent children.
Just for your info:
Anti-Theist is the claim that theism does more harm then good to the world.(it critiques theistic agendas, etc...)
Atheist means the lack of belief in a theistic god (it says nothing about a person, he could be evil or good, either-way).
It is nearly always the anti-theistic mentality that helps in improving things.
The understanding that something is wrong and need to change, like slavery and other things.
Your own lack of belief improves nothing, it is personal, it has no interest in the good of mankind.
So think twice before claiming anything against anti-theists, you might be talking about your own efforts.
Also you should see this video that explains anti-theism by the man himself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nIRJVmZ4K8
And, with the definition of Anti-Theism stated *directly* by you, you only prove my point.
"Anti-Theist is the claim that theism does more harm then good to the world". So, wouldn't they do *anything* in their power to stop it at all costs? Like, I dunno, stopping a public prayer?
Also, when did I ever say I was *against* Anti-Theists? I just don't classify as one.
And, for your information, I am fully aware of the pain and misery Religion causes indirectly. But, it's the people who do it that sicken me. I am against *them*, the Zealots, not the Religion itself. If full grown men and women are stupid enough to really believe all of that, then that's their parent's faults for spreading the doctrine, and the parent's parents, etc. Put it like this: if a man has a sword and kills somebody with it, is it the sword's fault? No! It's the person's fault for using the sword in a way that could hurt somebody. If you honestly, truly have a problem with my system of viewing things, that's fine with me. You can have your own opinion, and I can have mine.
Any other arguments? No? Good. Then let's just end it here, unless you wish to carry on a conversation about Morality instead of what the Forum Post is actually about.
Do you agree that children should be indoctrinated in a particular religion before they are mature enough to understand what is being forced upon them?
Answer the question. Yes/No
"if a man has a sword and kills somebody with it, is it the sword's fault? No! It's the person's fault for using the sword in a way that could hurt somebody."
Sword is a metal tool, a human brain is a little more complex then that, it can be used as a tool, but also can be thought things, and if the wrong things are being thought, then they would not know that they are doing the wrong thing.
Your oversimplifying the problem and it makes your argument completely flawed.
Religion is not just a metal tool, it is a brainwashing tool that effects thinking, so the decision is now taken from the Zealots because they are like puppets that follow their leader.
"You can have your own opinion, and I can have mine."
We can both have our own opinion but you are on a forum where things are discussed with reason, you can leave here keeping your opinion, it does not mean that you can make conclusion on things you do not understand well and expect no one corrects your mistakes.
It was clear to me that you did not know the meaning of anti-theism before I explained it to you.
So instead of being stubborn about it, just accept the fact that we all learn things thanks to forums like this one.
Correct me if I'm wrong:
You are actually claiming that religion is not the problem? The people are?
You first claimed that anti-theists would attack religious people while eating.(which is a lie)
Now you are claiming that religion is not the source of the problem?
For clarity sake use Yes/No please.
""Anti-Theist is the claim that theism does more harm then good to the world". So, wouldn't they do *anything* in their power to stop it at all costs? Like, I dunno, stopping a public prayer?"
See what I'm talking about, this biased and insulting mentality that Anti-theism is a radical movement of some sort.
This is propaganda spread by theists themselves and you are a victim of this propaganda.
Which part of viewing theism as doing more harm then good in any way indicates "do *anything* in their power to stop it at all costs?"
Which part?
Just because you think that raping babies is wrong, does it mean that you would kill every male in existence so no raping could be done?
See the flaw in your argument?
It is pure asinine. Anti-theism is just an opinion.(there are no actions attached)
You can pray as much as you like, as long as you do not effect the rest of the people in society, anti-theism never denied people from prayer or having an imaginary friend for that matter.
It is a shame that an atheist would have such an opinion of anti-theism.
You make a good point, Austin. I can't find any studies done to indicate that most people who identify as atheist also identify as anti-theist. Without actual studies, any conjecture about percentages is bupkus. Now, if someone were to say, "Most atheists I know or have met..." that would be entirely different.
I follow your logic but I think that the implication in the objection is that the majority of Atheists we know would not do that. I also think that it was an incorrect representation of Atheists as Anti-Theists; but I believe that is part of the offense taken. I think more than "offense" is concern that this may lead stupid people... in TEXAS to possibly go all hate-crime on Atheists.
I have one point of direct contention to your statement: When you say "If you agree that innocent child indoctrination is wrong, you are an anti-theist." I actually think that as long as you believe it is wrong from a scientific psychological point of view, ie. it is demonstrably harmful, then that does not ipso facto make you an Anti-theist. I would however love to learn more about anti-theist and atheist definitions, so if I am missing something there^ apologizes.