I spent a day watching AtheistTV — and it was horrifying

[Prolescum]

Haha! Oh wow.

The show did field one call, from a young man whose thoughts were so muddled (he was introduced as devout, then explained he was questioning his faith, then said he’d been dead for a week, then said he often thought the world would be better off after he died) that it’s not really fair to criticize. But it’s worth noting that Dillahunty repeatedly suggested he was dealing with a prank caller but refused to disengage and make time for a caller who might have done a better job of representing himself; it was more important to score rhetorical points off someone clearly not equipped to play.

I think I need a Doctor facepalming. Hang on.

:docpalm:

There we are.

I think my opinion on "movement" atheism is well known so I won't go on. ...but is there really any point to this sort of stuff? Can something as bizarre an idea as Atheism TV even have an impact? What do its subscribers (on XBMC or whatever) get out of it? What is the end game? De-conversion? Dopamine?

 

[Darkprophet232]

Oh, Salon hates it? Must mean it's good then.

...but is there really any point to this sort of stuff? Can something as bizarre an idea as Atheism TV even have an impact?

I could just as easily ask, "Whats the point of ESPN? To force non-Americans into caring about American football?" Sometimes, you can create a market for an audience that already exists and make some damn-good programming, but it'll be rocky until the market is fully developed.

What do its subscribers (on XBMC or whatever) get out of it? What is the end game? De-conversion? Dopamine?

I get the same thing out of AtheistTV and the Atheist Experience that I get out of Thunderf00t, JaclynGlenn, The Amazing Atheist, The Fantastic Skeptic, Armoured Skeptic, The Atheist Voice, and the dozen or so other YouTube atheist channels I subscribe to: they entertain me. The reasons are myriad and depend on the channel, but if one were to put a lot of these types of shows together, on one network, with regular updates, the hell yes I'm on board.

 

[tuxbox]

I get the same thing out of AtheistTV and the Atheist Experience that I get out of Thunderf00t, JaclynGlenn, The Amazing Atheist, The Fantastic Skeptic, Armoured Skeptic, The Atheist Voice, and the dozen or so other YouTube atheist channels I subscribe to: they entertain me. The reasons are myriad and depend on the channel, but if one were to put a lot of these types of shows together, on one network, with regular updates, the hell yes I'm on board.

I'm not an atheist but I would watch a channel like that, if it existed.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

But isn't that what YouTube does already with email updates of your subscribed channels?

Rather than a collection of all-sorts "mouthing-off", as it were, what's needed is quality control - otherwise it's in danger of just becoming "Anti-theist" TV.

A better approach, in my view, would be a series on comparative religions - not in the sense of atheists "bashing" religions but much as it would be taught in a school/college environment: documentary-style, objective, etc.

This would be a better way of showing that "my faith/religion" isn't "special".

In fact, dare I say, who better to teach comparative religion than an atheist?

Another obvious series would be on science - again, not as a vehicle for poking religion or the religious in the eye, but as a genuine means of teaching "citizen science", everyday science that should be known. Of course one can show more involved series like "Cosmos", but there needs to be one to show how science is important for "Joe/Jane Public".

Other programs would be on critical thinking - particularly its importance in everyday life, such as seeing past the propaganda in politics and the media, both TV (Fox News, etc) and the internet (all those fake pro-environment sites funded by polluters, etc). There would obviously be a wealth of material on issues from which to choose as it affects the average citizen.

What about showing a series for children based on Camp Quest?

Needless to say, I haven't seen this "Atheist TV" - but I thought I'd throw in just a few ideas of what I think would make a reasonable TV channel.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Engelbert]

"Movement atheism" can often be more appropriately labelled "Movement anti-theism". I am interested in pleasant philosophical discussions, but rhetorical assaults, scorn and derision I find to be less appealing in this area. A dose of friendly banter or light hearted humour is one thing, but very often it is neither of these. Rather, it is pernicious ridicule, clearly motivated by an anti-theistic agenda. I can sympathise with the fact that some people don't like religion, but I'm not on board with the way that people will often go about engaging with others. These people will often call themselves atheists, which I suppose they are although they perhaps might more appropriately be called anti-theists. Other atheists, who don't really take this kind of stance can end up stigmatised.

I recently watched Dawkins' new film, The Unbelievers. It received mixed reviews, but the following one may resemble or approach how I sometimes feel about "movement atheism".

"A study in the frustrating insufferableness of people you probably agree with ..."

Dawkins' film wasn't too bad and I'd be less critical than this reviewer. There were some interesting points, ideas and attempts to consider ideas for a non religious existence, as well as a few moments with which I can find less accord. However, the above quote resembles my opinion with regards to The Atheist Experience TV show a little closer. I simply can't watch that thing. If that's what Atheism TV is, then I simply won't be watching. I enjoy watching well made documentaries, reasonable discussions and respectful debates. If content like that appears, then I may watch. Watching people repeatedly pour scorn on, quarrel with and sometimes antagonise the religious, seemingly without full consideration for callers' personal situations, I don't find to be particularly fulfilling, or an entirely admirable model.



So... yeah... I may occasionally watch Atheist TV (if I come across it) since I do watch content on the net that may occasionally find itself on the channel, although it clearly depends what's on. However, it's not currently on my list of to dos.

 

[Laurens]

Atheism isn't really a big enough thing for me these days to even consider watching a TV channel dedicated to it...

Is it unique to the UK, or do atheists everywhere eventually reach that stage where you realise that actually religion has zero impact on your life and there is nothing really to get indignant or be rude about? Is that just me?

Literally the only time religion has come into my life lately is when a lady in the flat downstairs brought up a meal in honour of Ramadan, that I was delighted to receive. I know things are different elsewhere, but I just don't see much point in talking about it any more.

We'd all be much better off discussing how to actively make the world a better place. Rather than just going "hurr hurr look at them stupid folks that believe in an invisible sky dude"---which seems to be the premise of the Atheist Experience.

 

[Prolescum]

Oh, Salon hates it? Must mean it's good then.

False dichotomy.

...but is there really any point to this sort of stuff? Can something as bizarre an idea as Atheism TV even have an impact?

I could just as easily ask, "Whats the point of ESPN? To force non-Americans into caring about American football?"

Are you equating spectator sport with philosophy or are you attempting to invalidate my question with a spurious comparison? I kid.
You're saying it's really not for de-conversion, just there for the atheists to enjoy some schadenfreude, some vicarious bullying?

Sometimes, you can create a market for an audience that already exists and make some damn-good programming, but it'll be rocky until the market is fully developed.

What exactly would you say is the size of the market for sneering-at-those-who-are-not-we channels outside Christian cable networks? The point argued in the article was that there was a dearth of damn-good programming. Albeit with limited experience and a hefty bias, I'm inclined to agree with that conclusion unless convinced otherwise.

What do its subscribers (on XBMC or whatever) get out of it? What is the end game? De-conversion? Dopamine?

I get the same thing out of AtheistTV and the Atheist Experience that I get out of Thunderf00t, JaclynGlenn, The Amazing Atheist, The Fantastic Skeptic, Armoured Skeptic, The Atheist Voice, and the dozen or so other YouTube atheist channels I subscribe to: they entertain me.

but they're all cunts...

But seriously, you didn't answer the second question: What's the end game (from the perspective of its creators and contributors)?
Do you think that there's a sustainable proposition to this network? If so, please explain.

The reasons are myriad and depend on the channel, but if one were to put a lot of these types of shows together, on one network, with regular updates, the hell yes I'm on board.

Tell me what's compelling about them.

 

[Darkprophet232]

False dichotomy.

Well, it was more of an attempt at a bad joke.

Are you equating spectator sport with philosophy or are you attempting to invalidate my question with a spurious comparison? I kid.
You're saying it's really not for de-conversion, just there for the atheists to enjoy some schadenfreude, some vicarious bullying?

There is no bullying. The Atheist Experience episode talked about in the article has nothing mean spirited behind it. See for yourself:



(relevant bit starts at the 33 minutes mark and goes for about the rest of the show and has some genuinely uplifting bits to it)

ESPN exists for sports fans to see more sports and sports analysis. Comedy Central exists to air funny movies, shows, and stand-up sets to fans of comedy, why must a channel designed to entertain atheists be anything more than entertainment for atheists?

What exactly would you say is the size of the market for sneering-at-those-who-are-not-we channels outside Christian cable networks?

I would hope none. And I disagree whole heatedly that is what the network is doing. As of right now, at 7:25 p.m. EDT, they're playing "Richard Dawkins Foundation: Charles Darwin Uncut Interviews (2 of 3)." Dawkins is being shown some child books Darwin had given his daughter before her death. I can't say this is and the AE is indicative of the entire network (i'm pushing through summer finals right now and don't have much time to watch any TV), but I haven't seen any of this sneering or bullying the article speaks of, either.

The point argued in the article was that there was a dearth of damn-good programming. Albeit with limited experience and a hefty bias, I'm inclined to agree with that conclusion unless convinced otherwise.

The only suggestion I have to attempt to convince you is that you shouldn't trust Salon on anything, and you should be skeptical of their claims and verify for yourself.

but they're all cunts...

Well, most.

But seriously, you didn't answer the second question: What's the end game (from the perspective of its creators and contributors)?
Do you think that there's a sustainable proposition to this network? If so, please explain.

I can't speak for the network, but I can assume they're hoping to create a profitable television network that allows them to voice their opinions and entertain their viewers, much as just about any television network.

Tell me what's compelling about them.

This is entirely subjective. I enjoy learning new things and open debate. Atheist YouTubers often do both, and I see the potential of a television channel to do the same. I don't expect it to convert anyone to atheism, much like I don't expect TBN to convert anyone to Christianity, the Golf Channel to convince anyone to start playing golf, BET to get more people to like Hip Hop, CMT to get anyone to care about Country Music, or the Nat Geo channel to get people to like documentaries. Sometimes, sometimes its okay to preach to the choir, especially when no one else is (on television).

 

[australopithecus]

First there was Atheism Plus, now there's AtheistTV. I've come to the conclusion that anything with the prefix atheist/atheism is a bag of shite.

 

[Laurens]

First there was Atheism Plus, now there's AtheistTV. I've come to the conclusion that anything with the prefix atheist/atheism is a bag of shite.

Even atheist beer?

 

[australopithecus]

Especially atheist beer.

 

[Laurens]

Especially atheist beer.

Perhaps we can derive a general rule from your sentiments though;

Avoid anything that uses 'atheism' or 'atheist' with a capital 'A'.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

From my understanding, this is going to be a TV network that shows reruns of the Atheist Experience and other atheist content. I love the Atheist Experience, but honestly, what more is there beyond that? Darkprohet232 mentioned Thunderf00t, JackynGlenn, The Amazing Atheist, The Fantastic Skeptic, Armoured Skeptic, and The Atheist Voice. Out of that list, Armoured Skeptic is okay and could be somewhat funny. The Fantastic Skeptic is okay when he is not ranting against “radical feminism”. I have never watched The Atheist Voice, so I cannot say anything about that channel. The rest of those are just annoying, unfunny, and/or unentertaining. If AtheistTV is going to have programming along those lines, I do not think I will be watching (not that I have TV anyways). However, if they get content like Theoretical Bullshit, AntiCitizenX, ArguingFromIgnorance, Baud Bits, Brett Palmer, Gary Edwards, etc… it actually might be a good network and worth my viewing time.

 

[Engelbert]

I've had a check a few times to see what's on. It seems to be playing videos that are all available on youtube. The Atheist Experience has been on, video of the reason rally and videos from Dawkins' channel. It's not available on normal TV (unsurprisingly where I live), so you have to come online to watch it anyway. If they produce some original content, it might persuade people to watch, but perhaps youtube is a better platform at the moment, since you can search and select whatever you like.

http://www.atheists.org/atheistTV/live

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I remember when I first heard about the Atheist experience and I watched it.I was like these guys are smart atheists that can really deceive a lot of people if you aren't grounded in your faith especially since Matt claims he is a former Christian and he seems to know the bible fairly well except for twisting it out of context but the way they do it is very convincing even if I totally disagree.But I actually like to be challenged about what I believe in as long as it is respectful.I have to say there are some really cool atheists out there but I could never be one.I just can't see how Richard Dawkins,Christopher Hitchens,AronRa,Matt Dillahunty,Sam harris,etc are more awesome than Jesus Christ and I could never turn my back on him and look up to the atheist voices out there who often times get beat in debates. I would much rather listen to people like John Lennox than any of the top atheists out there but I would watch Atheist TV sometimes too.I actually believe it was designed by the powers that be for political purposes to remove God from society and it has worked sadly but IMO it has done more harm than good and I just cannot go along with it like the blind leading the blind.I want to rebel against it,not just go along with it.I refuse to be propagandized or indoctrinated.

 

[Gnug215]

[...]

I actually believe it was designed by the powers that be for political purposes to remove God from society and it has worked sadly but IMO it has done more harm than good and I just cannot go along with it like the blind leading the blind.

You mean the same powers that be that for many centuries (millennia, really) have used God and religion as a tool to gain - and stay in - power?

Yeah... makes total sense.

I want to rebel against it,not just go along with it.I refuse to be propagandized or indoctrinated.

The irony is slice-cuttingly tangible.

 

[australopithecus]

I actually believe it was designed by the powers that be for political purposes to remove God from society and it has worked sadly [...]

You heard it hear first, guys. Dillahunty and AronRa are tools of the godless illuminati. I bet they get paid in Templar gold, right?

 

[Inferno]

You heard it hear first, guys. Dillahunty and AronRa are tools of the godless illuminati. I bet they get paid in Templar gold, right?

It fits. If not for Templar Gold, how else would AronRa have been able to quit his job? It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

 

[WarK]

You heard it hear first, guys. Dillahunty and AronRa are tools of the godless illuminati. I bet they get paid in Templar gold, right?

It fits. If not for Templar Gold, how else would AronRa have been able to quit his job? It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

I saw a vid of AronRa with a lizard. He's one of the reptilian people, I'm tellin' ya!

 

[Prolescum]

I actually believe it was designed by the powers that be for political purposes to remove God from society and it has worked sadly [...]

You heard it hear first, guys. Dillahunty and AronRa are tools of the godless illuminati. I bet they get paid in Templar gold, right?

They live inside the hollow Earth, sending messages to the USS Luna ship which orbits us when not engaging pitched battles with the devils from Nibiru. Verily, 'tis true I tell thee!