Video of My CNN Appearance

That’s a still image that says “I will kick your puny god’s ass.” 

“We’re not being indoctrinated…” – unless that’s just part of the indoctrination that you’ve imbibed! Hmmm…..

Great job…both of you. Excellent representation of the secular voice. 

I think the green screen photo would put you in the Wrigley Building on Michigan Avenue… or maybe somewhere else along the river?

4:40 – boat drives out of Hemant’s ear

Seriously, I’m always happy when one of us atheists brings up morality and that theism does not have a monopoly on it.  The number one thing on young people’s minds who are thinking about atheism is “will I still be a good person if I don’t believe anymore?”  You guys are helping them start to believe.

Great job Jesse and Hemant!

Maybe Fox doesn’t know how to do makeup on brown people.

or they try to lighten up the brown people so as not to offend their viewers.

It means you look FINE without the makeup, sweetie.
Don’t worry, I’m 77 years old!
And that young man in the middle?  He is beautiful and handsome.
Both of you have fantastic smiles!
That’s what I call “looking good without god!”.

Ha ha! Very good, you’re learning to question your assumptions. More of that from Hemant would be wonderful.

Isn’t the main point of TV makeup to keep the sharp light from making people look “flat”? (It’s a word that describes the effect well, but to me it didn’t make sense until I once saw an example of a “worst-case scenario” of a makeup-less face on camera with full lighting. Creepy puppet face argh!)

For some reason, makeup had the opposite effect on Hemant, he looks much flatter in the FOX pic. Could be the light too, though. FOX: full-on, even light all over. Extra flattening. CNN: more clearly lit on one side, from above, emphasizing cheekbones and creating a fade across the forehead that gives more visual depth.

Still odd that they didn’t mark the eyes in any way, though. (Or is that just theatre?) Maybe your eyelashes were judged and found to be sufficient. 😉

/ex multimedia production geek

Isn’t it obvious? You’re getting better looking as you get older.

Oh man, I hate you… 😉

Great job, both of you. Just one thing–a missed opportunity (around 3:10) to counteract the whole secularism=degeneration myth that the religious right likes to make. It would have been nice to make a point that there’s a strong tradition of secularism in the US, that it was founded as the first secular nation, and there’s nothing to fear in reviving that spirit.

HAHA…

 Yes, it’s unfortunate that Don Lemon said that, especially when Jesse had just finished talking about the stigmas that atheists have to endure. Don is just reinforcing negative stereotypes about atheists “stirring up trouble” wherever they go, those bastards. We know he was kidding, but still…

There you go, the beauty of atheism, always questioning assumptions.

But not that one! (The assumption that atheists are particularly good at questioning their own assumptions – although I guess you just missed that part – you need to be able to question YOUR OWN assumptions. That’s the only way to get from here to intellectual honesty.)

CNN makes you look like an edgey bad ass.  Fox makes you look kinda like a Michael Jackson wanna be.  Just one man’s opinion, though.

lol oh Hement, you troublemaker, encouraging thinking.

Maybe Don Lemon would have been more interested if you mentioned how atheist groups fight for gay rights?

Is that Wacker Drive in the background? An autobot once stood there…
I love when they do fake backgrounds like that; like when they interview Sarah Palin in front of a wilderness background, like she just lives in the middle of the mountains or something.

De Boat!  De Boat!  It go into your ear!  De Boat!

Seriously nice job, and you look fine. 

They said that about Socrates too. That he was “corrupting the youth,” with freethinking and unhindered introspection I presume. 

The patent obviousness of the fact.

So you think you could plausibly deny my assertion? …Or what is the point of your labeling it an assumption?

How about this one: “People can fact-check their pastor now because of the internet!” Wow – and of course before there came to be all of this wonderfully reliable information available on the internet, there was no way for people to do any fact checking! Hemant, I know you’re pretty young, but surely you’re aware that there are more and usually better ways to check facts than just the internet? I sure hope you know this!

 “Are you really rationally superior?”

Hmmm…I’m not really sure where Hemant either said or implied that.  You seem to be trying to set up an arrogant atheist strawman.  Nice try.

I’m more curious as to why you seem to be implying that doubting and indoctrination aren’t that much of a distinction.  I realize that the doubting is toward religious belief and not toward secularism (which doesn’t seem to make much sense anyway…how does one doubt indifference?), but shouldn’t indoctrination discourage doubt of any kind to be effective?  Furthermore, the fact that the doubting is directed at religion doesn’t make sense even if one were indoctrinated into secularism.  Shouldn’t indoctrination just claim that the opposing view is wrong to be effective?  Shouldn’t it just be a “We’re right, they’re wrong, don’t question/doubt/argue!” approach when it comes to indoctrination?

To be blunt, you seem to be more interested in playing mind games — getting us to question our own mentality (as if many of us don’t already!) — than having an honest discussion.

 Oh, also note that Hemant said people can fact check what their pastor says IN CHURCH.  Now, by “in church” did he mean that’s where the pastor says things or did he mean that’s where people can do their fact checking?  With smart phones, it could have been the later.  I’d like to see your other ways be capable of that!

“Hey kids, think for yourselves!” is the OPPOSITE of indoctrination.

“Hey kids, think exactly the way I tell you or you will be tortured forever!” is, um … well, you know.

You didn’t need makeup, the off center view  I thought was actually very good, too bad the background was a repetitious recorded loop. Would have been so much better if it were live or a continuous recorded shot. It was after all a good backdrop. Great job.

Never said that. Anyway, it was nice chatting.

Age-biased? Don’t be silly, Leo. Young people are likely to have little experience of a time before the internet. That’s a fact, not a bias against young people. Of course there is plenty of reliable information on the internet, but obviously also plenty of unreliable information. Many people, young and old, in fact have very poor skills when it comes to filtering the reliable from the unreliable. Do you think that is not the case? (FYI, I’m fairly young myself, I like to think.)

Is it a straw man? I guess we can disagree about that. It’s certainly not a universally accurate characterization, and it’s not an exclusively atheist problem, but it’s very often accurate in my experience of atheists.

 You ask some good questions. Indoctrination is effected on the basis of power structures. I have a good deal of experience of university classrooms, mostly in the seats and a bit at the front of the class, and if the smart person at the front of the class chooses to present a one-sided view of some theory or reality (e.g., religion, God), or if he or she makes false claims about religion (or science or whatever), indoctrination can and does happen. It’s a matter of power and trust and it can happen in a Church or in a secular classroom and it doesn’t matter what the particular message is – indoctrination is certainly possible.

I think your assertion about mind games is silly, but if you choose to believe it… oh well.

Probably some other DavidM.

I disagree with the first part, and so also the second. If young people are not better informed about religion, obviously they’re not better informed about it b/c of the internet. Obviously some probably are, but in general? Not likely, it seems to me. Like you, I know of no studies, and I bet Hemant didn’t either. It’s a groundless conjecture that just happens to fit his atheist narrative – confirmation bias if you want to call it that.

We can only hope.