South Park Goes Too Far

[Yaya]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6093802.stm

I know they have a tendency to attack groups with reckless abandon, but its just so insensitive to take jabs while the family is still obviously in mourning.

Disgusting, to me anyway.

[Metal Vendetta]

Did I not already start a thread about this episode?

Anyway, of course it was funny. I went to a party on Saturday where there was a guy dressed as Steve Irwin, and he was pissed off that South Park beat him to it. Besides, if you actually watch the episode, when Satan is told that one of the guests is dressed as Steve Irwin, he's aghast and seeks out the offender telling him: "It's too soon, dude, he died, like, just a few weeks ago." If anything, they're mocking the social taboo that they shouldn't talk about it rather than the circumstances of Irwin's death.

Besides, in an episode where Princess Di and Hitler are shown hanging out together in hell, and Christian clergymen are accompanied by naked boys on leads, the Steve Irwin thing is hardly the most offensive thing in there.

[Shanti418]

Agreed completly. I can't believe people got bent out of shape about it.

[IronHide]

Richard Dawkins and Evolution on tonights episode.

[Leatherneck]

tonight's was HILARIOUS

although seeing mrs garrison's tit was excessive and gross.

[MachanikalAnimal]

laughed my ass off

[Metal Vendetta]

Ahahahahaha!!!



Awesome stuff as always - Dawkins is fantastic

[Impactor returns 2.0]

all good, SP speaks the truth.

[BB Shockwave]

Since SP (as well as many other toons like Simpsons or Drawn together) takes jabs at all major religions, politicians, actors, celebrities and everyone in the universe, it's pretty odd that of all things some people someone would be angered about them making fun of Steve Irwin (btw they made fun of him in Simpsons too, however that was before he died).

But then, when Steve died and I told one of my collegues "Well dont tell me you didn't expect this happening sooner or later" she was mad at me for days...

[Shanti418]

So what do all you godless atheists think of Matt and Trey's opinion that if you were to get rid of religion, humanity would still cluster and stratify by atheism, and that no matter what kind of division, we would still find violence and oppression?



C'mon, this episode has Richard Dawkins, Ms. Garrison's disgusting tits, AND old school BSG shout outs. I hope to Science we get some discussion on this bad boy of an episode.


Militarized Sea Otters: Reminds you more of Crab People or Conker's Bad Fur Day?

[Brendocon]

So what do all you godless atheists think of Matt and Trey's opinion that if you were to get rid of religion, humanity would still cluster and stratify by atheism, and that no matter what kind of division, we would still find violence and oppression?

Well it's true. Humanity breathes conflict. People look for things to get bent out of shape about. I mean just look at the near-violence in our own fandom over a silly little thing like a Transformers movie.

[Metal Vendetta]

So what do all you godless atheists think of Matt and Trey's opinion that if you were to get rid of religion, humanity would still cluster and stratify by atheism, and that no matter what kind of division, we would still find violence and oppression?

I thought it was very funny, and a good point that they made. Part of what Matt and Trey do is to lampoon all sides of an argument, and some parts of this - like Garrison's sudden conversion via the FSM and his subsequent vicious defence of evolution are just as ridiculous as his flinging poo at Dawkins. They're essentially taking swipes at hard-line atheism as well as religious fundamentalism - something they've done before when the whole of the town turned atheist and they all started crapping out of their mouths. At the end of the day, South Park are there to satirise (or at least that's what they now primarily seem to do) and if they didn't mock the atheist position I'd be pretty disappointed.

The point that without religion, humanity (and sea otters) would still fight is valid, though the irrationality of religion (like nationalism, racism and so on) makes it a very powerful motivator and divider. The truth is that most conficts are fought along religious lines, whatever the cause, and I can't help thinking that a secular society would offer less scope for division - the premise being that it certainly can't be any worse than being in our current position where people kill other people because of their faith.

C'mon, this episode has Richard Dawkins, Ms. Garrison's disgusting tits, AND old school BSG shout outs. I hope to Science we get some discussion on this bad boy of an episode.

Buck Rogers, not BSg

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I agree MV.

There will always be conflict.

so, currently, we have:
1.Normally conflict, & 2.religious conflicts. - they probably kill as many as each other right now.

Anyhows, in the new world (Matt and Treys vision), we just have:

1.Normall conflict - so thats 50% better already! & you can actually reason with non religious ppl over why they are causing the conflict.

[The Last Autobot]

In a non religious world we would be still killing each other for the color of our hair or how we dress, or the food we eat, for the OIL, for water or anything.

1.Normall conflict - so thats 50% better already! & you can actually reason with non religious ppl over why they are causing the conflict.

Then the non religious people (in other words all of us) would join to the battle then youll have your 50% that was left aside

[Impactor returns 2.0]

In a non religious world we would be still killing each other for the color of our hair or how we dress, or the food we eat, for the OIL, for water or anything.

Yes - thats already happens.

so, two types of conflict.

1. non religious conflict.
&
2. religious conflict.

remove religion and you have 50% less conflict.

simple.

[The Last Autobot]

In a non religious world we would be still killing each other for the color of our hair or how we dress, or the food we eat, for the OIL, for water or anything.

Yes - thats already happens.

so, two types of conflict.

1. non religious conflict.
&
2. religious conflict.

remove religion and you have 50% less conflict.

simple.

Not that simple, the other half (the former religious) would join also and transform into "normal" conflict but exponentally increased (after all life is boring when you dont find soemthing to kill for, right?)

50 + 50= 100%

Easy isnt it?

If you dont like it that way then your former 50% "normal" conflict would be naturally increased because there would always will be different things to argue. Math is more simple than human catasthrophic mind.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

no.

Currently U have.

A. normall argument = conflict.
+
B Religious arugment = conflict.

Of course we will always have A, that is human nature.

but

If I remove B, we leave A % behind.

Religion is just another 'factor' of conflict.

simply, if I can remove racism - I remove part of conflict no?

But, and I stress, is it possible? obviously not. but the princicple is fine.

[The Last Autobot]

no.

Currently U have.

A. normall argument = conflict.
+
B Religious arugment = conflict.

Of course we will always have A, that is human nature.

but

If I remove B, we leave A % behind.

Religion is just another 'factor' of conflict.

simply, if I can remove racism - I remove part of conflict no?

But, and I stress, is it possible? obviously not. but the princicple is fine.

B would de replaced with more A so conflict would be the same. And of course this is just an hypothesis cause real world doesnt work like that.

In scenario 1

If we replace A (magically there is no more religion) that would cause a lot of other things to happen. Which would most probably increase your A conflict so It wouldnt be the same percentage.

In scenario 2

Religion never existed in the first place. So you think the humanity is a "good animal" who will be tolerant and so on? well tolerance and the rest of peaceful criteria is learned, And we will always return to kill each other. We would have other issues to fight and kill "our brother" (which in this reality maybe that notion wouldnt even exist.). So i really think it wouldnt be a better, happier place. We would most probably fight for country issues (countries being more in number than important religions)

Its in our nature to be bastards. And knowing you, you cant blame God, is all our fault. Neither can we minimize it like a warcraft game saying youd be better removing A or B or C.

[Shanti418]

Yeah, I think it's pointless to think you can reduce human nature to an addition problem.

[Optimus Prime Rib]

Yeah, I think it's pointless to think you can reduce human nature to an addition problem.

I think its scary that you cant

1(male)+1(female)=X

X being the number of children that it would take to financially break the male and female

[Aaron Hong]

Yeah, I think it's pointless to think you can reduce human nature to an addition problem.

I think its scary that you cant

1(male)+1(female)=X

X being the number of children that it would take to financially break the male and female

It should be X to the power of their combined toy collection then...

[Blacksword]

Ah I'd missed these debates.... query, are there any persons of faith left on the board or did they all bail?

Anyhow, as I've stated before, absence of religion wouldn't make things any better. Take the example of the Soviet Union and it's satellite states. There you have a state that is officially atheist but you have a regime of unmittigated brutality in its early years and heavy oppression in later phases. Stalin was one of the worst monsters in human history yet he was an atheist (though admitted the situation there is a bit complicated given his background). Not a perfect example but it does demonstrate that the absence of religion does not mean the absence of manipulative ideology.

And even if everyone were atheists, uniform belief doesn't guarantee peace. During the Middle Ages all of Europe was Catholic, yet England and France went to war for a full century of brutality (and disgraced the notion of "Christendom" much to the despair of those at the time who truly believed in that concept). And who's to say that there wouldn't be divergent atheistic philosophies to fight over. While religious diference was a factor in the Cold War, the fundamental issue was that of Market Capitalism verses Bolshevism, two economic and social systems.

Then you remove the positive aspects of religion, such as religiously sourced imperitives to care for the poor and downtrodden. I have still to hear of any atheistic associations which gather for the common cause of aiding the poor or marginalized (I would be genuinely interested to hear of any and hear about their ideology). Furthermore, most of the non-religious social crusaders come from religious backgrounds and can arguably be said to derive their values from their upbringing, even if they did reject large portions of it. You can't divorce someone from their social context.

For instance concern for the poor and marginalized is a prominent element of Abrahamic religion. Until their advent in the Mediteranean world most philanthropy was directed to the city as a body, if the poor benefited then great, but it was not a primary aim, the furtherance of the city was the primary aim (here I speak of Hellenized areas). Only with the advent of Christianity and Islam (which spread the values of Abrahamic religion extensively beyond ethnic Jews) do you see large scale almsgiving specifically to aid the poor (see historian of late antiquity Peter Brown - oy, my course readings from my Late Antiquity seminar are seeping out everywhere). There is no way to tell whether such a concern would not have arisen on its own but it does show that there is a good arguement to be made that in the West and Islamic areas, the notion of corporate responsibility to the poor and vulnerable can be traced back to Abrahamic religion. It certainly did not come from Hellenic, Roman, Celtic or Germannic culture (where the weak were killed off for the good of the community). Nor do I see it in what I know of Punic, Egyptian and Berber culture. I can't speak to other portions of the world, as Europe, the Mediteranean basin and parts of the Near East are my primary areas of knowledge.

I hope every enjoyed my historical essay....

But my basic point is that several essential humanitarian concepts are historically tied to religion, and arise well before the advent of modern atheism. Nor do they appear in the non-theistic strands of Greek philosophy that I'm familiar with. Or at all in Greek philosophy, which in terms of social policy was focused on the overall good of the polis - and this overall good meant marginalizing some groups like women, foreigners and slaves - rather than obligations to specific marginalized groups in society. When these concepts appear they appear from a religious context. This is not definite proof of religious origin, but it does make any argument that religion is fundamentally bad untenable. It also means that even if you hold such beliefs as an atheist you are holding beliefs that come from a religious source.

This is why I left here, I waste time writing small essays on these topics.

[Metal Vendetta]

Charitable comcepts were historically tied to religion, but secular systems such as humanism have essentially replaced them. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have contributed more to helping the world's poor than anyone else in history ever. Both atheists. I'd like to see some extremely rich churches give away the same sorts of sums, without the sorts of conditions that are usually imposed by these institutions.

I'm not saying that an areligious world would be perfect and conflict-free, but I am saying that under the watch of religion we've more or less completely ****ed up the world. Wouldn't it be nice if we could give rationalism a try for once?

[Shanti418]

This is why I left here, I waste time writing small essays on these topics.

You left here to go write small essays on the historical and philosophical aspects of religion? That's all we DO here! lol



I too agree with MV that a morality can form out of utiliterian principles. I think the only thing you really need to form a good morality is empathy.

[Dead Head]

This world would be better off without the godgroveling -- as distinct from there being any less or more conflicts due to its absence. The big masquerade vanished.

[The Last Autobot]

Ah I'd missed these debates.... query, are there any persons of faith left on the board

A few but we are scattered and from different religions.

For the last few months there had been so many religion topics that it came as a conclusion (at least for me) after the same arguments over and over and over that nothing would change at all in how the different people here see the matter.

So esentially I know what I believe and the rest apparently does the same. If you are happy with it and dont harm anybody is fine with me, so I tend to skip this subjects.

This world would be better off without the godgroveling -- as distinct from there being any less or more conflicts due to its absence. The big masquerade vanished.

This world would be better without fanatics of any kind or people who dont think in their fellows and only in themselves.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

This world would be better without fanatics of any kind or people who dont think in their fellows and only in themselves.

True - but we cannot rid ourselves of 'everyone' but we can remove the simple factor of religion!


So, like u say, Last Autobot, ppl here do have thier belifes, and after all this time I stand in the same place I always have. I think religion is utterly wrong on every single level.
What this place has tuaght me tho is to understand my convictions of why I dislike religion.

Somthing I do find amusing is with all these different religions here not one of them is even slightly clear in its own convictions. If god did exist, perhaps he should have made things a bit clearer for ppl like myself.

[Shanti418]

True - but we cannot rid ourselves of 'everyone' but we can remove the simple factor of religion!

I think in reality, there's a MUCH better chance of humanity being exterminated then there is of religion being abolished.

I think religion is utterly wrong on every single level.

Seriously though, you KNOW that's ridiculous, and yet you continue to espouse it. There are multiple levels and millions of lives which have been nothing but positively affected by religion. Not even saying that positive effects outweight the negative effects, but again, to say that religion is utterly wrong on every single level is an incomprehensibly generalized statement which has more in common with theologians saying that religion is utterly RIGHT on every single level than any sort of critical analysis.

[Best First]

True - but we cannot rid ourselves of 'everyone' but we can remove the simple factor of religion!

I think in reality, there's a MUCH better chance of humanity being exterminated then there is of religion being abolished.

...although i'm thinking church would also be pretty empty that week.

I think religion is utterly wrong on every single level.

Seriously though, you KNOW that's ridiculous, and yet you continue to espouse it. There are multiple levels and millions of lives which have been nothing but positively affected by religion. Not even saying that positive effects outweight the negative effects, but again, to say that religion is utterly wrong on every single level is an incomprehensibly generalized statement which has more in common with theologians saying that religion is utterly RIGHT on every single level than any sort of critical analysis.

[/quote]

i agree with the point you are making , and i pretty much dispair at such contributions. You might as well just write "No! You're wrong and you're stupid because i say so" over and over again. Its antithical to discussion.

That said "millions of lives which have been nothing but positively affected by religion" is also a dangerously general statement that i doubt stands up to scrutiny.

I don't agree that no one has changed their mind on this subect due to our discussions, i have over the years. Changing your opinions does not neccessarily mean moving from a thiest to an athiest or vice versa, it can be something as simple as changing the way you discuss the subject or realising that (in my case) some of the absolutes in your opinions boarder on the religous in themselves and maybe your conclusions need changing, discussing what you think is always important for providing introspection - one thing i will say, any man who thinks he has found the truth and has no more need to question himself or his opinions, well, he certainly is a fool.

I also think that some of the points Blackie provides above are rather easily refuted, but i'll get to that when i have more time.

love you guys. mwa.

[Blacksword]

Charitable comcepts were historically tied to religion, but secular systems such as humanism have essentially replaced them. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates have contributed more to helping the world's poor than anyone else in history ever. Both atheists.[/quote]

While I appreciate Bill Gates tremendous generosity this statement is highly problematic. On the same principle you could say that because the super wealthy have given everyone elses contributions don't matter and are obsolete. While Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffet's contibutions are very large, the size of their gift is not based on a superior generosity but rather a superior ability to give based on their assets. Even Buffet's massive donation doesn't silence all others as in the US alone in 2004 people gave a total of $187 Billion, you can infer the global totals from that. While commendible such huge donations do not replace the giving of countless other individuals. And for Canada at least statistics show that relgious people as a group are more likely to give, give more, and vounteer more time.

The stronger the religious affiliation, the more likely an individual donated or volunteered
The survey demonstrated that it is important to consider religion when attempting to understand patterns of giving and volunteering among Canadians.

Canadians who stated that they were affiliated with a community of worship, regardless of religious affiliation, were much more likely to donate than those without such affiliation. Eight in 10 (82%) of the individuals who had a religious affiliation were donors, compared with 67% of those with no religious affiliation. Individuals with a religious affiliation, or about 73% of all Canadians, accounted for 88% of all charitable donations. On average, donors with a religious affiliation contributed $270 throughout the year, compared with $125 by donors with no religious affiliation.

One-third (33%) of people with a religious affiliation did volunteer work, a slightly higher rate than those with no religious affiliation (28%). Similarly, 46% of those who attended religious services at least once a week did volunteer work, compared with 28% of those who did not attend services weekly.

Those with strong religious ties also contributed more time to volunteering than other volunteers. Volunteers who attended church weekly gave on average, 197 hours of their time in 1997, while those who did not attend services weekly gave an average of 136 hours.
Source: Statistics Canada

I'd like to see some extremely rich churches give away the same sorts of sums, without the sorts of conditions that are usually imposed by these institutions.

Whether strings are attached or not depends on the church's individual philosophy. From everything I've read the money that goes to my church's (The Presbyterian Church in Canada) AIDS initiative has few if any strings attached, and there is annual reporting of where all of the money goes. My fiance's church among other things funds and runs social housing with no restrictions on who can live there. Admittedly many church organizations place restrictions on aid, which is not how it should be, part of the legacy of the notion of "worthy" poor and using aid to forcefully convert people. But it is an unfair blanket statement to say that most do.

I'm not saying that an areligious world would be perfect and conflict-free, but I am saying that under the watch of religion we've more or less completely ****ed up the world. Wouldn't it be nice if we could give rationalism a try for once?

Rationalism and religious faith are not mutually exclusive, but that's a whole different discussion.