Libkitty, I take it you are arguing the Joss's atheism in particular is a religion, rather than atheism in general? If so could you clarify?

Typo, yes, that was what I was arguing. I think it really depends on what you think about religion. Clearly, if it requires a god or gods of some sort, then no atheism would fit. However, I think of religion more as a framework for living in such a way that life means something more than itself. I see this in Joss's atheism. I see it in many others' atheism as well, but not in all atheism. I guess for me it's more of a "you know it when you see it" argument, but some factors that are important to me are:

• an ethical framework
• faith in something outside of oneself (This is not necessarily god or a higher power, but might be humanity. For me, the key is that you believe strongly in it. So, for example, I don't see how agnostics could be included.)
• a desire to share your understanding (this might be evangelism for many, including some atheists, but it might be as simple as showing what you think is a good way to live, by example, and sharing your beliefs on request)

Having said all of this, I've thought about this for a long time, but this is might first time writing any of it down, so I very much welcome feedback and discussion, and can well imagine that my opinions and perspectives might change as a result.

Gluten-free rice chex:

ita, I see what you're saying about hubris, and agree that it may be the subtext, but what I noticed is that they (almost everyone) were down on Sam for drinking demon blood and listening to demons, particularly Ruby. This did, indeed, turn out to be a bad move, and one might argue that he should have known that it would be. But, given how obnoxious the angels were, and how much they lied, if only by omission, it doesn't seem a stretch to come to the conclusions he did.

It seems to me that the hubris was more a result of the mistakes he made than a cause of them, and that it grew more out of trying to justify his decisions in the face of what must have seemed like unwarranted attacks instead of rational discussions on alternate possible courses. Of course, while I get much more woobly with Dean, I seem to relate more to Sam, so I might not be looking at this completely rationally myself.

eta: I just re-read, and I wonder how much of my different connections to Sam and Dean are a result of me being the youngest sibling in my family. Hmm.

I don't see any framing by which demons are good, though. In fact, I think the show is suffering by blurring the Crowley lines (Meg's been pretty clear each time). The enemy of my enemy can still be a douchebag.

His urge to help Dean and his conviction that he had the power was what made him think he had a handle on Ruby--I can't see any angle from which she comes out golden other than by insinuating herself into a grieving man's life, and then encouraging an addiction.

I don't think that's what Dean and Cas were primarily reacting to--Dean has an aversion to powers and to demons, and angels had their own mission. But I also don't think it was subtext--we pretty consistently have all unreliable narrators. I don't think there's any reason to think that Dean's explanations are the right ones, even if his ultimate conclusion about Ruby was correct.

I agree that we don't have any framing where demons are good, and I didn't mean to imply that Ruby ever came out well, just that there was a time where it was unclear to me whether or not some demons might be at least goodish and that Ruby might be one of those. For me, this was partially caused by angels which seemed bad, which caused me to wonder if demons might be good if angels could be bad. I don't like this sentence, but can't seem to come up with a better way to put that right now.

I also agree about the unreliable narration, which I both find frustrating and thoroughly enjoy, although more the latter. I think it's a strong part of the show, as it makes the characters stronger and more relatable.

I don't quite understand what you're saying about subtext. I'll try to look at this again tomorrow.

In my earlier post, I said the show and not Dean accused Sam of hubris. You labelled that subtext, if I read you correctly, and I was saying by dint of the constant unreliable narration it's not subtext, it's front and centre.

Dean is often right in the end and wrong in the reasoning...well, he's just often wrong in the reasoning. That's more accurate to say. He's short-sighted and hypocritical when it comes to emotionally responding to the behaviour of people he cares about.

Unrelatedly--Oct 1st means flip the calendar to a shot that looks a shade like Good God Y'all with Sam and Dean in the street with shotguns, but I'm not sure it's actually that.

And 2 MORE DAYS.

And 2 MORE DAYS.

Meep. I will not watch 15 episodes in two days. I will not watch 15 episodes in two days. I will not watch 15 episodes in two days.

Also, I get what you were saying now, ita, and don't disagree. I may have been using an inaccurate term.

Get this fundamental misunderstanding of my philosophical position. Someone thought I should be BFF with this chick: [link]

Hello! How could I disagree with her more? Maybe she wants Jensen to "fix" his bowlegs? AS IF. I like the state of things.

Then someone asked why I wasn't making money off my "hobby" of finding the right pic(s). I'm just not making enough.

I may have been using an inaccurate term.

I think some people think that Dean is the authorial voice, because he gets more POV time, but I think he's a bit more of a main character, and that his mainness isn't filtered through anyone, and Sam's is sometimes filtered through him. But that's not the same thing. He's wrong a lot, and the text explicitly mocks/judges him enough that I feel comfortable when they're implicitly doing it from time to time too,

I hope I hope I hope that I don't have to unsubscribe in two days!

I could never figure out if I saw Dean as the main character because I'm a Dean-girl, or because the Show treats him as such. Even though Sam gets more of the movement of character and Dean is there reacting in the forefront (IMO).