Dawkins On South Park

ianmc38

Has anyone seen this yet? Absolutely hilarious episode.

Stephen

Yep. He features in the following episode as well, due to a bit of time travel shenanigans.

Funsterdelux

which episode?

MrJoeSoap

Funsterdelux wrote:

which episode?

Season 10, episodes 12 and 13 I think.

Thought it was funny enough, but just the usual South Park being controversial for controversy's sake.

monkeyfudge

Yep it was very good.

The episodes are called Go God Go and Go God Go XII.

Cartman gets frozen and wakes up over 500 years in the future to a world where atheism rules. But there are 3 Atheist factions constantly warring over the answer to the great question and personally I think the Sea Otters were completely right.

It was funny as people used the word Science instead of god and jesus.

Science damn it! What in the name of science was that! Science H. Logic!

Tar.Aldarion

Hah, that sounds great. Science H. Logic!

ianmc38

I was nearly crying at some parts. I dont think they were being controversial for the sake of it. They're making lots of serious points throughout regarding their own personal thoughts on Dawkins.

Btw, both episodes can be viewed on youtube

Funsterdelux

thanx soapy

The_Minister

Don't south park put all their episodes online? What is that website again?

Creamy Goodness

The_Minister wrote:

Don't south park put all their episodes online? What is that website again?

only legal way of getting them is by living in america and using itunes.

The_Minister

Cremo wrote:

only legal way of getting them is by living in america and using itunes.

I heard that they just stuck them up. I thought it was the South Park people tthemselves who put them up for download.

flogen

ianmc38 wrote:

I was nearly crying at some parts. I dont think they were being controversial for the sake of it. They're making lots of serious points throughout regarding their own personal thoughts on Dawkins.

I do think they were making some serious point (the most blatent being that religion isn't the cause of the worlds ills, humans [and otters!] are)... however were they having a go at Dawkins at all?
Has he ever claimed that a world without religion would be a better one?

The_Minister

flogen wrote:

Has he ever claimed that a world without religion would be a better one?

Repeatedly. He has called it a disease and said that parents should not be allowed teach it to their children.

2funki4wheelz

flogen wrote:

Has he ever claimed that a world without religion would be a better one?

He blames most wars on it and believes atheists are treated as an abhorrent minority, I've just started his latest book and it's pretty clear where he stands, it's not just about not believing in it - he's attempting to back it all up, scientifically (sort of) - not just trashing "God"/religion.

Gotta see that South Park

flogen

2funki4wheelz wrote:

He blames most wars on it and believes atheists are treated as an abhorrent minority, I've just started his latest book and it's pretty clear where he stands, it's not just about not believing in it - he's attempting to back it all up, scientifically (sort of) - not just trashing "God"/religion.

Gotta see that South Park

Well for someone who seems so very well educated that seems like a pretty simplistic view of things... I mean Hitler vilified jewish people because he created a myth that they were taking people's money, it wasn't a religious thing... also the Israel/Palestine conflict is a land issue above all else, religious differences are just used as an excuse; same applies to the crusades, Bush's War on Terror etc. etc.

I do want to read his new book, seems very interested (and I agree with the notion that nothing can be proven as fact and that mainstream religions are as solid as Thor and the FSM) but I don't buy the idea that a world without religion would be a better one, we'd just pick another topic to use as an excuse for our greed.

Anyway, south park... the Wii

GWolf

Very good episode. Although if Dawkins really thinks religion is the cause of all wars, he is smart, but not wise....KILL THE WISE ONE!!!!! Seriously, like the epsode shows, without religion,we'd just find another excuse to kill each other.

Zillah

flogen wrote:

religious differences are just used as an excuse

I think thats a lot of Dawkins' point. Without the excuse of "God is on my side!" everyone's behaviour would be a lot more moderate.

GWolf

The pint is that without the religous regions they'd just find another reason. For example, SP episode, their killing each other over what atheists should call themselves!!!!! Reliogn is a justification for war and intolerence, without it, they'd just find another reason, and another and another.

Zillah

I disagree. There would still be war, of course, but I think there would be a lot less war and the wars that did happen would be more "sane".

But we won't know until we try it, shall we? So, starting now, no religion for one century and lets see how it goes? I'll go tell all the Buddhists, and Hindus, you tell the Abrahamic religions. Someone else will take misc.

GWolf

There are no"sane" wars, in any sense. Remember, all the most destructive wars of the last century were about systems of government, not religion

Zillah

GWolf wrote:

There are no"sane" wars, in any sense. Remember, all the most destructive wars of the last century were about systems of government, not religion

Thats a strange thing to say considering everybody is going to have a different take on what a "sane war" is. What I meant was that non-religious wars would have real motivations, to do with economy/industry and liberty. And once those things are achieved or become impossible the sane leaders will negotiate. A fanatical Muslim leader can't do that. Israel needs to be destroyed. Not for any real reason, its just because GOD says that land belongs to Muslims.

GWolf

All war is insanity incarnate. And if they didn't have religion, it'd be land, or resources. If the type of people exist that would abuse religous belifs to start wars, if there was no religion, they'd just use a different reason, because those kind of people need to do that.

Zillah

GWolf wrote:

All war is insanity incarnate.

I strongly disagree. What about Roman wars of conquest? The vast majority of places they annexed ended up far far better for it in the long run. They spread civilisation and technology to hundreds of thousands of people. What about the Irish war of independence? Were they insane to fight for a free Ireland?

If the type of people exist that would abuse religous belifs to start wars, if there was no religion, they'd just use a different reason, because those kind of people need to do that.

I don't think you get it really. Everyone has the capacity to start a war, they just need the right reason. For some its little or nothing, they'll start a war at the drop of a hat. Those people are thankfully rare. There is, however, a large number of people that will start a war over a religious issue. And those people wouldn't neccessarily have been willing to kill others if they didn't believe God wanted it.

Aside from that its a very naive notion to say that starting a war over religion is an "abuse" of religion, they've always walked hand in hand. Thats the problem. Irrational paradigm leads to irrational behaviour. "Why did you kill that Jew?" "Because he's an infidel."

GWolf

I think i get it alot better then you do.

"Why'd you kill that Israeli"

"Becasue he's an Israeli"

"Why'd you kill that man"

"Because his politics were different then mine"

Scofflaw

What about "wars to right ancient wrongs"? Thus, for example, Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israel not on the basis of religion, but on the basis of Israel's occupation of their land.

cordially,
Scofflaw

seanie16

very funny episode i saw it on allabout-sp.net i loved it

Zillah

GWolf wrote:

"Because his politics were different then mine"

You really think thats how the majority of anti-Semetic Muslims would respond? I think it far more likely that the words "Allah" and "Infidel" would feature significantly.

GWolf

I'm saying if religon wasn't a factor, that's the excuse those type of people would use. Or something equally stupid.

Stompbox

Kudos to Zillah here!

GWolf

Hmph, well I think using religion as an excuse for war is the same as saying that without it there'd be no war. Glad I'm an agnostic.

Dades

GWolf wrote:

Hmph, well I think using religion as an excuse for war is the same as saying that without it there'd be no war. Glad I'm an agnostic.

I don't believe for a minute there'd be no war if there were no religion. But it is still a wedge used to divide people. Maybe the same people would find another wedge, but then maybe they wouldn't find it as easy to kill a man for land than they would if they thought God wanted them to.

GWolf

From what I've learned from watching people, if they will kill for one reason, they'll kill for another.

aidan24326

Dawkins does go a bit ott in suggesting (almost) that religion is the cause of all wars. He even mentions Northern Ireland although this has never really been about religion. But it (religion) is and has been one of the major factors. Still, regardless of war, there are other good reasons to want to do away with something that promotes so many falsehoods.

As for the South Park episode, watched it the other night on youtube. Pretty good alright. I'm sure Dawkins would be thrilled by that scene with himself and 'mrs' garrison in the bedroom

robindch

> He even mentions Northern Ireland although this has never really
> been about religion.

I disagree. I believe that religion has been the principal marker used by political leaders to convince their followers to perpetuate the conflict. While I believe that the poitical aspirations for unity with mainland UK, or with southern Ireland are secondary and generally derive from notions of religious affiliation anyway.

Put it another way, if you didn't have religions handing out baubles to march up and down the road with, I think it would be much harder to persuade people to hate each other since they'd have a hard time telling each other apart.

Jane Elliott's http://www.janeelliott.com/ 'Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes' exercises are worth checking out (perhaps on youtube?), to see how depressingly powerful it's possible for ridiculously simple tribal markers to be.

robindch

robindch wrote:

> He even mentions Northern Ireland although this has never really
> been about religion.

I disagree. I believe that religion has been the principal marker used by political leaders to convince their followers to perpetuate the conflict. While I believe that the poitical aspirations for unity with mainland UK, or with southern Ireland are secondary and generally derive from notions of religious affiliation anyway.

Put it another way, if you didn't have religions handing out baubles to march up and down the road with, I think it would be much harder to persuade people to hate each other since they'd have a hard time telling each other apart.

Jane Elliott's http://www.janeelliott.com/ 'Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes' exercises are worth checking out (perhaps on youtube?), to see how depressingly powerful it's possible for ridiculously simple tribal markers to be.

I'm not sure half them know what transubstantiation means though...
and that exercise I've heard of before, it's very interesting.

aidan24326

robindch wrote:

> He even mentions Northern Ireland although this has never really
> been about religion.

I disagree. I believe that religion has been the principal marker used by political leaders to convince their followers to perpetuate the conflict. While I believe that the poitical aspirations for unity with mainland UK, or with southern Ireland are secondary and generally derive from notions of religious affiliation anyway.

Put it another way, if you didn't have religions handing out baubles to march up and down the road with, I think it would be much harder to persuade people to hate each other since they'd have a hard time telling each other apart.

I don't entirely agree. Religion is used as a divisive label in the North but I can't see how that conflict was ever really about religion to begin with.
Whether you're catholic or protestant places you neatly on either side of the fence as republican or loyalist, but the issues of disagreement are not religious per se. I'm open to correction though.

Dawkins is most certainly correct in saying that religion is and has been a core issue in many wars and conflicts, with the middle east being an ongoing example, but I just thought he was stretching it a tad with Northern Ireland, which I never really saw as a religious conflict in the way that the whole Israel/Palestine situation clearly is.

Zillah

bluewolf wrote:

I'm not sure half them know what transubstantiation means though...

Doesn't matter if they fully understand their faith or not. They could think Catholicism is about worshipping a giant pineapple and still hate Protestants for their unholy beliefs.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

Dawkins is most certainly correct in saying that religion is and has been a core issue in many wars and conflicts, with the middle east being an ongoing example, but I just thought he was stretching it a tad with Northern Ireland, which I never really saw as a religious conflict in the way that the whole Israel/Palestine situation clearly is.

Eh? Are you saying that the Israel/Palestine war is between Judaism and Islam?

Are you not missing out on the rather large fact that the Palestinians were displaced from their land during the creation of the Israeli state by a campaign of intimidation and atrocity?

That the Israeli state is Jewish is really neither here nor there. If it were Christian, or Zoroastrian, or Muslim, the results would be the same - an intruded alien state, created by administrative fiat of the powers, displacing the indigenous population.

Religion traces the boundary of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but is not the cause of it, except in a really convoluted way that traces its routes through European anti-Semitism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Zillah wrote:

Doesn't matter if they fully understand their faith or not. They could think Catholicism is about worshipping a giant pineapple and still hate Protestants for their unholy beliefs.

I can't see how that's genuinely about the religion then, only using it as some arbitrary divider...

Dades

Zillah wrote:

Doesn't matter if they fully understand their faith or not. They could think Catholicism is about worshipping a giant pineapple and still hate Protestants for their unholy beliefs.

"They" still hate protestants only its the catch-all grouping for the "English" people occupying the 6 counties (IMO).

Dawkins suggests the news uses terms like "nationalist" and "loyalist" to disguise the fact that it's really about catholicism v protestantism. I just think statement is wrong, and is typical of what annoys me about Dawkins - his overdeveloped "root of all evil" attitude.

Personally I think the terms nationalist and loyalist are far more representative of what the 'conflict' is about.

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

Eh? Are you saying that the Israel/Palestine war is between Judaism and Islam?
Are you not missing out on the rather large fact that the Palestinians were displaced from their land during the creation of the Israeli state by a campaign of intimidation and atrocity
That the Israeli state is Jewish is really neither here nor there. If it were Christian, or Zoroastrian, or Muslim, the results would be the same - an intruded alien state, created by administrative fiat of the powers, displacing the indigenous population.
Religion traces the boundary of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but is not the cause of it, except in a really convoluted way that traces its routes through European anti-Semitism.?

I'm well aware that it is about the displacement of a people from their lands. But why do the Israeli Jews think that land to be their absolute right, rather than just some land that is geo-politically desirable? That's the issue. To me that's what makes it a different ball-game to Northern Ireland. The Zionists in Isreal consider it their god-given and god-promised right to that territory, and they will stop at nothing to ensure they get what is rightfully theirs.
As much of a nutjob as Ian Paisley is, I don't recall him saying (at least publicly) that he wants the catholics off Northern Ireland lands because god promised it to protestants.

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

I'm well aware that it is about the displacement of a people from their lands. But why do the Israeli Jews think that land to be their absolute right, rather than just some land that is geo-politically desirable? That's the issue. To me that's what makes it a different ball-game to Northern Ireland. The Zionists in Isreal consider it their god-given and god-promised right to that territory, and they will stop at nothing to ensure they get what is rightfully theirs.
As much of a nutjob as Ian Paisley is, I don't recall him saying (at least publicly) that he wants the catholics off Northern Ireland lands because god promised it to protestants.

Ah. I take your point, then. I would probably still argue that nationalism would do the job just as well, but certainly God is invoked as the "giver" of the right to the land, and the religious divide exacerbates the situation. In addition, religion certainly fuels the conflict, not least in the shape of those Christian fundamentalists who support Israel for "Biblical" reasons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

robindch wrote:

>

Put it another way, if you didn't have religions handing out baubles to march up and down the road with, I think it would be much harder to persuade people to hate each other since they'd have a hard time telling each other apart.

....exactly!

Religon is not just another cause factor, or arbitrary divider, it is the most powerful of these. Once a religous deity becomes utterly scrosnact like for example 'Allah' then any alleged indescretion against this deity brings severe consequences. This punishment that is given to the 'infidel' as a result is usually referenced from some old text and more often than not is usually fatal.
So what sin did the infidel commit?
Well anything really that contravenes age old laws of the religon in question. So many gods, different sets of rules and different punishments, all texts outlining these rules and punishments composed thousands of years ago translated many diifferent ways.
The result?
Confusion, fear, hatred and extreme violence.
It is relatively easy to turn a child into a murderer if you teach him that God expects this of him, that God is watching him judging him, and that God wants him to kill these sinners. Remove God from the equation and it becomes as lot more difficult brainwash people into commiting such extreme acts of violence.

GWolf

That is an incredibly simplistic and coloured opinion

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

It is relatively easy to turn a child into a murderer if you teach him that God expects this of him, that God is watching him judging him, and that God wants him to kill these sinners. Remove God from the equation and it becomes as lot more difficult brainwash people into commiting such extreme acts of violence.

Again, the KGB managed this quite well without using God. It would be interesting, of course, to see whether they thought it was harder without recourse to religious appeals...I doubt we will ever know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, the KGB managed this quite well without using God. It would be interesting, of course, to see whether they thought it was harder without recourse to religious appeals...I doubt we will ever know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We probably never will. What drives people to do evil is a complex issue and obviously pinning religion as the cause of all of it just doesn't wash. However to be fair to Dawkins he has never said such a thing, and he tends to be misquoted and misrepresented more than most. He explains in his 'God Delusion' book that the title for his tv docu 'The Root Of All Evil' was chosen by the producers, not him, and that he disliked it as a title as he is not suggesting that anything could ever be the root of all evil, as that of course would be a gross over-simplification. I think his real issue with religion is more to do with the fact that he sees it as just plain wrong, a total load of crap (as do I).

But there is undoubtedly a more sinister side to it aswell, and it is intersesting that religion, which on the one hand is supposed to be about love and kindness and forgiveness and all that stuff, should seem to crop up in matters of war and conflict as often as it does. While it may not always be the root cause, it's malevolent influence cannot be denied, and even if it doesn't always start the fire it so often does a very good job of pouring petrol onto it.

EDIT: sp

stevejazzx

GWolf wrote:

That is an incredibly simplistic and coloured opinion

What part do you disagree with?
The point is that religon is currently the most powerful motivating factor behind war and seperation in modern society. There are other massive factors of course, politics coming second, history third along with ecomnomic envoiromnet and modern culture and clash of culture etc, but the point was that without religon you deny this probelm it largest contributing factor. Tearing down the divisions of modern societies requires religon as it main sacrafice.

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, the KGB managed this quite well without using God. It would be interesting, of course, to see whether they thought it was harder without recourse to religious appeals...I doubt we will ever know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes this is true, but just because it can be done without using God does not mean that using God to achieve this is somehow more acceptable under the perception that it will happen anyway.

Also not a lot of organisations do not have the resources that the KGB would have, sometimes the only device available to these people is religon.

bonkey

stevejazzx wrote:

Remove God from the equation and it becomes as lot more difficult brainwash people into commiting such extreme acts of violence.

Based on what evidence?

Zombrex

I think the point that people seem to miss is that despite the fact that religion is not the only cause of conflict, it is not the only way to control and manipulate people, it is not the only reason for suffering in the world, it is still one of the causes/reasons for these things.

Just because bad things will still take place in the world isn't a reason not to go after religion and point out the bad things that religion causes.

For example while one can't really say that religion is the sole reason that Hamas launches suicide attacks against Israel, it is a pretty strong reason why the actual suicide bomber is prepared to die, since he believes he will live forever in heaven.

Religion provides a system for bad things to happen unquestioned. It isn't the only system, far from it, but it is still a system no the less

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote:

The point is that religon is currently the most powerful motivating factor behind war and seperation in modern society.

No way. Money. Money is by far the largest cause of wars these days.