Trey and Matt... [Archive]

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 02:21 PM

I've loved these guys and their show since episode one. I recently saw the Richard Dawkins episode (RD is one my heroes of course), and I fully enjoyed it and thought the humor was playful and nothing too serious. After the episode Dawkins made a comment that "They could of found someone with a better accent." Considering they had the man engaging in shemale sex, I thought that was rather upstanding and mature of him to only comment on the accent. So I continued on with my respect for T&M. However I just read Matt's comment on RD myspace:

"Looks like Dawkins shouldn't have listened to that John Lennon song so many times. Trey and I may not be Christians but we don't push our ways on people. Looks like what we have here inst a bunch of people who believe a scientific fact, looks like a *********** cult.

Peace
-Matt"

Now I've got quite a head-ache...Here we have the king of childish bashing, him and trey have ripped apart almost all religions, all super natural and woo, and even the american government, taking zero prisoners. And I've enjoyed every minute of it! But yet they seem to seriously dislike Dawkins...And I don't understand why...He's just taking a serious and MATURE(something they don't do, but again it's why I loved them) analyzation of religion and asking people to do the same. However he isn't forcing his views anymore than they are. He wrote a book, well so what, that's entirely up to me to buy the book. He does some radio interviews, so what, it's entirely up to me to listen to them. Trey and Matt sell SP merchandise, so what, it's entirely up to me to buy it, they do interviews as well, again entirely up to me to buy it, and along with their show, entirely up to me!

So why do these guys suddenly loathe this man....I WAS looking forward to seeing them, now I'm simply disgusted by their behavior. Again I don't mind what they do on the show, but to be this outright nasty in public is of course questionable.

Brown

16th January 2007, 03:20 PM

Dawkins is pushing his ways (presumably imposing his beliefs) upon others?

Really??

A cult?

REALLY??

Matt may reject all dogma, including scientific dogma, and that is his right. But it is also his right to make his own investigation into the matter. With scientific matters, this is permissible, even encouraged. With religious matters, especially cult beliefs, independent investigation of dogma is adamantly discouraged and is often not possible at all. Certainly he can see this.

Dawkins in particular does not merely say "You have to take my word on it" and leave it at that. He invites those who are curious to educate themselves and make their own studies.

Okay, you TAM attendees, don't let that rich b@$+@rd get away with this kind of crap. Press him on it.

By the way, wouldn't it be great if Penn and Teller wore T-shirts with "P" and "T" on them?

geni

16th January 2007, 03:25 PM

looks like a *********** cult.

So why do these guys suddenly loathe this man....I WAS looking forward to seeing them, now I'm simply disgusted by their behavior. Again I don't mind what they do on the show, but to be this outright nasty in public is of course questionable.

I feel he may have a point. You don't regard yourself as a ah "bright" by any chance?

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 03:26 PM

[QUOTE=Brown;2263132]

Dawkins in particular does not merely say "You have to take my word on it" and leave it at that. He invites those who are curious to educate themselves and make their own studies.

Okay, you TAM attendees, don't let that rich b@$+@rd get away with this kind of crap. Press him on it.

/QUOTE]

I 100% concur, and that's why I find his insults on 1/14/07 to be such a conundrum. It's been over a month since Dawkins said anything about the SP episode, why the sudden outburst.

And hey even if all of TAM gets quiet(although I hope they don't), I'll press him for answers.

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 03:29 PM

I feel he may have a point. You don't regard yourself as a ah "bright" by any chance?

No I never got into the bright thing. But I don't see how he has a point. An example I gave to a friend: In Team America they had Matt Damon as a character, I personally am really fond of Damons acting. And they played him up to be a talentless special ed moron. They also have attacked the Baldwins in several SP episodes, I personally love Alec Baldwin as well, but I don't mind them insulting anyone on SP. And I seriously didn't mind the Dawkins episode at all. And like I said I was further impressed when even Dawkins himself didn't mind it. However this is the first time (that I know of) Matt has gone out of his way over a month after all the heat has died down to re-hash the issue. And like I said, I'm open to any criticism, but his ENTIRE argument is inane. Dawkins has devoted fans, so what. SP has just as many if not MORE devoted fans, but I would never dream of calling them a cult.

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 03:32 PM

p.s. I don't see a problem with Brights though. Homosexuals were frowned upon (and sadly still are by some people) heavily for most of the 1900's. They were coined the term "Gay." It's irony though because they are insulting homosexuals by calling them "happy." So I find it silly that a now equally disrespect by the masses group (atheist) are trying to coin themselves as brights.

phyz

16th January 2007, 03:34 PM

I always thought that Penn looked at an audience and challenged himself with the thought, "How can I piss off the most people in this room."

Maybe Matt wants to be Penn.

geni

16th January 2007, 03:34 PM

However this is the first time (that I know of) Matt has gone out of his way over a month after all the heat has died down to re-hash the issue.

COS would probably dissagree with you there.

And like I said, I'm open to any criticism, but his ENTIRE argument is inane. Dawkins has devoted fans, so what. SP has just as many if not MORE devoted fans, but I would never dream of calling them a cult.

You really do appear to be complaining about Matt Stone turning a sacred cow into hamburgers. That is a bit like complaining that the pope is too dogmatic. While true it isn't really unexpected.

geni

16th January 2007, 03:38 PM

p.s. I don't see a problem with Brights though.

I've had a few ah dealings with the followers. Even the Montenegrin nationalist as better at considering the posibilty that they might be wrong.

Homosexuals were frowned upon (and sadly still are by some people) heavily for most of the 1900's. They were coined the term "Gay."

The history of different uses of the word "Gay" isn't that simple.

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 03:38 PM

I always thought that Penn looked at an audience and challenged himself with the thought, "How can I piss off the most people in this room."

Maybe Matt wants to be Penn.

LOL he certainly did just that on the Colbert Report.

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 03:39 PM

I've had a few ah dealings with the followers. Even the Montenegrin nationalist as better at considering the posibilty that they might be wrong.

The history of different uses of the word "Gay" isn't that simple.

Yeah alright, I'm sorry?

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 03:43 PM

COS would probably dissagree with you there.

You really do appear to be complaining about Matt Stone turning a sacred cow into hamburgers. That is a bit like complaining that the pope is too dogmatic. While true it isn't really unexpected.

I don't know what COS is?

Maybe you're not reading what I say correctly. I'm complaining that over a month down the road, after Dawkins handled the episode with great integrity, he's re-attacked by Matt for what appears to be no reason whatsoever. Atheism isn't a cult. Admiring an evolutionary biologist isn't a trait of a cult. I'm not saying some people don't go too far. But the same apply's to fans of anything is my point. Someone could worship Britney Spears in a cult fashion, just like I'm sure SOME people may worship SP in a cult like fashion, but that doesn't make Trey, Matt, Britney, or Richard as cult establisher's.

If you can point to me in some way that Richard is trying to establish a cult, I'll 100% back Trey up, but I've yet to see any evidence for this, and it's why I continue to call his argument inane.

Kil

16th January 2007, 03:49 PM

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 03:53 PM

Yes kill I loved the episode!
I especially loved when the wise one said "Maybe just be believing in god he exist" and then everyone paused..and someone shouted "KILL THE WISE ONE!!!"

Please don't misconstrue my point anyone. If Dawkins had said the same asinine comment about Matt, I'd be just as up in arms about defending Matt. I like(d) them both equally until today. I'm just as much a Dawkins fan boi as I am Randi, and P&T. If Trey has said Randi was forming a cult with his book flim flam and his JREF, I'd be just as upset, and to repeat again, if someone like Penn had said Trey was starting a cult with his show and merchandise, I'D STILL BE JUST AS UPSET!

<3 you all though!

geni

16th January 2007, 03:57 PM

I don't know what COS is?

Church of Scientology. Took south park quite a while to let them go.

Maybe you're not reading what I say correctly. I'm complaining that over a month down the road, after Dawkins handled the episode with great integrity, he's re-attacked by Matt for what appears to be no reason whatsoever.

Matt needs a reason? Thats going to be news to a lot of people.

Atheism isn't a cult.

Dawkins isn't atheism

Admiring an evolutionary biologist isn't a trait of a cult.

Dawkins isn't just an evolutionary biologist.

I'm not saying some people don't go too far. But the same apply's to fans of anything is my point. Someone could worship Britney Spears in a cult fashion,

That is a given for pretty much any celeb of her status. Anoying but not much you can do about it. At least the various groups don't normaly resort to killing each other.

just like I'm sure SOME people may worship SP in a cult like fashion, but that doesn't make Trey, Matt, Britney, or Richard as cult establisher's.

The quote doesn't claim that.

If you can point to me in some way that Richard is trying to establish a cult, I'll 100% back Trey up, but I've yet to see any evidence for this, and it's why I continue to call his argument inane.

Haile Selassie wasn't trying to start a religion. Didn't stop the Rastafari

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 04:07 PM

Church of Scientology. Took south park quite a while to let them go.
Yeah but that was back and forth, dealing with COS lawyers, and things of that nature. This was an entire month down the road after dawkins comments were made in early december late november. Considering he had an entire month to form a rebuttal, that was pretty piss poor.

Matt needs a reason? Thats going to be news to a lot of people.
No he doesn't need a reason, but IF HE HAD A REASON it wouldn't make the comment inane! DUH.

Dawkins isn't atheism
What? He's an atheist, but wtf are you even saying here. Atheism isn't a cult, and neither is admiring Dawkins work....

Dawkins isn't just an evolutionary biologist.
I'm aware? So what?

That is a given for pretty much any celeb of her status. Anoying but not much you can do about it. At least the various groups don't normaly resort to killing each other.
I 100% concur.

The quote doesn't claim that.
Well it claims that what dawkins does is force his beliefs on others. Not true. It also stated those agreeing were "a f***ing cult." Again, that simply isn't true. I don't even understand what you're arguing for....

Haile Selassie wasn't trying to start a religion. Didn't stop the Rastafari

I'm not familiar with this.

Geni at this point you're just arguing with me for the sake of argument. Just outright claim your point for me, please.

geni

16th January 2007, 04:19 PM

Yeah but that was back and forth, dealing with COS lawyers, and things of that nature. This was an entire month down the road after dawkins comments were made in early december late november. Considering he had an entire month to form a rebuttal, that was pretty piss poor.

This is myspace the supream court.

What? He's an atheist, but wtf are you even saying here. Atheism isn't a cult, and neither is admiring Dawkins work....

Atheism was not mentioned in the intial comment. Attacking dawkins and followers is not attacking atheism.

I'm aware? So what?

Asmireing someone with a ah forceful philosophy is.

I'm not familiar with this.

Eh well there is only a million of them or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafari_movement

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 04:26 PM

Thanks for nothing!

Kil

16th January 2007, 04:39 PM

Okay, here is the thing. Dawkins has become a bit too shrill for my liking. And I have sometimes worried about the angry atheist idea that all churchy people are nuts. To me that seems counter productive if what we want to do is to promote critical thinking. Who is going to listen to us while we call them irrational and stupid?

Now, that is not to say that I don’t agree with much of what Dawkins is on about, but I can’t go with him all the way.

And perhaps that is what Stone has picked up on. I dunno…

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 04:45 PM

Kil

16th January 2007, 05:00 PM

Perhaps it's. And a far better way of pointing that out would be to say those very things, not "you're all a f**** cult."

But let's be honest, I think ALL OF US, have referred to a devout zealot as a nut at least once...and this includes even the speakers at TAM5.

Yes, and perhaps Stone has just done the same thing, in his way. Again, I dunno...

And since I don't know, there really isn't much more I can add...

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 05:05 PM

Well I'll remain quite vexed until they speak.

Kil I hope to see you there, I posted my picture on this forum, so if you see me feel free to say hello, please!

Geek Goddess

16th January 2007, 05:09 PM

Can one of you post a link to what you are referring to?

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 05:28 PM

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 05:30 PM

And even worse, his comments here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=140503280&blogID=215916956&MyToken=30765a2d-5943-4c3e-8401-3e5b2b71ad10

Kil

16th January 2007, 06:09 PM

Well I'll remain quite vexed until they speak.

Kil I hope to see you there, I posted my picture on this forum, so if you see me feel free to say hello, please!Will do. I just posted my pict today... I finaly reached the magic number of 15 posts!

delphi_ote

16th January 2007, 06:29 PM

I feel he may have a point. You don't regard yourself as a ah "bright" by any chance?
I'm no fan of the "bright" idea, but this whole "You are a skeptic defending a perspective I disagree with, therefore you are one of the woo/cult" is really getting tiring. Can't you articulate your side of the argument better than that? It seems like too many of the people posting on these boards spend more time cutting each other down and starting drama over minor disagreements than they do discussing the issues that brought us all together in the first place. We're a small minority in any population, and we're damn lucky to have a chance to get together and talk reasonably. Why do we squander this precious resource calling each other names and trying to kick people out we think aren't "pure" skeptics?

Constructive criticism is fine. "You're one of them!" wore out its welcome years ago.

RemieV

16th January 2007, 08:26 PM

I'm in the midst of reading The God Delusion, so I'm not completely up-to-date on Dawkins. I haven't seen the South Park episode, either.

So yes, I'm a completely uneducated person that's going to try to make a point.

Now, so far within the book, Dawkins hasn't said why deism is a bad point of view, other than it's believing in a pointless fairy tale, which is an opinion. It might be an opinion that's grounded in reason. So were Voltaire's opinions, and he was a deist. It's a different type of reasoning.

I think that's the point Matt is hitting on here... That there is no reason to say someone's an idiot for believing in a god of some kind. Religion, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. And by religion, I don't mean "Christianity," so please do not write back and tell me all the things the Christians have done wrong lately.

To me, Matt has a point. At least, from where I am in the book. It isn't that he's creating a cult. He's creating an environment in which it's okay to call people idiots because you think you have a better grasp on life.

See? That's just what a lot of religious groups do.

And, from my perspective, this book is a somewhat irritating read because he toots his own horn a lot. Yeah, the book makes valid points. A lot of books do.

I just *know* I'm gonna catch heck for this.

RemieV

16th January 2007, 08:27 PM

P.S. I also think the point would be validated more if he said that Dawkins was creating a religion. But that doesn't make any sense, given what all those people's avatars say. So he picked a word that was the rough equivalent of religion. Maybe I'm missing what the problem is.

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 08:32 PM

Every interview and book I've read with dawkins, he seems very indifferent about deism. It's specifically religious gods.

RemieV

16th January 2007, 08:44 PM

I would get my book and quote it, but it's in the car and cold outside. There was a specific paragraph near the beginning where he addressed deism and how it's kind of silly. Oh fine, I'll go get it out of the car... ;)

Plastictowel

16th January 2007, 08:47 PM

I'll take your word for it. I've heard him speak kindly though of several of his Bishop friends, and numerous deist, be yes he does stretch atheism.

RemieV

16th January 2007, 08:52 PM

"The deist God is certainly an improvement over the monster of the Bible. Unfortunately it is scarcely more likely that he exists, or ever did."

And, actually, Dawkins doesn't say that the book is about religious gods. He says is it about supernatural gods.

RemieV

16th January 2007, 08:53 PM

Oh sheesh, you say that AFTER I go out to the car :)

bignickel

17th January 2007, 09:54 AM

I'm also reading "The God Delusion" right now; I missed the part where he said it was idiotic to be a deist. OTOH, I don't want to mis-read what you're saying, but that's the impression that I think you got.

delphi_ote

17th January 2007, 12:59 PM

Dawkins' reasoning on deism was basically that it was pointless to posit an entity that doesn't intervene in any measurable way with our universe just to score rhetorical points with true believers.

SkipTic

18th January 2007, 05:13 AM

I just finished reading my first Dawkins book, 'A Devil's Chaplain: Selected Essays'. He does think quite highly of himself and it is obvious in many of the essays but he does write some brilliant things.

I'm not sure if it was people who agree with Dawkins that Matt was critical of - episode hasn't aired here yet - but there is hardly a cult status. Matt should check the definition of a cult. It's a pretty pathetic attack and hardly well thought out argument. Besides, Trey Parker (writer/director) is the only one I worship, what the hell does Matt do anyway?

luchog

19th January 2007, 11:44 AM

To me, Matt has a point. At least, from where I am in the book. It isn't that he's creating a cult. He's creating an environment in which it's okay to call people idiots because you think you have a better grasp on life.

I would tend to agree with this to some extent. Dawkins has been rather superior and dismissive at times, and often comes off far more anti-religion/Christianity than pro-reason/critical-thinking. And I've dealt with enough of the more militant "Brights" that the "cult" comment doesn't seem like that much of an exaggeration, unfortunately. But Matt and Trey both tend to be more than a little heavy-handed themselves. So I see it as perhaps a valid, if rather exaggerated, comment; but with a strong undertone of "pot vs. kettle" as well.

desertyeti

19th January 2007, 11:52 AM

Foster Zygote

19th January 2007, 01:17 PM

I just added a reply to this blog under the name 'Steve'. I'm interested to see the responses I get.

pipelineaudio

19th January 2007, 01:22 PM

Foster Zygote

19th January 2007, 01:25 PM

Trey and Matt are very even-handed and make fun of everybody.
No big deal.
If the average person thinks that there really is equal weight to creation myths and scientific evidence, well...that's their problem. Since when has religion become a subject so taboo to speak about? Everybody has their individual beliefes and that's fine.
I have a right to find them amusing.
Everyone has a right to share in group beliefs and that's fine.
I have a right to find them amusing too.
And in a country where free speech is often alleged, I have a right to speak of my amusement. Not everyone will agree. So what? Since when has there ever been consensus on anything, least of all, what's funny and what's not? Many sceintists (myself included) do take themselves too seriously at times and anyone who sets out to write books, do the talk-show circuit, etc., is clearly pretty convinced of his/her own self-imporantce.
Guess what?
I find that in and of itself pretty damned amusing.
But enough ranting, I need to work on my book.

I agree. I've loved most of the South Park episodes I've seen. To me, Dawkins' comment about the accent showed that he took the whole thing in good humor. As Joobz (I think) pointed out elsewhere, the Dawkins character in the episode is an OK guy until Garrison corrupts him. Matt's comments in the blog just seemed so juvenile though. Judging by the content of the show I would have expected something less... moronic sounding. He comes off like someone they'd make fun of on their own show.

Foster Zygote

19th January 2007, 01:28 PM

This subject has come up in this forum a few times. Its not inaccurate that, thru no fault of his own, many of Dawkin's followers push religious left beliefs on people, and even Dawkins himself likes to interject a little political woo in his books

I thought we'd established that "political woo" was defined as political opinions that differ from one's own opinions.:)

desertyeti

19th January 2007, 01:31 PM

... moronic sounding. He comes off like someone they'd make fun of on their own show.

Well, the guy's made a living off of fart jokes and crude humor, so I expect not too much from him.
Satirical? Yes.
A wise man with much insight into the human condition? No.

Number Six

19th January 2007, 01:54 PM

Well, the guy's made a living off of fart jokes and crude humor, so I expect not too much from him.
Satirical? Yes.
A wise man with much insight into the human condition? No.

I've seen more insight into the human condition on SP than on any other current TV show, although granted there are lots of current TV shows I'm not familiar with. I think the reason there is such a reaction here to what Stone wrote is because people have high expectations for social commentary on SP based on its track record.

The episode was slightly heavy handed but not too much so because people do sometimes get carried away and take atheism to an extreme. The remarks a month later by Stone after Dawkins took the initial hit well is a bit of a mystery. But the fact that SP shows a willingness so make fun of silliness in every form gives it credility IMO.

desertyeti

19th January 2007, 01:57 PM

Word.

RvLeshrac

19th January 2007, 07:03 PM

The crux of this matter is that Trey & Matt believe in their own spiritual woo-woo and, quite hypocritically, can't take the heat. In that, they are no better than Isaac Hayes, and actually quite worse, given their attacks on him. I still do not see how Penn Jillette can continue to defend them. He may as well be defending Scientology or the Pope.

Like it or not, there is empirical evidence available which shows some level of correlation between reduced mental capacity and increased susceptibility to religious words/images. Also, like it or not, Dawkins has the right idea - respect and kindness toward religious beliefs has not motivated atheists yet, nor has it caused us to make much headway against religion. Perhaps he IS being a bit too confrontational, but I'm waiting for someone to propose a better alternative. At least he is out there raising a ruckus, while certain other respected skeptics are content to allow governments and religious figures free-reign in the media to discuss how evil are we who depend on facts for our view of the world.

"Insanity is doing the same thing in the same way and expecting different results." - (Franklin or Einstein, depending on the day of the week).

Foster Zygote

19th January 2007, 07:41 PM

WTF?

The post I left in reply to the blog is now gone. Did it get removed? I see someone else complained that his post was removed. What I wrote was in no way even remotely insulting. It was, I feel, very level headed and non-confrontational. I'm at a loss to explain why it should have been deleted. I'm not familiar with Myspace. Is the blogger the only one who can delete replies to his/her threads?

Beth

19th January 2007, 07:49 PM

The crux of this matter is that Trey & Matt believe in their own spiritual woo-woo and, quite hypocritically, can't take the heat.

I don't suppose you could explain that? What spiritual beliefs are they defending?

Foster Zygote

19th January 2007, 07:52 PM

Or does my not having 'invited (pestered) my friends' when I signed up have something to do with it? It seems unlikely to me, but I don't want to ask "hey, why'd you delete my post?" if it was some silly technical issue to blame.

Morrigan

19th January 2007, 09:03 PM

What a c*nt. Not that this is any surprise. These idiots, or at least Matt, can dish it out, but can't take it - pure hypocrisy. I hope someone slaps him behind the head at TAM.

pipelineaudio

19th January 2007, 09:46 PM

What a c*nt. Not that this is any surprise. These idiots, or at least Matt, can dish it out, but can't take it - pure hypocrisy. I hope someone slaps him behind the head at TAM.

in case anyone needed any evidence of the whackjob religious left see above

Troylus

19th January 2007, 11:19 PM

I think very highly of professor Dawkins. I think I own every book he's released and find them to be wonderful elucidations of evolutionary biology as well as atheism.

I also totally understand how Matt might get the impression that Dawkins has created a cult of personality around him. The sad fact of the matter is that I think there actually are many juvenile atheists who are using the prominence of Dawkins as an excuse for rebelling against religion without genuinely understanding that it is not the tentative conclusion of atheism that is important (that God is very unlikely to exist), but rather the epistemology leading up to it.

I saw the South Park episode not so much as a criticism of Dawkins or atheism in particular but rather of dogma of any kind. All those battling atheist groups in the future were divided along lines of the most petty nature. It was very apparent that even though they called themselves atheists they actually were a sort of godless religions.

I know that we may not like what Matt Stone is saying, but I partly agree with his point: at least some atheists are behaving in a cult-like manner when they treat Dawkins as a sort of "patron saint of atheism."

I sincerely hope that my fellow TAM 5 attendees won't give Matt any more fuel for that fire.

RvLeshrac

20th January 2007, 05:25 AM

I don't suppose you could explain that? What spiritual beliefs are they defending?

They won't openly profess them. Jillette has let it slip that they have some supernatural belief system, but it isn't one of the major ones.

I think very highly of professor Dawkins. I think I own every book he's released and find them to be wonderful elucidations of evolutionary biology as well as atheism.

I also totally understand how Matt might get the impression that Dawkins has created a cult of personality around him. The sad fact of the matter is that I think there actually are many juvenile atheists who are using the prominence of Dawkins as an excuse for rebelling against religion without genuinely understanding that it is not the tentative conclusion of atheism that is important (that God is very unlikely to exist), but rather the epistemology leading up to it.

I saw the South Park episode not so much as a criticism of Dawkins or atheism in particular but rather of dogma of any kind. All those battling atheist groups in the future were divided along lines of the most petty nature. It was very apparent that even though they called themselves atheists they actually were a sort of godless religions.

I know that we may not like what Matt Stone is saying, but I partly agree with his point: at least some atheists are behaving in a cult-like manner when they treat Dawkins as a sort of "patron saint of atheism."

I sincerely hope that my fellow TAM 5 attendees won't give Matt any more fuel for that fire.

If you seriously read Dawkins's books, you see that he hasn't created a "cult of personality" any more than Sam Harris has. Dawkins's main 'problem' is that the creationists have been using "The Blind Watchmaker" as evidence for creation ever since the book was released. It just happens that they've picked a target who isn't dead this time. Since he wasn't a particularly meek man to begin with, and is a professor to boot, it wasn't exactly unlikely that he would take his current position eventually. I would like to point out that he, much like Harris, is still respectful of religion so long as the individuals involved show the same level of respect toward science and atheism.

In any large group of individuals with a spokesperson, even of sorts, you are going to have people on the outside saying that you are a "cult." Many people have called the JREF a "cult" with Randi as the head. Would it be just as OK if Randi said that the language in Southpark was a bit much for teaching critical thinking, and then seeing Stone attack the JREF(publicity notwithstanding)?

I'd put more money on the people who agree with Dawkins having read The God Delusion, at the very least, than on the people who watched the referenced Southpark episode having read The God Delusion or any of Dawkins's books. Many of us have reached the same conclusions but lack the same ability to put them on paper. The difference between the 'cult' of Dawkins and the 'cult' of Southpark is that one audience is more likely to examine the issues critically, and the other is more likely to laugh at the 'dick & fart' jokes and then go on to finish the rest of their bowl.

I'm not saying that there are no virtues in Southpark - it CAN get people to discuss the issues, and it frequently highlights the laughable nature of extremes on both sides - but this is simply a case of Matt Stone being unable to swallow his own medicine.

It should also be noted, again, that this time the target wasn't the one who started the fight. I'm perfectly happy lauding Dawkins's thoughts in this matter, but I'm certainly going to be a bit suspicious if he offers me a glass of kool-aid.

You don't have to have a dog in the fight, but one of them is standing on his hind legs and citing research, the other is simply barking.

Morrigan

20th January 2007, 11:35 AM

in case anyone needed any evidence of the whackjob religious left see above

Would you mind elaborating on this? I don't quite understand what you are saying.

To clarify my own post: I have nothing against mean, nasty, brutal humorists. At all. But if they can dish it, they sure as hell should be willing to take it. One of my favourite humour group was "Rock et Belles Oreilles" (aka "RBO"). They became famous (or infamous) here in the province of Québec. They'd make fun of everything and everyone, and were especially mean-spirited - but hilarious. Yet, they also frequently laughed at themselves. They disbanded years ago, but got together again not long ago for a New Year TV special. As usual, they shocked and attacked everyone (in a very mean but funny way), including themselves, in many gags.

Shame that the South Park guys, or at least Matt (don't know where Trey stands here), seems to think so highly of himself that he can't do the same, as evidenced by the attitude on his Myspace. And anyway, someone acting belligerent and scornful on MySpace sure strikes me as ironical...

pipelineaudio

20th January 2007, 11:35 AM

troylus called it right. Its the dogma. Thats what the south park episode made fun of..that and dawkins being a dick :)

but we ENJOY dawkins being a dick, it makes him a lot less stodgy than the regular cast of pretend intellectuals one normally thinks of

Notice noone has ever called dawkins on his science...its great!!! he is able to explain extremely complex subjects in easy to understand ways...the ancestor's tale, minus the bits of political woo, is one of my favorite books of all times

but the dogma IS a religion, and not any of it directly dawkin's fault, but the fault of his followers

Human beings are mostly stupid, just because they are on the left that doesnt make them any smarter

Stupid people NEED to follow magical sky monsters. If a traditional religion is unavailable, then they will make one up with whatever bits they have available.

SLAG FAIRY's, Michael Moore-ons, ELF's, Chomsky-ites, are all religions, just they pretend to look down on other religions

Poppythinks

20th January 2007, 02:16 PM

Used to be a big fan of South Park but my appreciation
has waned lately since the Dawkins episode.
Where were Parker n Stone coming from - it wasn't clever
or funny - just really weak.
Parker n Stone depend on 'religion' for laughs, but making
something 'funny' somehow also makes it ok and reinforces
those ideas.
Dawkins' book is serious - (and made me laugh too) -
but there was nothing in The God Delusion that made
particularly good material for SP's brand of humour.
Or Parker n Stone didn't manage to find it.
The official Dawkins website has some amusing cartoons
and jokes about him - it is a rather gentle sense of
humour, and it works.
As for SP, i shall be casting a rather more critical eye
in their direction from now on.
And maybe i'm evolving.......

Questioninggeller

20th January 2007, 02:51 PM

I've been a fan of Southpark since the Spike and Mike days. Sometimes Trey and Matt are too preachy, and sometimes they are flat out wrong. No biggie, everyone makes mistakes.

Their claims about Michael Moore, treatment of Dawkins, global warming, and danger of second hand smoking are based on a slanted/misinformed perspective in their aim to be libertarian and not take a "liberal slant."

Its unfortunate, but again they make entertainment. If you want to learn about nature go to a scientist. If you want offbeat humor see Trey and Matt's Orgasmo.

At least they are challenging dogma. While they might get it wrong on a occasion its better than most of the stuff on TV.

Questioninggeller

20th January 2007, 02:54 PM

The crux of this matter is that Trey & Matt believe in their own spiritual woo-woo and, quite hypocritically, can't take the heat.
...

? Explain.

latent aaaack

20th January 2007, 06:20 PM

I'm an atheist and thought the episode was funny, thought provoking and I valued the perspectives of the intelligent not-quite-atheists behind the show. I thought some of the portrayal as Dawkins as a cultish figure was over the top but then I read this thread, and there's obviously some accuracy to it for a percentage of atheists. The rigid deference to an authority figure, hating groups outside your own, not believing that there can be any valid criticism of one's group, the sensitive outlandish reactions (to a cartoon no less), the use of slurs to denigrate those with other beliefs (woo), demonstrates that with some people, you can take them out of a religion but not the religion out of them. That wacky fringe of atheists is of course the only thing you could make a south park episode about, a show which admirably extolls the middle ground.

That was also what I most agreed with in the show, that religion doesn't cause conflict and idiocy.

thaiboxerken

20th January 2007, 06:46 PM

What is this Dawkin's Dogma? What are it's tenets?

thaiboxerken

20th January 2007, 07:10 PM

That was also what I most agreed with in the show, that religion doesn't cause conflict and idiocy.

I guess you haven't ever lived on the planet Earth.

Questioninggeller

20th January 2007, 07:25 PM

That was also what I most agreed with in the show, that religion doesn't cause conflict and idiocy.

So what was 9/11?

Foster Zygote

20th January 2007, 07:32 PM

So what was 9/11?

What's the point of having a conspiracy theory section of this forum if no one is going to read it? Sheeesh!:rolleyes:

RvLeshrac

20th January 2007, 09:19 PM

I'm an atheist and (...) the use of slurs to denigrate those with other beliefs (woo) (...) That was also what I most agreed with in the show, that religion doesn't cause conflict and idiocy.

Is it also a slur to say that the bible is myth and that a belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy beyond a certain age is a sign of derangement?

Seriously, if you're actually an atheist, then you should be able to grasp the simple concept of reason and rationalism:

- Think for yourself, and follow the evidence. If there is no evidence, check and see if you've gone the wrong way.

Atheism is, functionally, a lack of belief in something that cannot be shown in any way to exist. *ANY* form of spiritualism is a belief in something that cannot be shown in any way to exist.

I certainly agree with Dawkins in the sense that religious beliefs are a sign of mental impairment. Unless you think that we should happily respect the beliefs of those who believe in faeries and leprechauns and work to place them in positions of power, why would you believe religions deserving of more?

As to the last statement, I don't believe I can possibly cite enough examples to the contrary without running out of space on the internet itself.

latent aaaack

20th January 2007, 09:20 PM

So what was 9/11?

By "doesn't cause conflict" I mean it doesn't cause it anymore than, for example, personal property causes conflict, in that it's misjudgements made by individuals that cause it.

RvLeshrac

20th January 2007, 09:22 PM

? Explain.

Oh, and this.

Penn was defending(?) Matt and Trey at one point for their silence on the issue after the aforementioned SP episode aired, and stated that they have a belief in some spirituality or another, but that it was their business and that they should be able to state or not state the exact nature of it as they pleased.

Penn could be wrong, as he frequently admits to being, but somehow I doubt it.

Also, it should be noted that I'm less concerned, really, with the insults to Dawkins as they are than I am about the hypocrisy of producing Southpark for (what? ten seasons?) and then crying foul when threatened in-kind.

latent aaaack

20th January 2007, 10:11 PM

They really should let you delete whole posts.

latent aaaack

20th January 2007, 10:12 PM

Is it also a slur to say that the bible is myth and that a belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy beyond a certain age is a sign of derangement?

No that's an opinion, unless it was said to a religious person in an unconstructive and deprecating way.

Seriously, if you're actually an atheist, then you should be able to grasp the simple concept of reason and rationalism:

- Think for yourself, and follow the evidence. If there is no evidence, check and see if you've gone the wrong way.

Again, you challenging my atheism purity is another sign that you're being weirdly cultish.

Atheism is, functionally, a lack of belief in something that cannot be shown in any way to exist. *ANY* form of spiritualism is a belief in something that cannot be shown in any way to exist.

I certainly agree with Dawkins in the sense that religious beliefs are a sign of mental impairment. Unless you think that we should happily respect the beliefs of those who believe in faeries and leprechauns and work to place them in positions of power, why would you believe religions deserving of more?

As to the last statement, I don't believe I can possibly cite enough examples to the contrary without running out of space on the internet itself.

Equating belief in leprechauns with belief in the current dominant religion of the day is Bill O'reilly-type invective that makes it hard to interpret your statements as anything more than insincere heady grandstanding. Among the criticisms presented in that episode was not that you should happily respect others' religious beliefs. That you take an armed camp kind of stance against other groups, implying that you believe you can either join them or defeat them, is more along the lines of what that show criticized.

And to believe that people with religious views are stupid is of course an insulting oversimplification, which could be excusable for someone trying to sell a book but not as an actual belief. It's also been said (by Freud and I partly agree) that love and marriage is the other only socially acceptable delusion, but that doesn't mean that everyone who participates in social norms and gets married, choosing not to make themself an outcast, is an idiot who should be viewed with deep suspicion.

Troylus

20th January 2007, 10:53 PM

I think the Q&A period with Trey and Matt went very well today at TAM. When the Dawkins issue came up, (and they said that they knew that it would!) Matt said that he thought very highly of Dawkins's intelligence. He also said that he had problems with some of what Dawkins was saying in The God Delusion, but he didn't really elaborate.

But mostly, both Matt and Trey emphasized that they wanted to use atheism as a backdrop to their main story about Cartman's impatience for the Nintendo Wii and that it was the humor of the thing that was paramount to them.

AZAtheist

21st January 2007, 12:15 AM

Troylus, My take on the session is exactly the same as yours. Matt and Trey admitted they knew Dawkins through only one book and that was "The God Delusion". They also said that Dawkins was the smartest dumb guy they know, made note of his brilliance and then couldn't believe he said...and then didn't elaborate.

One of the questioners volunteered his name for a character. It's going to be interesting to see what happens with that. Trey said, "Be careful with what you ask for..."

RvLeshrac

21st January 2007, 08:53 AM

No that's an opinion, unless it was said to a religious person in an unconstructive and deprecating way.

Again, you challenging my atheism purity is another sign that you're being weirdly cultish.

Equating belief in leprechauns with belief in the current dominant religion of the day is Bill O'reilly-type invective that makes it hard to interpret your statements as anything more than insincere heady grandstanding. Among the criticisms presented in that episode was not that you should happily respect others' religious beliefs. That you take an armed camp kind of stance against other groups, implying that you believe you can either join them or defeat them, is more along the lines of what that show criticized.

And to believe that people with religious views are stupid is of course an insulting oversimplification, which could be excusable for someone trying to sell a book but not as an actual belief. It's also been said (by Freud and I partly agree) that love and marriage is the other only socially acceptable delusion, but that doesn't mean that everyone who participates in social norms and gets married, choosing not to make themself an outcast, is an idiot who should be viewed with deep suspicion.

Belief in something for which there is absolutely 0 evidence is, to put it bluntly, insane. Possibly stupid, but mostly just insane. Insanity doesn't necessarily require stupidity.

Do you also respect Scientology? They say that they are a religion, and have ideas which are not really that much nuttier than the though of someone raising the dead and healing the blind with his touch.

The problem with respecting one nutty idea is that you then have to respect all similar nutty ideas, because otherwise you have groups like Scientology claiming that they are being discriminated against.

hopfen

21st January 2007, 11:12 AM

The problem with respecting one nutty idea is that you then have to respect all similar nutty ideas, because otherwise you have groups like Scientology claiming that they are being discriminated against.

Doesn't that imply that the nutty groups with many members deserve even more respect than the lone nutjob?
In other words, a continuum of respect based on number of adherents?
[shudder]

RvLeshrac

21st January 2007, 11:39 AM

Doesn't that imply that the nutty groups with many members deserve even more respect than the lone nutjob?
In other words, a continuum of respect based on number of adherents?
[shudder]

Well, that's not the intended implication - but that's the way the world seems to work. "Religions" such as christianity and scientology are "deserving of respect," but one guy who happens to believe he is the messiah is "crazy."

Foster Zygote

21st January 2007, 11:44 AM

Well, yet another of my posts in response to Matt Stone's comments has been deleted. Along with Thaiboxerken's preceding it. Neither of our posts were the least bit confrontational. Thai's post just stated that he thought Prof. Dawkins had shown good humor (sorry, humour) in 'complaining' about the accent used in his portrayal. I agreed and added that the comments by some of the responders which Matt was using as evidence that Dawkins was a cult figure were the responsibility of the people who posted those statements and that Dawkins can hardly be held responsible for the words of others. I mentioned that Dawkins has never said anything like these things himself. My final sentence stated that it was not my intention to insult Mr. Stone nor mock his intelligence and that I simply felt he was mistaken on this issue.

I remain open to the slim possibility that my disappearing posts are the result of some technical matter caused by my unfamiliarity with Myspace so I'll refrain for now from posting a "WTF?" response to his blog. It seems unlikely though as one other short post asking where my previous post went is still there. If he is actually deleting responses that politely suggest that he may be wrong then I would have to find that to be hypocritical and pathetic.

thaiboxerken

21st January 2007, 12:26 PM

While they have a great show, it's apparent to me that Matt buys into the "angry atheist" mythos. He can't seem to stand being corrected when he's wrong. Oh well.

Foster Zygote

21st January 2007, 01:18 PM

While they have a great show, it's apparent to me that Matt buys into the "angry atheist" mythos. He can't seem to stand being corrected when he's wrong. Oh well.

I guess I'd be a little bummed out if people started judging us for what we really believe rather than the evil straw man in their heads. Sort of like the way I'd quote Lord Of The Rings before the movies came out but now I hardly ever do. If it suddenly became cool to be an atheist it wouldn't be cool to be an atheist any more. We'd all be saying "well I was an atheist before it was cool".:D

But seriously, if Matt has some animosity toward Dawkins and atheists in general because he feels they are offensive to his spiritual beliefs then the fact that he's helped create episodes poking fun at Catholicism, Mormonism, Scientology etc. would make his protests hypocritical.

RvLeshrac

21st January 2007, 05:32 PM

I noticed you were suffering from vanishing responses.

Interestingly enough, you've missed some of the other comments that have appeared for a few moments at various times. You'd have to refresh the page for half of the day in order to actually see all of the responses before they were deleted.

I wouldn't be nearly so upset about this if Matt were to come out and say either "I'm an atheist and I think that Dawkins's attitude toward religions is a steaming pile of ********" or "I believe that there is something out there which we can't define, etc etc, steaming pile, etc etc." He won't actually reveal his true position on the subject, however, which makes him as bad as a few of the caricatures in the show.

He's actually a bit like Cartman, demanding attention and then getting upset if his target doesn't bite.

thaiboxerken

21st January 2007, 05:50 PM

Here is the blurb that got Matt's panties in a wad:

"Finally, I have repeatedly been asked what I think of South Park and of Ted Haggard’s downfall. I won’t say much about either. Schadenfreude is not an appealing emotion so, on Haggard, I’ll say only that if it wasn’t for people of his religious persuasion, people of his sexual persuasion would be free to do what they like without shame and without fear of exposure. I share neither his religious nor his sexual persuasion (that’s an understatement), and I’m buggered if I like being portrayed as a cartoon character buggering a bald transvestite. I wouldn’t have minded so much if only it had been in the service of some serious point, but if there was a serious point in there I couldn’t discern it. And then there’s the matter of the accent they gave me. Now, if only I could be offered a cameo role in The Simpsons, I could show that actor how to do a real British accent."

From here: http://richarddawkins.net/tourJournal Bottom of the 10 Nov entry.

Foster Zygote

21st January 2007, 06:08 PM

pipelineaudio

21st January 2007, 07:50 PM

RvLeshrac

21st January 2007, 08:38 PM

how silly and hypocritical

look how angry you "angry " " atheists" " get when confronted trying not to look like angry atheists

Meanwhile true atheists think SP is pretty funny and even handed

Its not fair to poke at others' religious beliefs if you cant hack yours getting chewed on

Here comes the "atheism as a religion" canard. The entire point is a lack of blind faith in something, which is required for a religion.

I'm angry, just as angry as any number of scientists and/or atheists are at the amount of nonsense that gets bandied about. The problem is that most atheists *aren't* particularly angry about anything, and thus we remain, as a political and social group, completely disorganized. That's fine in one sense - it shows the level of independent thought that occurs - but it is also self-destructive, as we have no way to demonstrate that we'd rather not have politicians getting instructions from some imaginary best friend, and that we'd rather not see people robbed of their money (at the very least) by charlatans and kooks.

If we're to offer respect to phantasmal spiritual beliefs which defy all evidence to the contrary, why should we not also give the benefit of the doubt to the psychics and 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

Simply because someone has done good in the past (and there are plenty of Southpark episodes which attack a variety of woo-woo beliefs) does not mean that they are immune to criticism.

Foster Zygote

21st January 2007, 08:50 PM

TheChadd

21st January 2007, 09:02 PM

RvLeshrac

21st January 2007, 09:06 PM

The southpark guys always seem to me to be fairly popularist, at least to the 16-40 male market. I doubt they have too much of an idea about atheism or dawkins, nor do I really care, their joke may have not been funny and trey/matt may just be reflecting the usual atheist hate that's out there in the community.

I find it weird that apparently they've read "The God Delusion" yet they've missed the sections where Dawkins explains it all has nothing to do with indocrination, a cult or anything like that - And everything to do with true freedom and education.

If you're talking about Matt and Trey in the first segment, I have to say that they're rather intelligent. I'm sure that they've read the book. However, intelligence and rational thinking aren't directly proportional. (Conan Doyle and Hubbard, anyone?)

pipelineaudio

21st January 2007, 09:59 PM

I find it weird that apparently they've read "The God Delusion" yet they've missed the sections where Dawkins explains it all has nothing to do with indocrination, a cult or anything like that - And everything to do with true freedom and education.

You can scream that from the towers all you want, but its just not true

A real atheist can see religious dogma pouring from many of the Dawkins worshippers.

There are many of us atheists who appreciate Dawkin's contribution to science and education without getting caught in the whackjob religious left who is so pissed at SP right now...

this is hillarious, all the time you guys make fun when scientologists or mormons get offended by SP, oh how you laugh

Now the shoe is on the other foot and oh how offended art thee

Some of us are atheists and so many others are just "atheists" - the cool thing to be (tm). Unable to give up the invisible sky monster without worshipping something else. Just remember every time you make fun of a "fundy" or red state, the same could be said of you

cast aside your religious nonsense or get taken to the cleaners with the rest of the xians and muslims and gender normers, diversifists and fruedians

thaiboxerken

21st January 2007, 10:31 PM

What atheists here are actually offended by that episode? Are they the same strawman atheists that the South Park episode emulated?

I thought the episode was funny.

Who worships Dawkins? Can you name one individual that does?

pipelineaudio

21st January 2007, 10:58 PM

TheChadd

21st January 2007, 11:01 PM

I don't think trey or matt are 'idiots' I think they're geniuses, especially when it comes to comedy. I also have no problem with the episode or his comments, I just don't agree with him about any sort of 'dawkins cult'.

Jekyll

22nd January 2007, 02:18 AM

A real atheist can see religious dogma pouring from many of the Dawkins worshippers.

Won't the real true atheist please stand-up? Please stand-up.
Won't the real true atheist please stand-up? Please stand-up.
'Cos all the other real true atheists are just imitatin'.

Haven't you got bored with claiming that anyone who disagrees with your church of libertarianism is woo yet?

slingblade

22nd January 2007, 03:07 AM

Haven't you got bored with claiming that anyone who disagrees with your church of libertarianism is woo yet?

Oh, is that what he is? Well, no wonder.

PenguinWarrior

22nd January 2007, 03:58 AM

have you missed this thread?

Have YOU? Because you are not reading the same thread that I am, as far as I can tell. The vast majority of the comments here have been perfectly reasonable, and varying degrees of intelligent. There's maybe one post in here that I'd say has a glint of hypocrisy in it, and a tiny glint at that.

I don't think Dawkins is a cultish figure in any way. There are atheists who I feel have crossed the line from sensible disbelief to dogmatic disbelief (I don't believe Dawkins is amongst them), but they are very few, in my experience, and even they don't worship Dawkins as any kind of messainic figure or even follow him as a leader. Mostly he doesn't remotely resemble how he is portrayed by religious types - unfortunately he does occasionally say something that be construed that way (his description of God towards the beginning of The God Delusion probably isn't the best way to encourage wavering Christians to read on, for instance).

Really though, what do you expect from the creators of South Park? They hate everything, as far as I can tell. Generally in a fairly amusing way, but the nihilism gets a bit depressing after a bit.

Foster Zygote

22nd January 2007, 06:13 AM

Starrman

22nd January 2007, 07:01 AM

have you missed this thread?

I thought the thread was about a comment one of the SP creators made on a myspace page. You seem to be inventing an enemy to fight...

brodski

22nd January 2007, 07:15 AM

You seem to be inventing an enemy to fight...

Have you not followed the evolutionary history of the magical, mythical Slag Fairy?

thaiboxerken

22nd January 2007, 07:41 AM

have you missed this thread?

No, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem if you think there are Dawkins worshippers here or people offended by that particular SP issue. If any offense is taken it's to Matt's blog post. Even at that it seems to me that most people here are just pointing out the flaws.

TRY AGAIN

pipelineaudio

22nd January 2007, 09:39 AM

Won't the real true atheist please stand-up? Please stand-up.
Won't the real true atheist please stand-up? Please stand-up.
'Cos all the other real true atheists are just imitatin'.

Haven't you got bored with claiming that anyone who disagrees with your church of libertarianism is woo yet?

weeeeeaaaaaaakkkkk

no need for any scottsmen here

Simply the lack of espousing things as fact without evidence should be enough right? Or have you some other definition?

pipelineaudio

22nd January 2007, 09:41 AM

Oh, is that what he is? Well, no wonder.

Im not a libertarian, but the religious hatred and dismissal of all things libertarian by so many in the religious left here is telling and quite relevant to the subject at hand, but of course you cant see it

of course you wont agree

of course its only THE OTHER GUYS who are acting on faith and prejudice , not facts

pipelineaudio

22nd January 2007, 09:45 AM

There are atheists who I feel have crossed the line from sensible disbelief to dogmatic disbelief (I don't believe Dawkins is amongst them),

Neither do I, but then again I already said that

Really though, what do you expect from the creators of South Park? They hate everything, as far as I can tell. Generally in a fairly amusing way, but the nihilism gets a bit depressing after a bit.

I expect them to get their !@#$#% pretty much straight as they have when they went up against all other religions, including what was (at the time) a religion against second hand smoke.

Jekyll

22nd January 2007, 11:18 AM

weeeeeaaaaaaakkkkk

no need for any scottsmen here
You're claiming that people who disagree with your politics can't be 'real' atheists.
Simply the lack of espousing things as fact without evidence should be enough right? Or have you some other definition?
Ummm, what? You 'espouse things as fact without evidence' all the time (secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen BTW) and I still accept that you're an atheist.

pipelineaudio

22nd January 2007, 11:55 AM

You're claiming that people who disagree with your politics can't be 'real' atheists.

evidence?

(secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen BTW)

it wasnt at the time, the study they were using was flawed

slingblade

22nd January 2007, 12:13 PM

brodski

22nd January 2007, 12:19 PM

To me, Matt has a point. At least, from where I am in the book. It isn't that he's creating a cult. He's creating an environment in which it's okay to call people idiots because you think you have a better grasp on life.

See? That's just what a lot of religious groups do.

Do you honestly believe the creators of south park think that
"creating an environment in which it's okay to call people idiots because you think you have a better grasp on life [than them]" is a bad thing? or cultish?

It's their whole frickin' show.

Poppythinks

22nd January 2007, 12:29 PM

seems like anyone who criticises Parker n Stone
get rubbished on this thread.
from what i've read, there are a few angry SP-ite posters here -
(or perhaps i should say SPrite - the 'r' standing for 'religion') -
Trey n Matt being the 'gods of offensiveness'.
well i've got only one thing to say - i like dawkins more than
cartman.....nah nah nah nah nah. end of.

Morrigan

22nd January 2007, 02:20 PM

There are many of us atheists who appreciate Dawkin's contribution to science and education without getting caught in the whackjob religious left who is so pissed at SP right now...

this is hillarious, all the time you guys make fun when scientologists or mormons get offended by SP, oh how you laugh

Now the shoe is on the other foot and oh how offended art thee

What in the hell are you babbling about? Who here got offended at the SP episode? People are criticizing Matt's attitude on his homepage. Not the same thing at all.

You really need extra reading comprehension...

Jekyll

22nd January 2007, 02:53 PM

evidence?

A real atheist can see religious dogma pouring from many of the Dawkins worshippers.

.... the whackjob religious left who is so pissed at SP right now...

Some of us are atheists and so many others are just "atheists" - the cool thing to be (tm). Unable to give up the invisible sky monster without worshipping something else. Just remember every time you make fun of a "fundy" or red state, the same could be said of you

cast aside your religious nonsense...

..the ancestor's tale, minus the bits of political woo, is one of my favorite books of all times

but the dogma IS a religion, and not any of it directly dawkin's fault, but the fault of his followers

SLAG FAIRY's, Michael Moore-ons, ELF's, Chomsky-ites, are all religions, just they pretend to look down on other religions
:rolleyes:

alfaniner

22nd January 2007, 05:49 PM

So, did they show up at TAM or not?

Frogberto

22nd January 2007, 06:18 PM

Yes, they were at TAM, and even though I'm not a big fan of South Park (gasp!), I thought they were great speakers, and truly lighthearted in all of their comments, and basically irreverent about everything. Oh, and they clarified that they are not athiests, even though much of the population assumes they are.

Foster Zygote

22nd January 2007, 07:15 PM

The responses to that blog at least gave me a sense for what an oasis of rationality JREF is. Some of those responses sound like they were written by fourth graders. I'm not referring to the profanity either. I'm rather fond of profanity myself and I'm certainly not above a good fart joke. I'm talking about the reasoning ability of some of these people. Well, like this kid:

It does not change the fact that he is leading a CULT, he seems to want to replace god with himself

He's the same one who earlier wrote:

I salute you guys, No one else bothers making fun of Atheists!

It's just nice being on a forum in which people who pull things out of their a**es are called on it and not given high-fives by other sycophants.

Dubito

22nd January 2007, 09:35 PM

As far as South Park episodes go, I thought their Dawkins one was really weak. It meandered, and it took pretty much until the last ten minutes to make any kind of substantial point. Usually, you can see where they're coming from throughout, but this one seemed to lack the usual focus. Perhaps it's because they couldn't do a "this is what atheists actually believe" segment. I certainly wasn't offended, I just thought it was a lame effort.

I was upset over the portrayal of Dawkins as a knee-jerk response, but after seeing the episode again, it was more clear that it was Mr(s). Garrison's fanatacism that influenced the future society far more than Dawkins's more moderate stance (and on that front, Dawkins was portrayed as a solid voice of reason). It still wasn't super-apparent, and the sex scene with Mr(s). Garrison still seemed like a bit of sour grapes.

But the episode's message seemed clear to me in the end, that fanatics and idiots will fight each other no matter what their belief system is, and that even atheism is prone to dogmatism. The message is valid; there are fanatics and morons for every belief system, from religion to politics to Shakespeare authorship. I think it's fair to say that some systems promote and foster that sort of fanatical ignorance more than others, but everything's vulnerable to dogmatism to some degree.

I think my problem with that message is that Trey and Matt appear to be arguing against an empty room. What reasonable person would say that there are no dumb atheists, that there's no person with a fanatical hatred for religion, and that removing religion would instantly clear society of all problems? Certainly not Richard Dawkins. Dawkins may be more optimistic about a wholly rational society than others would be, but he certainly doesn't fit in with Trey and Matt's strawman atheist fanatics. Trey and Matt are arguing against a point that nobody supports, and their muddled message comes across as a tirade against atheism and rationality, with the more subtle points obscured by the confused Buck Rogers parody and the transsexual intercourse.

Strangely, though, the episode was more fair to Dawkins and atheists than any of the comments I've seen out of Trey and Matt's camp. It seems that even they may have missed the point of their episode.

pipelineaudio

23rd January 2007, 10:46 AM

The SP episode, which many seem to need to watch more clearly, didnt make any claims about Dawkins himself (except that hes a dick, you may or may not agree)...they make calim about the followers

thaiboxerken

23rd January 2007, 10:48 AM

The SP episode, which many seem to need to watch more clearly, didnt make any claims about Dawkins himself (except that hes a dick, you may or may not agree)...they make calim about the followers

What followers? Are they made of straw?

AZAtheist

23rd January 2007, 04:19 PM

For me the most interesting part of the Matt and Trey interview was the fact that the actual president of the Athiest Alliance International was there and able to toss them a question. Interesting to me because, while I'm a lifetime member of American Atheists, I didn't know her organization existed AND I didn't know that there was a feud going on! Now the episode made a WHOLE lot more sense. Later, I got a chance to chat with Margaret Downey...Interesting.

Renfield

23rd January 2007, 04:28 PM

I'm fine with them making fun of atheists, but calling it a "cult" is just ******* stupid. Its the abscence of belief, quite simply. All atheists are asking is for the religions to prove it. And them going after Dawkins for "being a dick" when it comes to respecting peoples' beliefs is ridiculous. I mean, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Look at how they've ripped into a number of superstitious and religous beliefs. They weren't exactly nice about it.

And no, I'm not offended by the Dawkins episodes. I get it that its "just a tv show". I just think they were waaay off the mark with some of the points they were making.

Renfield

23rd January 2007, 04:33 PM

delphi_ote

23rd January 2007, 04:37 PM

A real atheist can see religious dogma pouring from many of the Dawkins worshippers.
What about a true Scotsman? :rolleyes:

Renfield

23rd January 2007, 04:37 PM

weeeeeaaaaaaakkkkk

no need for any scottsmen here

Simply the lack of espousing things as fact without evidence should be enough right? Or have you some other definition?

Spoken like a true South Park fanatic. You just can't stand to see your show criticized for anything can you? Its just unthinkable that Matt and Trey could be wrong about anything, so you have to attack the critics. I like South Park too, but with some of you, its almost like, well, a cult!

petre

23rd January 2007, 04:37 PM

I have to say I didn't really see a reason it took two episodes to tell the entire story. The otters were a bit off-the-wall to stretch for a two-episode joke.

On another note...this Dawkins fellow is a real person then? If you'll excuse me I think I have some reading to do...

Renfield

23rd January 2007, 04:42 PM

Chimera

23rd January 2007, 04:58 PM

I thought the SP episode was the natural next step in Trey and Matt's journey to explore/ridicule the stuff that's in our collective conscious. Mostly, I thought it was quite clever.

The whole Dawkins/Garrison relationship was a total non sequitur, though. Where on earth did that come from? Usually there is some truth to their caricatures (i.e.; their repellent spectre of Paris Hilton). The Dawkins character was way out of left field, even for Parker/Stone.

Renfield

23rd January 2007, 05:09 PM

I'm an atheist and thought the episode was funny, thought provoking and I valued the perspectives of the intelligent not-quite-atheists behind the show. I thought some of the portrayal as Dawkins as a cultish figure was over the top but then I read this thread, and there's obviously some accuracy to it for a percentage of atheists. The rigid deference to an authority figure, hating groups outside your own, not believing that there can be any valid criticism of one's group, the sensitive outlandish reactions (to a cartoon no less), the use of slurs to denigrate those with other beliefs (woo), demonstrates that with some people, you can take them out of a religion but not the religion out of them. That wacky fringe of atheists is of course the only thing you could make a south park episode about, a show which admirably extolls the middle ground.

I don't think you are reading the criticisms very closely, if that's all your seeing. You sound pretty fanatical the show yourself.

Talk abou tth e pot calling the kettle black.

delphi_ote

23rd January 2007, 05:13 PM

The whole Dawkins/Garrison relationship was a total non sequitur, though. Where on earth did that come from? Usually there is some truth to their caricatures (i.e.; their repellent spectre of Paris Hilton). The Dawkins character was way out of left field, even for Parker/Stone.
Could it be they weren't very educated on their topic and didn't care to do any research? They themselves said they weren't familiar with any of the rest of Dawkins' work.

articulett

23rd January 2007, 05:21 PM

There is this notion out there about the "militant atheist" or "radical atheist"--when someone uses the terminology--I try to get them to define it and then, once I get the definition, I ask them to cut and paste some words from a radical atheist that illustrate their definition. They never can. And when the one guy pointed to Dawkin's book and referred to him as being a radical atheist--I wanted him just to point to one phrase that makes him think that. I read the book--I don't see anything radical. I suspect people are hearing more than is being said because we live in a world taught to show special respect for certain kinds of beliefs.

For those of you who believe there are radical atheists--can you tell me what your definition of a radical atheist is. (And not just a definition of someone who is radical and also an atheist--the world radical needs to modify atheist--an "uber atheist", if you will. And if you think Dawkins or someone else is a radical atheist, could you cut and paste a quote that illustrates that? I find that people often think somebody said something that is not actually in the words they said. I want to know if the South Park guy actually think Dawkin's is radical for something he actually did or said--or did he just have a stereotype of an atheist and let that stereotype shade the information he heard about Dawkins.

I know that there is humor is stereotypes--but atheism is already so maligned, and I can't tell if there actually are these radical atheists that most people seem to assume they are. I don't Dawkins radical at all.

pipelineaudio

23rd January 2007, 05:30 PM

I'm fine with them making fun of atheists,

They werent making fun of atheists, they were making fun of religious loonballs who call themselves atheists

but calling it a "cult" is just ******* stupid.

No its pretty right on...I bet someone could come up with a 50 point q and a where the loons would be pretty consistently together

valis

23rd January 2007, 05:33 PM

Dawkins in particular does not merely say "You have to take my word on it" and leave it at that. He invites those who are curious to educate themselves and make their own studies.

But if we come to a conclusion that he does not like he considers us inferior. I don't see how his attitude is any better than that an intolerant, smug, religious person.

For instance I was an atheist and after many years of thought became a Christian. So he thinks I'm an idiot.

For instance here is a nifty quote of his about members of congress:
"Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying.

How is that any better than the attitude of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?

Call me stupid but I have the wacky notion that the fact that someone dis-agrees with me; particularly in a matter that cannot be tested or proven, does not mean one of us is stupid or crazy.

RvLeshrac

23rd January 2007, 06:37 PM

But if we come to a conclusion that he does not like he considers us inferior. I don't see how his attitude is any better than that an intolerant, smug, religious person.

For instance I was an atheist and after many years of thought became a Christian. So he thinks I'm an idiot.

For instance here is a nifty quote of his about members of congress:

How is that any better than the attitude of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?

Call me stupid but I have the wacky notion that the fact that someone dis-agrees with me; particularly in a matter that cannot be tested or proven, does not mean one of us is stupid or crazy.

Please don't take quotes out of context. Cite your sources, and read his book. What do you think got Dawkins riled up in the first place?

There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate. Assuming that the majority of these 535 individuals are an educated sample of the population, it is statistically all but inevitable that a substantial number of them must be atheists. They must have lied, or concealed their true feelings, in order to get elected. Who can blame them, given the electorate they had to convince? It is universally accepted that an admission of atheism would be instant political suicide for any presidential candidate.

I can also lift the quote from a page earlier in the book, which is a repetition of George Bush, Sr. responding to a question regarding the citizenship and patriotism of atheists.

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Now, which is the more rational point? That atheists are considered (as were blacks at one time, if you remember your history) less than citizens, or that the probability of gathering 535 educated men in one room and having exactly 0 of them be atheists (537, if one were to count the President and Vice President) is extraordinarily low? Especially considering the number of them that are educated in a variety of sciences?

thaiboxerken

23rd January 2007, 07:01 PM

No its pretty right on...I bet someone could come up with a 50 point q and a where the loons would be pretty consistently together

There is no cult here. Agreement among a group of people is not a cult. The "cult" you keep claiming is there is as real as the JREF cult that the woo-woos keep claiming exists.

Pipirr

23rd January 2007, 07:33 PM

Is this cult thing because of the 'Imagine no religion' profile pics on The RDF myspace page?

From the RDF website (http://richarddawkins.net/home) itself:

"Are you on MySpace? Add The Official RichardDawkins.net MySpace account and make us one of your top friends! You can help us promote! We are currently running a flyer campaign, where everyone is changing their profile image to our "Imagine No Religion" flyer."

Then Matt drops by the myspace page, finds lots of identical profile pics and starts yelling 'cult'.

I admit I don't know the mysteries of myspace, but unless Richard Dawkins has lost forty years, the myspace page is not run by him but by a 25 year old.

Anyway, I'm not so sure that the profile pic campaign was that great an idea. It does look a bit odd.

valis

23rd January 2007, 08:13 PM

Please don't take quotes out of context. Cite your sources, and read his book. What do you think got Dawkins riled up in the first place?

The quote is from the recent Wired magazine article. I copied and pasted it without any alteration.

articulett

23rd January 2007, 08:21 PM

How can anyone be radical about what they don't believe in. Everyone who is not a Scientologist is a wog--the Scientology term for a non-scientologist. So we are all wogs. But what would a radical wog be? Someone who believes you must capture and deprogram Scientologists. I think it's clear that "radical atheist" is a meme that just isn't supported by the words people are saying.

It seems to be more of a label where people plug in all prejudices they have about non-believers and twist the words they say into a confirmation biased opinion--exactly what Bill O'reilly was doing on that war against Christmas clip.

Next time someone uses the term radical atheist or something like that--see if you can pin them down on what they mean and ask for a quote that supports it. I don't think there is anything radical about Dawkins--I just think people dislike him because he doesn't believe in their god. I think the radical atheist stereotype is greatly exaggerated, and I wish Matt wouldn't have perpetuated it. Believers already think atheists are arrogant sodomites bound for hell--I hope Matt does read Dawkins.

valis

23rd January 2007, 08:29 PM

Now, which is the more rational point? That atheists are considered (as were blacks at one time, if you remember your history) less than citizens, or that the probability of gathering 535 educated men in one room and having exactly 0 of them be atheists (537, if one were to count the President and Vice President) is extraordinarily low? Especially considering the number of them that are educated in a variety of sciences?

You mean one person, albeit the President, expressed that opinion when questioned. The personal opinion of the President is not law; nor to my knowledge has he introduced, or even discussed introducing any legislation limiting the legal rights of atheists.

Blacks on the other hand did have their rights restricted, both by law and de facto. I don't see any legitimate comparison; based on what little history I know.

As for the odds, I am no statistician but I guess you take the percentage of atheists in the general population and figure the odds for 535 random people. But the problem with that is that the demographics of Congress do not match those of the public at large.

articulett

23rd January 2007, 08:30 PM

how silly and hypocritical

look how angry you "angry " " atheists" " get when confronted trying not to look like angry atheists

Meanwhile true atheists think SP is pretty funny and even handed

Its not fair to poke at others' religious beliefs if you cant hack yours getting chewed on

Ah--so you're a "true atheist"--and the definer of "true atheists" as well. What if Randi had been the evil atheist character. A person can find the guys funny for the most part while still feeling they perpetuated a harmful stereotype upon a man that people are already primed to hate and upon a group of people others readily assume are arrogant.

I just don't think there is a stereotype that can apply to a group of non-believers--just as there is no stereotype of "wogs" or non-stamp collectors. And yet people claim there are such people--but when you try to pin them down on what they mean along with evidence, it just looks like a big fat social lie.

My son said the same thing you said--so I'm guessing your young. But when I got him to define what a radical atheist--and sent him to show me quotes from these radical atheists he was talking about--he had to admit he had exaggerate what was said in his own mind--

So why don't you define what a radical or angry atheist is (before you do your quote mining) and then give us examples from anywhere. I think the stereotype exists in peoples' heads far more than in reality.

T'ai Chi

23rd January 2007, 08:37 PM

There is no cult.

Just people gathered around a charismatic leader.

thaiboxerken

23rd January 2007, 08:41 PM

Nice try, TaiDini, but your attempt was rather pathetic.

Dubito

23rd January 2007, 09:01 PM

There is no cult.

Just people gathered around a charismatic leader.

Wow, it looks a lot like the retirement party we held for one of my physics professors. I guess SPS must be a cult too.

TheChadd

23rd January 2007, 10:02 PM

There is no cult.

Just people gathered around a charismatic leader.

And yet all throughout this forum (his forum) you can find dissent against many of his opinions.

articulett

23rd January 2007, 10:24 PM

And yet all throughout this forum (his forum) you can find dissent against many of his opinions.

Indeed. I wonder why Thai endlessly hangs out at the cult forum while deriding the gentle gnome of a man who makes this forum possible. That's what the Mythbusters should tackle next. What induces a skeptic-haters to hang out endlessly with skeptics telling them how bad and wrong and close-minded they are? What is the thought process that goes on in their head. "Say, I'm going to teach those skeptics a thing or two!"?--and why do they stay so long causing such annoyance to so many for years? I mean, they do amuse--but what do you suppose the thinking behind it is? They don't seem to have many friends on this forum. Maybe they just get a kick out of trolling? Why go to the party if you hate the host when there's many parties that contain guests more to your liking.

bignickel

24th January 2007, 12:11 AM

For instance I was an atheist and after many years of thought became a Christian. So he thinks I'm an idiot.

For instance here is a nifty quote of his about members of congress:

"Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying.

How is that any better than the attitude of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?
Uh, you kind of lost me there. How does his quote show that he thinks theists are idiots?

Read your quote again: he's talking about atheists in Congress who won't admit to being atheists. His next sentence indicates he has a problem with this factoid. His next sentence says either they're stupid or lying. He hasn't changed the subject to any other group in between sentences: therefore, the 'they' in "they're" are the 'atheists in Congress who won't admit to being atheists.'

Could you give us a different quote to show that Dawkins thinks theists are idiots? I suspect you're going to have a problem doing this; I further suspect that you've conflated 'lack of respect for a belief' with 'lack of respect for the believer'.

This is excellent erroneous belief that I think we advocates of science should use in our battles with Creationists. Everytime they criticize evolution through natural descent, we could accuse them of calling us idiots.

Or maybe there's a downside to using such tactics. Hmm, we'll have to think about this one a bit longer before considering implementation.

delphi_ote

24th January 2007, 10:16 AM

There is no cult.

Just people gathered around a charismatic leader.
For more images of cults,

click here (http://www.ee.oulu.fi/research/miklab/mma2006/photo_mma.jpg)
and here (http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~imvip99/photo.jpg)
and here (http://alobbs.com/albums/oswc/dsc02023.jpg)
and here (http://nanotube.msu.edu/nt05/img-var/NT05confpic-hr.jpg)
and here (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/conference-browse.jpg)
and here (http://www.farnborough.com/images/mediaDLs/Space%20conference.jpg)
and here (http://www.topinc.net/conference%20workshop.jpg)

Who knew they were so common?!

Foster Zygote

24th January 2007, 11:26 AM

There is no cult.

Just people gathered around a charismatic leader.

I've come to expect little in the way of intellectual content from your posts, but this is a new low. Every man in my wedding party wore matching clothes too. I suppose that makes them all members of my cult, yes? Let's see: "Hey Joobz! Give me all your money and venerate me!" Well, we'll have to see how he responds. If he mails me a check and tells all his Friends how much their lives will improve if they follow my teaching then you'll have made your point.

IllegalArgument

24th January 2007, 11:38 AM

There is no cult.

Just people gathered around a charismatic leader.

I have been to TAM3-5 and the cruise, chatted with Randi a few times.

Randi isn't the reason I go, it's the interesting speakers, the great people I meet.

Read some of the TAM feedback threads, I found Randi's presentation the weakest. A lot of people did, doesn't that sound like a fawning audience.

A cult leader would claim to be infalible, Randi regularly notes mistakes he makes in Swifts. If he started claiming that the moon was made of cheese, the first thing I would do is call 911 and get him some help, not drop to my knees thank him for the insight.

Stop throwing straw.

T'ai Chi

25th January 2007, 02:39 AM

Wow.

The humor-impaired really do exist. :)

monoman

25th January 2007, 03:32 AM

There is no cult.

Just people gathered around a charismatic leader.

Yes just like the cult of football supporters who wear their team colours and hang on to every word their coaches and board of directors say. Mindlessly supporting them through thick and thin even when bad decisions are made.

..... or maybe not.

Jekyll

25th January 2007, 03:53 AM

Wow.

The humor-impaired really do exist. :)

Funny, I was just thinking that.

Big Les

25th January 2007, 04:31 AM

I think the problem is a charicaturing of Dawkin's position by "the media" which comes about through the usual simplification and "chinese whispers" modification process that all media reports are subject to. With some added sensationalist spin, since after all, religious and political conflict makes good copy.

That effect is magnified by more deliberate characaturing by those that, at that point, feel threatened either by what Dawkins has said, or by what they think he's said. Then you have the casual consumer of such reports, i.e. the average joe, who doesn't pay too much attention, just takes in what they think is enough to grasp what's been said. If they're to any extent anti-religion, they'll think the media-mediated version of Dawkins is fine. If they're pro or even neutral, they'll start to think "hey, wait, that's a bit strong! He's taking it too far, he's just as bad as the fundies" etc etc.

You then have the compounding problem of the disproportionate respect afforded to religions and their believers, a topic which Dawkins deals with rather well in the God Delusion and which was illustrated nicely by that recent video clip of his supposedly "snarky" response to the Christian girl asking "what if you're wrong?". He essentially complains that much of the flak he takes is a result of the subject being a "no go" area for what used to be called "polite conversation". Religious sensibilities are easily offended, and it's bad form to challenge anyone's deeply-held beliefs. As the old cliche goes, "don't talk about religion and politics". I think that's a ridiculous restriction on free thought, and gives religion an undeserved free pass.

I think a lot of the responses to Dawkins, including the "is it a cult", "he's a bit shrill", "he goes too far" type posts on here are a reflection of how deep seated this extra measure of respect, beyond that afforded to any other individually-held belief or opinion, runs in our societies. Even sceptics willing to aggressively challenge believers in psychics, conspiracy theories, and so on, will hesitate to apply the same approach to traditional religious belief.

I can't say that the latter phenomenon has contributed to Matt Stone seemingly getting the wrong end of the stick, but combined with the first, I think it's contributed to the media charicature of Dawkins that he is reacting against. I don't have a problem with them targetting Dawkins, I just think (without having seen the episode that's started this) Stone at least has (unusually by SP standards) missed the mark somewhat.

IllegalArgument

25th January 2007, 04:45 AM

Funny, I was just thinking that.

I guess my mind reading powers were on the blink yesterday.

Jekyll

25th January 2007, 05:19 AM

I guess my mind reading powers were on the blink yesterday.

Oh I didn't mean you, it's just all the "LOL U guyz need to get humor about t3h funn13s i made" posts, remind me of a quote by Terry Pratchett,

"...and like most people without a sense of humour, prided himself on the sense of humour he hadn't, in fact, got."

IllegalArgument

25th January 2007, 05:23 AM

Oh I didn't mean you, it's just all the "LOL U guyz need to get humor about t3h funn13s i made" posts, remind me of a quote by Terry Pratchett,

"...and like most people without a sense of humour, prided himself on the sense of humour he hadn't, in fact, got."

Yeah, my reply was directed at Tai Chi. He should know by now how badly that type of humor translates into text.

Jekyll

25th January 2007, 05:26 AM

Yeah, my reply was directed at Tai Chi. He should know by now how badly that type of humor translates into text.

Hurray! I didn't accidentally offend the wrong person.

valis

25th January 2007, 05:56 AM

Uh, you kind of lost me there. How does his quote show that he thinks theists are idiots?

Either they are lying OR they are idiots. Of the two choices; one is that they are atheists and are afraid to admit it OR they are not lying BUT they are idiots. That doesn't equate to theists are idiots?

bignickel

25th January 2007, 06:15 AM

Either they are lying OR they are idiots. Of the two choices; one is that they are atheists and are afraid to admit it OR they are not lying BUT they are idiots. That doesn't equate to theists are idiots?
Did you read my whole post? The "THEY" in "either they are lying or are idiots" are ATHEISTS.

NOT THEISTS.

He is saying "Either these atheists are lying or these atheists are idiots."

NOT THEISTS.

Beth

25th January 2007, 06:24 AM

Did you read my whole post? The "THEY" in "either they are lying or are idiots" are ATHEISTS.

NOT THEISTS.

He is saying "Either these atheists are lying or these atheists are idiots."

NOT THEISTS.

I interpret that quiote the same way Valis does. Dawkins is talking about Congress and I read it as "they" is referring to the members of Congress. Either they are lying about their beliefs, i.e. they are actually atheists and not admitting it or they are idiots, i.e. they are actually religious. Now, it's hard for me to disagree with the assessment of politicians either being liars or idiots, but I think Valis has a point in regards to Dawkins equating theists to idiots.

desertyeti

25th January 2007, 07:04 AM

Yet, in my experience, most idiots are theists. Though many theists are far from idiots. However, the vast majority of politicians (and poli sci. majors I taught at the university) were fairly low-watt bulbs who fancied themselves to be quite sharp.
I'd therefore suggest that most politicians are borderline idiots, and in all probability, theists.

pgwenthold

25th January 2007, 07:37 AM

But seriously, if Matt has some animosity toward Dawkins and atheists in general because he feels they are offensive to his spiritual beliefs then the fact that he's helped create episodes poking fun at Catholicism, Mormonism, Scientology etc. would make his protests hypocritical.

Actually, they really HAVEN'T done much against Mormonism. Yes, they did the thing about Mormon beliefs being dumb, but go back and look at that episode and you realize that the Mormons ended up being the good guys, and those who thought Mormons were stupid were the problem. In the end, the Mormon kid was like, "Yeah, it sounds stupid but those are our beliefs, and if we are happy and don't bother anyone, who are you to complain?"

Of course, it is interesting that while going after other "-isms" they exaggerate the effects of how stupid they are, but when it came to Mormons, they tended to downplay the worse aspects (where are the Mormon polygamists, for example? And apparently going on a mission to try to convert is not considered bothering anyone?)

In fact, it is Mormonism that shows Stone to be lying when he said they are against any "-isms." Compared to what they have done to the other religions, Mormonism has been treated with reverence.

They turned Chef into a child molestor, for pete's sake. And all they can with Mormons is to make them so goody-goody that everyone treats them unfairly?

And remember, Mormons are the only ones to get into heaven.

desertyeti

25th January 2007, 11:27 AM

Even in their movie "Orgazmo" mormons were depicted as simple, decent people. Hmmmmmm...

thaiboxerken

25th January 2007, 11:32 AM

there is a symathy for mormons because one ofthem was raised as or near to mormons.

pgwenthold

25th January 2007, 12:07 PM

there is a symathy for mormons because one ofthem was raised as or near to mormons.

I'm not surprised. And to be fair, I don't really care, except to the extent that Stone says they are "opposed to all -isms."

It sounds good, but it is obviously not the case.

Miss Anthrope

25th January 2007, 03:36 PM

I'm not surprised. And to be fair, I don't really care, except to the extent that Stone says they are "opposed to all -isms."

It sounds good, but it is obviously not the case.

Isn't it possible to think Mormonism is stupid, be personally against joining the religion, but still be tolerant?

You can still think that religion is hogwash...I sure do, but you do not have to openly hostile towards people. And you can admit that perhaps religious people do have redeeming qualities.

I think the religion of mormonism is absolute nonsense. However, I have known and worked with mormons...and they were impeccably moral and good natured people. Certainly not as uptight as Christians, and some of the athiests on this thread.

I think the Mormon episode was fairly even-handed.

I know LOTS of religious athiests. Athiests who have joined the humanist movement and started osbserving kosher laws and the sabbath! I know athiests who are so politically biased that I see no difference between their behavior and racism. (All republicans are hicks...no, wait...all republicans are rich and white. Well, they're all stupid bigots. Liberals are all gay death worshipping baby killers, etc).

While I think the cult statement went a bit of a stretch--some people have been so defensive and unable to see that some athiests can be pushy and judgmental with their ideaology--that I think Matt has, at the very least, given us all some food for thought. And fodder for debate.

T'ai Chi

25th January 2007, 04:35 PM

Funny, I was just thinking that.

Dude! You should apply for the challenge then!

BayAreaGuy

25th January 2007, 06:51 PM

I'm still amazed that these two were even invited to TAM in the first place. It seems obvious to me that their presence was merely to pad the bill and attract more people to attend. Pretty sad, considering: a) they were very clear on the fact that they're not atheists, b) they bashed Dawkins in a childish and merciless way, and c) they had nothing to say on the theme of Skepticism and the Media.

I realize that they "defined a generation" of smartasses (and I can certainly appreciate smartassism), but all this star-****** makes me embarrassed for people who claim to be Critical Thinkers.

I must also confess to a grudge against them for their gratuitous use of the new epithet "gay." It's next to impossible to get members of a certain generation to realize that it's NOT just a harmless new definition, and that its new meaning is derived from a homophobic attitude toward those who fit under its old meaning (does any of that make sense...I think I'm rambling). Anyway, it's extremely hurtful to me, and I don't think people would stand for it if the trend were to call things "******" if they thought they were lame. People would be rioting in the streets over that one; but with "gay," everyone gushes like it's cute or something...the same reaction they gave these two at TAM.

BayAreaGuy

25th January 2007, 06:57 PM

I know LOTS of religious athiests. Athiests who have joined the humanist movement and started osbserving kosher laws and the sabbath!

I fail to see why someone would follow kosher laws or "keep the sabbath holy" if he/she didn't believe in god. That reminds me of my senile grandmother who used to water her plastic plants.

I know athiests who are so politically biased that I see no difference between their behavior and racism. (All republicans are hicks...no, wait...all republicans are rich and white. Well, they're all stupid bigots. Liberals are all gay death worshipping baby killers, etc).

I don't see anything wrong with being gay, so I'm not sure why you put it in the same category as death worshipping baby killers. I know what you mean about unthinking Liberalism, though. People on both sides can get carried away. In answer to your overall point, I don't think most atheists are intolerant, but I do think most christians are. After all, the dogma of the latter REQUIRES that they believe the rest of us will burn in hell.

bignickel

25th January 2007, 10:23 PM

I interpret that quiote the same way Valis does. Dawkins is talking about Congress and I read it as "they" is referring to the members of Congress. Either they are lying about their beliefs, i.e. they are actually atheists and not admitting it or they are idiots, i.e. they are actually religious. Now, it's hard for me to disagree with the assessment of politicians either being liars or idiots, but I think Valis has a point in regards to Dawkins equating theists to idiots.
"Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying."
I can see why people can look at 3 specific lines and mis-read them, especially when it's completely taken out of context. But the above quote makes NO SENSE if the "they" are 'members of Congress.' Look at the first sentence: it sets up that the subject, for that point on, is 'atheists'. Why? Because "Not a single member... admits to being an atheist." WHY would a theist admit to being an atheist? The logical conclusion is that Dawkins is talking about atheists in Congress; no other reading makes sense. In the next sentence, he doesn't change the subject to a different group. By the 3rd sentence, he is using "they", and since the subject is "Not a single member... admits to being an atheists", it is "The members who won't admit to being atheists are either lying or stupid."

Dang, that is freaking torturous to have to wind through. But as I mentioned, anyone can make a mistake about the reading of 3 lines, which is why RvLeshrac posted the CONTEXT for this quote:
Originally Posted by The God Delusion p. 45
There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate. Assuming that the majority of these 535 individuals are an educated sample of the population, it is statistically all but inevitable that a substantial number of them must be atheists. They must have lied, or concealed their true feelings, in order to get elected. Who can blame them, given the electorate they had to convince? It is universally accepted that an admission of atheism would be instant political suicide for any presidential candidate.
Which makes it clear that the people that Dawkins is talking about are ATHEISTS in CONGRESS.

Jeez, in Japanese this is so easy. They just use topic and "wa" and from that point on, that's the dang topic until someone changes it to another one with "wa". Very useful, that.

pipelineaudio

25th January 2007, 10:24 PM

I'm not surprised. And to be fair, I don't really care, except to the extent that Stone says they are "opposed to all -isms."

It sounds good, but it is obviously not the case.

good golly miss molly

they make fun of mormons in the lowest and most debase forms possible. They do this thru a thorough understanding of the way of the white suited bicyclist club.

Maybe

no

maybe , just maybe

no too far out

maybe, they are as informed about the Dawkins subject as well?

perhaps?

pgwenthold

26th January 2007, 06:29 AM

I think the Mormon episode was fairly even-handed.

That's the whole point!

In the Mormon episode, they were even-handed.

Were they even-handed in the catholic episode? Scientology? Environmentalists? Atheists?

For all these others, they do they "these are stupid beliefs" and then go on to exagerate their activities to make scour the groups in question.

But when it comes to Mormons, they are even-handed? Despite the fact that there are so many Mormon _actions_ that could be ripped?

Now, as I said, I don't care that they did it. They are free to treat anything the way they want.

However, after doing that, don't turn around and say that they are opposed to all "-isms" when their dig on Mormonism is that it is unnecessarily mean to rip on them because they have idiotic beliefs.

Beth

26th January 2007, 06:59 AM

"Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying."
I can see why people can look at 3 specific lines and mis-read them, especially when it's completely taken out of context. But the above quote makes NO SENSE if the "they" are 'members of Congress.' Look at the first sentence: it sets up that the subject, for that point on, is 'atheists'. Why? Because "Not a single member... admits to being an atheist." WHY would a theist admit to being an atheist? The logical conclusion is that Dawkins is talking about atheists in Congress; no other reading makes sense. In the next sentence, he doesn't change the subject to a different group. By the 3rd sentence, he is using "they", and since the subject is "Not a single member... admits to being an atheists", it is "The members who won't admit to being atheists are either lying or stupid."

Dang, that is freaking torturous to have to wind through. But as I mentioned, anyone can make a mistake about the reading of 3 lines, which is why RvLeshrac posted the CONTEXT for this quote:

Which makes it clear that the people that Dawkins is talking about are ATHEISTS in CONGRESS.

Jeez, in Japanese this is so easy. They just use topic and "wa" and from that point on, that's the dang topic until someone changes it to another one with "wa". Very useful, that.

The statement makes even less sense with this interpretation. Why assume that there are atheists in congress when it's clear that it's not a representative sample, but one that excludes atheists? Dawkins is knowledgable enough about statistics to know the problems inherent about making assumptions regarding a non-representative sample.

Then after making the assumption that there must be atheists in congress he then assumes that they must be either lying or stupid. If you assume that closet atheists are actually in congress, then they must be lying about their religious beliefs. Where does stupid come in? With this interpretation, Dawkins would be seem to be saying that there are closet athiests in congress who are too stupid to know they are atheists and still believe in a religion. Such a person, by definition, is not an atheist. Thus that interpretation leads to a contradiction.

Given Dawkins attitude towards religion and religious beliefs, it makes more sense to interpret it as Dawkins saying that all congressmen and women are either a) actually atheists and lying about their religious beliefs or b) stupid because they hold religious beliefs.

Jekyll

26th January 2007, 07:09 AM

Here's the quote in context:
Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist. "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can't get elected."
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html
from the bottom of the page.

I vote for sloppy statistics to make a point in casual conversation rather than "All theists are idiots."

bignickel

26th January 2007, 07:27 AM

The statement makes even less sense with this interpretation. Why assume that there are atheists in congress when it's clear that it's not a representative sample, but one that excludes atheists? Dawkins is knowledgable enough about statistics to know the problems inherent about making assumptions regarding a non-representative sample.

Did you read what Dawkins wrote?
Originally Posted by The God Delusion p. 45
There are 435 members of the House of Representatives and 100 members of the Senate. Assuming that the majority of these 535 individuals are an educated sample of the population, it is statistically all but inevitable that a substantial number of them must be atheists.
You can disagree with his statistics all you want but it's obvious that he's USING THEM.

This is tedious beyond tedious. If Dawkins had said "said he was an atheist" or "wrote that he was an atheist" or "proclaimed he was an atheist", then you would win. Because, THEN, it would be easy to interpret as atheists AND theists.

But he DIDN'T. He wrote "admits to being an atheist". The only person who can ADMIT to being an atheist is an ATHEIST. That is sentence #1. Sentence #2 doesn't change the topic. Sentence #3 says "They", and it's the same topic as sentence #1.

You think that Dawkins believes that theists are idiots? It should be very easy for you to find a quote like "THEISTS ARE IDIOTS". Or at the very least, SOMETHING that is just as non-ambiguous. Dang, why does this whole thing remind me of the 'truther' obsession with Silverstein saying "pull it" re: WTC7. 'Ya see, there he goes, he admitted that they blew up WTC7!'

delphi_ote

26th January 2007, 09:04 AM

maybe, they are as informed about the Dawkins subject as well?
They told us at TAM5 they're not familiar with any of his work beyond The God Delusion. There's nothing wrong with making an entertaining show that's just a little ignorant. Really. They aren't the sages of our era. It's okay if they're off once in a while.

Beth

26th January 2007, 09:17 AM

Here's the quote in context:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html
from the bottom of the page.

I vote for sloppy statistics to make a point in casual conversation rather than "All theists are idiots."

A valid point if he only says this in a casual conversation.

Did you read what Dawkins wrote?

You can disagree with his statistics all you want but it's obvious that he's USING THEM. Yes, I do disagree. He is looking at a very non-representative sample of people and then making assumptions regarding the beliefs of people elected to congress as if they were a representative sample. Finally, based on his assumption, he declares them (all members of congress, not just the atheists) to be either stupid or liars. Clearly, he thinks some members of congress are lying about being a thiest and are actually atheists. He may be correct about that, but it is an assumption, not a certainty.

If Dawkins had said "said he was an atheist" or "wrote that he was an atheist" or "proclaimed he was an atheist", then you would win. Because, THEN, it would be easy to interpret as atheists AND theists.

But he DIDN'T. He wrote "admits to being an atheist". The only person who can ADMIT to being an atheist is an ATHEIST. That is sentence #1. Sentence #2 doesn't change the topic. Sentence #3 says "They", and it's the same topic as sentence #1.

There are only two sentences in the part you quoted, so I'm not sure exactly which quote you are referring to here. At any rate, if someone is an atheist and doesn't admit to it then they are lying. If a person who claims to be religious is not lying about their religious beliefs, then that person is not an atheist. So how can he possibly mean that just the athiests in congress are either lying or stupid? Any atheists in congress are clearly lying about their religious beliefs because they can't get elected if they publically admit to being an atheist. That isn't stupid at all and he mentions that fact in Jeykll's quote. Thus, it's quite reasonable to assume that he means theists in congress are stupid and the atheists in congress are lying. Or, as Jekyll points out, perhaps he didn't really mean it the way it came out. That happens to all of us sometimes.

Further as I think all politicians are both liars and idiots, I really can't disagree with his charactorization :), I just don't think they are idiots because they have religious beliefs. I don't know that Dawkins thinks that either. But it is a reasonable interpretation of his remark.

pipelineaudio

26th January 2007, 10:01 AM

That's the whole point!

In the Mormon episode, they were even-handed.
.

They ripped the hell out of the Mormons, knowing EXACTLY what would piss them off the most. The fact that many here dont see that means that they dont understand LDS, not that SP didnt rip on the mormons

pipelineaudio

26th January 2007, 10:04 AM

They told us at TAM5 they're not familiar with any of his work beyond The God Delusion. There's nothing wrong with making an entertaining show that's just a little ignorant. Really. They aren't the sages of our era. It's okay if they're off once in a while.

Theyre always a little off, but no more so in this case. Theyve seen whack Atheists as well and acted on it. I agree with dawkins 99.99999% of the time but I think hes a dick too. I think Im a dick. I think its right to be Dick sometimes like sam harris says

none of that changes that so many just replaced their one invisible sky monster bible god, with a leftist religion of capital A Atheism. Tell me how the belief in gender norming isnt irrational religion for instance. The belief that a log or whatever will change its weight to lighter for a woman, but magically go back to its normal weight for a man?

ridiculous

teck49

26th January 2007, 11:16 AM

It isn't that he's creating a cult. He's creating an environment in which it's okay to call people idiots because you think you have a better grasp on life.

Why do we squander this precious resource calling each other names and trying to kick people out we think aren't "pure" skeptics?

Constructive criticism is fine. "You're one of them!" wore out its welcome years ago.

I think you two may be on to something. But I could be wrong. We really need a qoute from the SP episode that explains their opinion of Dawkins clearly spelled out in blue & red.

thaiboxerken

26th January 2007, 12:57 PM

none of that changes that so many just replaced their one invisible sky monster bible god, with a leftist religion of capital A Atheism.

If there are so many, why have I yet to hear of one?

luchog

26th January 2007, 03:58 PM

If there are so many, why have I yet to hear of one?

Well, there used to be a lot of them in the former Soviet Union. Technocrats tend to be pretty militant and religious atheists as well. And if you have never encountered a hardcore, card-carrying Technocrat, consider yourself lucky.

I've encountered a substantial number of militant atheists personally. No one of any prominence, and far from the majority; but I've had to deal with more of these yahoos in my regular day to day life than I should. Jackasses who think it's their duty and calling to verbally abuse any religious person simply for being religious. I've heard a few say flat out that "Religion is a mental illness, and should be treated like one," including disqualifying one for holding public office, being a schoolteacher, etc. I've even had one aquaintance state rather loudly and seriously that teaching religion to children is a form of child abuse and should be grounds for removing children from their parents.

thaiboxerken

26th January 2007, 04:36 PM

How does that make their atheism a religion? Atheism is simply a state of being. Hating theism is something different.

BayAreaGuy

27th January 2007, 12:57 AM

I've encountered a substantial number of militant atheists personally.

Curious. Can one be "militant" about the TRUTH?

valis

27th January 2007, 01:14 AM

Curious. Can one be "militant" about the TRUTH?

I asked a Jehovah's Witness and they say no.

bignickel

27th January 2007, 05:02 AM

Yes, I do disagree. He is looking at a very non-representative sample of people and then making assumptions regarding the beliefs of people elected to congress as if they were a representative sample.
You are disagreeing that he is using statistics? Not that he's using statistics badly, and making bad assumptions, but that he's not using statistics at all?

There are only two sentences in the part you quoted, so I'm not sure exactly which quote you are referring to here.
This is the quote, the one that you were claiming from the getgo shows Dawkins thinks theists are idiots: "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying."

At any rate, if someone is an atheist and doesn't admit to it then they are lying. If a person who claims to be religious is not lying about their religious beliefs, then that person is not an atheist. So how can he possibly mean that just the athiests in congress are either lying or stupid?
OR they are STUPID. They don't believe in a god, but don't know that they makes them atheist.
"well, golly gee, that's just stupid of Dawkins to think such a thing" you might be thinking. FINE, you can go right ahead and think that. Argue all you want with Dawkins that that's silly reasoning. But THAT IS THE REASONING HE IS USING. If you disagree, terrific. But that's what he's saying. Because the only person who can 'admit to being an athiest' is a person in a group of atheists. Which means the 3rd sentence of the quote is about the 'group of atheists.

I can't parse this anymore for you. You either believe that 1. Dawkins thinks that theists are idiots, or 2. he doesn't think so, and he make a mistake while speaking, or 3. someone transcribed something wrong. If it's #1, you should have no problem finding another quote of him saying so un-ambiguously; I await your quotes. If #2 or #3, there's not much more we can converse about until he clarifies it. Regardless, there isn't anything more we can talk about concerning this quote.

latent aaaack

27th January 2007, 05:45 AM

You are disagreeing that he is using statistics? Not that he's using statistics badly, and making bad assumptions, but that he's not using statistics at all?

This is the quote, the one that you were claiming from the getgo shows Dawkins thinks theists are idiots: "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying."

OR they are STUPID. They don't believe in a god, but don't know that they makes them atheist.
"well, golly gee, that's just stupid of Dawkins to think such a thing" you might be thinking. FINE, you can go right ahead and think that. Argue all you want with Dawkins that that's silly reasoning. But THAT IS THE REASONING HE IS USING. If you disagree, terrific. But that's what he's saying. Because the only person who can 'admit to being an athiest' is a person in a group of atheists. Which means the 3rd sentence of the quote is about the 'group of atheists.

I can't parse this anymore for you. You either believe that 1. Dawkins thinks that theists are idiots, or 2. he doesn't think so, and he make a mistake while speaking, or 3. someone transcribed something wrong. If it's #1, you should have no problem finding another quote of him saying so un-ambiguously; I await your quotes. If #2 or #3, there's not much more we can converse about until he clarifies it. Regardless, there isn't anything more we can talk about concerning this quote.

Is english your first language? You seem to be making strange assumptions that someone natively familiar with english wouldn't make. In any case we can be pretty sure it's not Dawkins position that theists are stupid, and if he were here he'd clarify that he didn't mean that. But he did actually seem to mean that there necessarily must be a lot of atheists in congress which isn't true. Judging by the people politics attracts it's obvious it doesn't attract a completely representative sample. Atheists don't strike me as wheel-greasing enough to really be interested in politics and they'd be disproportionately dissuaded from running in the first place, as might any group that's viewed as a suspicious outsider, even more so than muslims.

An admirable exception is Jesse Ventura, its too bad there aren't more like him.

T'ai Chi

27th January 2007, 06:39 AM

How does that make their atheism a religion? Atheism is simply a state of being. Hating theism is something different.

What is those who say

'no god exists, and that is a fact'

?

Sounds like a statement of faith, since one is unable to survey all of space and time.

CFLarsen

27th January 2007, 06:59 AM

What is those who say

'no god exists, and that is a fact'

?

Sounds like a statement of faith, since one is unable to survey all of space and time.

It is not a statement of faith, but a statement based on the evidence.

We know that you are desperate to describe everything as "faith", because you then think you can dismiss everything that skeptics say.

Beth

27th January 2007, 08:29 AM

You are disagreeing that he is using statistics? Not that he's using statistics badly, and making bad assumptions, but that he's not using statistics at all? To clarify, I think he's making a bad assumption and his statistics are therefore invalid.

This is the quote, the one that you were claiming from the getgo shows Dawkins thinks theists are idiots: "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying."

OR they are STUPID. They don't believe in a god, but don't know that they makes them atheist.

Excuse me, but do you really think that Dawkins thinks that there are people who have been elected to congress and don't believe in god, but are too stupid to know that means they are an atheist? Is that what you are arguing? If so, I must admit that if that is what he meant, then you are right and I completely misunderstood him. But I don't think that's what he meant.

You either believe that 1. Dawkins thinks that theists are idiots, or 2. he doesn't think so, and he make a mistake while speaking, or 3. someone transcribed something wrong. If it's #1, you should have no problem finding another quote of him saying so un-ambiguously; I await your quotes. If #2 or #3, there's not much more we can converse about until he clarifies it. Regardless, there isn't anything more we can talk about concerning this quote.
Actually, I think that any of those three things are possible, but I don't know which of them is actually true. My point was only that #1 above is a reasonable interpretation of what he was quoted as saying.

bignickel

27th January 2007, 08:31 AM

Is english your first language? You seem to be making strange assumptions that someone natively familiar with english wouldn't make. In any case we can be pretty sure it's not Dawkins position that theists are stupid, and if he were here he'd clarify that he didn't mean that. But he did actually seem to mean that there necessarily must be a lot of atheists in congress which isn't true.
I am making strange assumptions? I'm just reading the 3 lines from his quote; if you disagree with his logic, fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with lifting something out of context. Which is why the context has been quoted. Twice.
If you assume that I'm Japanese because I'm currently in Tokyo, guess again. If you can show why this sentence should be parsed differently, without ignoring 'admitting', I'd be interested in hearing it. Otherwise...

Dave1001

27th January 2007, 09:16 AM

So why do these guys suddenly loathe this man....I WAS looking forward to seeing them, now I'm simply disgusted by their behavior.

They engage in occasional demagougery. File this in that category.

delphi_ote

27th January 2007, 10:08 AM

none of that changes that so many just replaced their one invisible sky monster bible god, with a leftist religion of capital A Atheism. Tell me how the belief in gender norming isnt irrational religion for instance. The belief that a log or whatever will change its weight to lighter for a woman, but magically go back to its normal weight for a man?

ridiculous
Yes. It is ridiculous to associate whatever in the hell you're talking about with atheism. I've never in my life met one single atheist who believes that. And capital A atheistm is a Leftist religion? The most public American atheist I can think of is Penn, and he's Libertarian with a capital "L"!

thaiboxerken

27th January 2007, 12:02 PM

What is those who say

'no god exists, and that is a fact'

?

Sounds like a statement of faith, since one is unable to survey all of space and time.

If you look up "appeal to ignorance" in the book of logical fallacies, your arguments would probably show up. To say that a person has to survey all of space and time in order to make a statement of fact is idiotic. If it were true, then there would be no such thing as a fact.

You really shouldn't enter a battle of wit unarmed.

BayAreaGuy

27th January 2007, 12:39 PM

Is this threat about Trey Parker and Matt Stone? Doesn't look like it anymore.

pipelineaudio

27th January 2007, 09:26 PM

Yes. It is ridiculous to associate whatever in the hell you're talking about with atheism.

really you dont see any of this around this very bbs?

please

I've never in my life met one single atheist who believes that.

Ask your mom if you can go outside tomorrow

And capital A atheistm is a Leftist religion? The most public American atheist I can think of is Penn, and he's Libertarian with a capital "L"!

And that has what exactly to do with my statement?

delphi_ote

28th January 2007, 08:16 AM

really you dont see any of this around this very bbs?
Okay. That's a claim. Let's see your evidence. Show me a post that espouses
The belief that a log or whatever will change its weight to lighter for a woman, but magically go back to its normal weight for a man

luchog

28th January 2007, 12:26 PM

Curious. Can one be "militant" about the TRUTH?
I would say that it is impossible to be really militant about anything unless one perceives to to be "THE TRUTH"(tm).

Foster Zygote

28th January 2007, 07:46 PM

I'm done responding to the blog. It's too frustrating trying to reason with people who don't know how to reason at all. It's not that they disagree with me, there are plenty of times I've seen disagreements on this forum between two or more people who all know how to reason quite well. My problem is that they are so painfully ignorant. It would take years just to point out all of the logical errors and fallacies they subscribe to.

valis

28th January 2007, 10:35 PM

It is not a statement of faith, but a statement based on the evidence.

Based on a lack of evidence perhaps.

The question is, at least at this time, unsolvable. That seems to bother people, the concept that there is something that cannot be known.

Although I will be the first to admit that our knowledge could change in the future and there could someday be a way to explore the question further.

valis

28th January 2007, 10:47 PM

I am making strange assumptions? I'm just reading the 3 lines from his quote; if you disagree with his logic, fine, but that doesn't have anything to do with lifting something out of context. Which is why the context has been quoted. Twice.
If you assume that I'm Japanese because I'm currently in Tokyo, guess again. If you can show why this sentence should be parsed differently, without ignoring 'admitting', I'd be interested in hearing it. Otherwise...

The quote came from here: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

I've stopped discussing it because if there is another way to interpret it then my command of English is so poor I am not capable of discussing it intelligently.

teck49

29th January 2007, 10:51 AM

If you look up "appeal to ignorance" in the book of logical fallacies, your arguments would probably show up. To say that a person has to survey all of space and time in order to make a statement of fact is idiotic. If it were true, then there would be no such thing as a fact.

You really shouldn't enter a battle of wit unarmed.

"It wasn't until Dawkins met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a DICK to everyone who doesn't think like you."

Matt & Trey hit the nail on the head with that line.

delphi_ote

29th January 2007, 11:08 AM

"It wasn't until Dawkins met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a DICK to everyone who doesn't think like you."

Matt & Trey hit the nail on the head with that line.
How exactly is Dawkins a dick? Has he punched anyone? Stolen anyone's money? Ruined anyone's reputation? Made false accusations? What has he done that's so horrible?

As far as I can tell, his great crime is adamantly and unapologetically disagreeing with another person's perspective. When he does it, he uses cogent prose and scientific arguments. When Matt and Trey do it, they have a cartoon character poop on someone. Sorry, but they're throwing all kinds of stones out of their glass house with this one.

teck49

29th January 2007, 01:42 PM

How exactly is Dawkins a dick? Has he punched anyone? Stolen anyone's money? Ruined anyone's reputation? Made false accusations? What has he done that's so horrible?

As far as I can tell, his great crime is adamantly and unapologetically disagreeing with another person's perspective.

Personally, I wasn't talking about Dawkins, I was using the excerpt to underscore the attitudes of hostility, disrespect, and arrogance that are so pervasive in this forum. These needless outbursts only serve to discourage discourse & reflect badly on the reputation of the JREF.

As for the episode I quoted, there is nothing about Dawkins, or anyone else pooping on someone. I don't know what you are referring to, but it is not that Southpark episode.

petre

29th January 2007, 01:58 PM

Personally, I wasn't talking about Dawkins, I was using the excerpt to underscore the attitudes of disrespect, aggression, and arrogance that are so pervasive in this forum. These needless outbursts only serve to discourage discourse & reflect badly on the reputation of the JREF.

As for the episode I quoted, there is nothing about Dawkins, or anyone else pooping on someone. I don't know what you are referring to, but it is not that Southpark episode.

I've yet to find any philosophical viewpoint that has never been defended or advanced with an attitude of disrespect, agression, or arrogance by someone. Obviously, this always reflects unfavorably upon that viewpoint to those that prefer substance to an arguement, but it also encourages many of lesser mind that already accept the viewpoint. For example, note how quickly Mrs. Garrison took to the offensive aspect of the arguement for evolution. Her points were a reitteration of philosophical ideas, but without understanding or any desire to allow a response.

Having now responded to your first point, I will note in responst to your second that in that very episode Mrs. Garrison did indeed assault Dawkins with projectile feces in their first meeting of the episode. While this may not exactly match the action of "pooping on someone", I think it does validate the broader point that you were yourself responding to.

Pipirr

29th January 2007, 05:39 PM

Here are a few of the times that Dawkins has discussed the lack of self-declared atheists in Congress. Only in one interview that I can find does he use the word 'stupid'. The others are much less strident, and he mentions that he either assumes or hopes that members of Congress are well educated and/or intelligent.

That one interview in Wired really had legs, however. Maybe more so than the other times because of the put-down.

Take from this what you will.

----

"Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first U.S. politician (http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-1.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1) is honest about being an atheist. "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they've got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can't get elected.""

"I think it's a further question of what percentage of the U.S. Congress (http://www.nyas.org/publications/readersReport.asp?articleID=64)is being honest when they claim to be religious. If you actually look at figures for intellectuals and educated people, people with high IQs, and people with university educations, a very high percentage of them are atheists or at least agnostics, and that's got to be true statistically of the members of Congress. I don't see how it could not be, because they are, many of them at least, intelligent, well-educated people. And so they've got to be lying. And I think it would be a very admirable thing if we could have a shift in the American climate so that it becomes possible for people to get elected to Congress while being honest about not being religious."

"I think it's pretty clear that a fair number of members of Congress (http://www.alternet.org/story/46566/) must be lying because not a single one of them admits to being an atheist. The probability that in a sample of over 500 well-educated members of American society, not a single one of them is an atheist, statistically, that is highly unlikely. So, some of them, at least, have got to be lying, and I think it's a tragedy that they have to."

"Of those scientists distinguished enough to be elected to the National Academy (http://richarddawkins.net/article,473,Lets-Hope-Its-A-Lasting-Vogue,Richard-Dawkins), more than 90% do not believe in any kind of supernatural God. Needless to say, many of them are likeable, friendly and far from obnoxious, as well as being intelligent, well-educated, happy and productive citizens. An equally high proportion of atheists has recently been disclosed among the Fellows of the Royal Society, and it is plausible that distinguished Academicians in philosophy, history, economics, literature and other disciplines, coming from the same educated and intelligent echelons of society, would yield similar data. One must hope that a respectable proportion of the Congress is drawn from that same educational and intellectual elite, so it is a strong statistical expectation that many of them must be atheists too. Yet I believe I am correct that not a single one of the 535 members of Congress will admit to the fact. A good many have got to be lying, and who can blame them? If they came clean they would be unelectable, as polls have repeatedly confirmed. Atheists are widely assumed to have no morals or values, to have no purpose in life, and to be incapable of love, or of appreciating beauty in art or nature. Who would vote for one of those?"

"Academic studies of Nobel Prize-winners, and other intellectual elites (http://richarddawkins.net/mainPage.php?bodyPage=article_body.php&id=170)such as the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, all report an overwhelming preponderance of atheists. One would presume that a fair proportion of our elected rulers would also be drawn from the intellectual elite. Given that 93% of the National Academy does not believe in any kind of personal god, a statistician would expect that at least some members of Congress, if not a majority, would also be atheists. Yet, as far as I can discover, the number of avowed atheists among the 535 members of Congress is not 93%, not even 10%. It seems to be zero. What is going on here? I think we all know."

valis

30th January 2007, 01:16 AM

One would presume that a fair proportion of our elected rulers would also be drawn from the intellectual elite.

Assuming Dawkins is an American, where on earth did he get that idea?

Matthew Best

30th January 2007, 04:01 AM

Assuming Dawkins is an American, where on earth did he get that idea?

Where would you get such an assumption?

delphi_ote

30th January 2007, 08:03 AM

Personally, I wasn't talking about Dawkins, I was using the excerpt to underscore the attitudes of hostility, disrespect, and arrogance that are so pervasive in this forum.
Except that the quote you posted mentions Dawkins by name, and you said it "hits the nail on the head."
These needless outbursts only serve to discourage discourse & reflect badly on the reputation of the JREF.
What needless outbursts are you talking about? Sometimes people are going to disagree with you here. That's not a needless outburst. That's discourse.
As for the episode I quoted, there is nothing about Dawkins, or anyone else pooping on someone. I don't know what you are referring to, but it is not that Southpark episode.
Please don't pretend you don't see the absurd scatological humor and satire in South Park. They had the Virgin Mary **** blood on the pope. One of the first episodes had a character farting flames. One of their characters is a piece of poop.

They portrayed Dawkins as a homosexual *********** a transvestite. There wasn't really any intelligent point in their doing so. Matt and Trey calling Dawkins a dick for being unpleasant is complete hypocracy.

Big Les

30th January 2007, 09:36 AM

I just don't see that Dawkins "acts like a dick" toward anyone. Matt and Trey "call it as they it" on any issue they feel like; Dawkins does likewise and in a rather more polite, intelligent way. I think they're falling for the media hype version of Dawkins rather than the man as he actually conducts himself. Wide of the mark IMO, but if everyone's a potential target for SP, that's fair enough.

Foster Zygote

30th January 2007, 02:47 PM

What needless outbursts are you talking about? Sometimes people are going to disagree with you here. That's not a needless outburst. That's discourse.

That's the main reason I've given up trying to argue my point to those who've responded to the blog entry. Among other things, they seem unable to differentiate between a statement of disagreement and an aggressive insult. Simply challenging one of them to support some claim pulled fresh from his/her a** is interpreted as "fightin' words".

articulett

30th January 2007, 03:50 PM

Well, Foster Zygote and Delphi_ote, I agree with you--and I think I always do. You are both amongst my favorite posters. I think there is this stereotype about funadamentalist atheists or extreme atheist and the like that doesn't mean anything. When I ask for definitions and then quotes, I seldom get both--oftentimes, people will just tell me their spin on what someone said, but the words don't seem out of line or radical or anything to me at all. At most, you can say they refuse to show the usual deference for religion. Dawkins is certainly nicer than anyone going through peer review on a scientific thesis.

I really wish I could ask Matt what he meant by the comment--he pointed to the book as if everyone would know...but, having read the book, to me he was like Dennett--bending over backwards to be polite to people who were prepared to find offense in most anything he said. So I conclude that Matt didn't read the book and only knew about atheism and Dawkins from stereotypes and media clips, etc. And I hope they remedy that.

When I was kid, I saw a clip of Madelyn Murray O'Hare that I latter saw at TAM4. As a kid, I remember concluding that she was "harsh"--but when I watched it as a grown up, she just seemed like a nice, matter of fact, no-nonsense woman. She wasn't pushing her views on anyone; she just didn't want their views pushed on her. And boy was she demonized.

And I've heard atheists perpetuate this stereotype as well as believers of various sorts...at least I think it's a stereotype. Maybe someone will present a definition with a quote that doesn't make them sound like intellectual boobs.
But as of now, there seems to be this notion of the "radical atheist", but I haven't any idea what people are talking about. It's so easy. Define and provide a quote. I don't even understand how people can be radical in their lack of belief. I just think people have learned to hear a failure to respect religious beliefs as something radical.

I've heard to many believers presume atheists are gay or threaten them with sodomy by satan for me to find humor in the stereotype. Mostly because those labels, like "commie", are used by theists to imply "them", "evil", the "people whose rights we can tromp over". In any case, I hope they browse through the writing of Dawkins and other atheists they presume are radical, and I loved that Randi quoted Dawkins' book as one of his favorites.

articulett

30th January 2007, 03:54 PM

What is those who say

'no god exists, and that is a fact'

?

Sounds like a statement of faith, since one is unable to survey all of space and time.

Can you cut and paste where someone has this? And is it any more a statement of faith than "Fairies don't exist and that's a fact."

CFLarsen

30th January 2007, 04:07 PM

Can you cut and paste where someone has this? And is it any more a statement of faith than "Fairies don't exist and that's a fact."

T'ai Chi considers such requests "bullying".

articulett

30th January 2007, 04:16 PM

A "wog" is the term used by Scientologists to define non-scientologists. We are all wogs. All regimes are wog regimes. Radical regimes contain radical people, but they are not radical in their wogism. What would a radical wog be even? Someone who doesn't believe in Scientology and claims loudly that it's made up or harmful? Why would that be radical? To me the definitions provided are along the same line. The arguments are just so poorly supported. If Dawkins is the example of the most radical atheist, then it appears that the standards for being radical are so low, that most every person willing to call themselves an atheist is a radical atheist. His opinions are not claimed to be factual and he's more than willing to provide tons of evidence for all his factual claims. If you believe there are "radical atheists" it behooves you to provide a definition and an example where someone is extreme in his/her lack of god belief. An actual quote. Otherwise, you may wish to examine yourself for stereotypes that may be clouding your reality.

My 17 year old child is a "secular humanist" and made arguments just like those who assert that there are these extreme atheists. He then defined it exactly as Thai did--guess what...he couldn't find a quote...he had twisted the words of someone on one of his forums into meaning that. He came to the conclusion that it might have been an exaggeration based on a stereotype. Presumably there are adults on this forum who should be able to provide some evidence or be willing to learn some little mental glitch you may not have been aware of. Perpetuating false stereotypes about a group that is already unfairly maligned by huge number of people, isn't really a very cool thing to do.

I suspect that when people dislike Dawkins, they are really pissed at him because he doesn't believe in their god (however they define it) and doesn't respect their notion of a "soul" no matter how much they make it immeasurable and semantic, etc. Because when it comes to these two bugaboos, everyone thinks their beliefs on the subject is "the truth that shouldn't be mocked." And Dawkins doesn't even mock. South Park mocks hysterically, but usually there is at least a kernel of recognizable "truth" in the actual people they mock. Could they just not find something actually abrasive about Dawkins that they could expand upon or had they received some sort of impression where they thought they had captured some truth.

I think Dawkins is a lot like Randi--true believers demonize them both, but it would be wrong to portray Randi as "the evil atheist" stereotype because it would exacerbate a false impression making people even more closed minded to that which he actually says. I think if they'd actually have read Dawkins or watched some of his lectures, they might have portrayed him differently. I wish they would have. I was as bothered as if they'd done the same thing to Randi and for the same reasons. Some people get a lot more praise and power than they should... some are more worthy of listening to than others. Dawkins nor Randi are riding on some high horse abusing their power from what I can tell. Contrast that to the other real persons skewered.

articulett

30th January 2007, 04:19 PM

T'ai Chi considers such requests "bullying".

Well then, he should expect it from me, as I'm sure he considers me a bully, and, as far as I know, I'm the proverbial radical atheist.

If only someone would give me a decent definition with a quote, so I'd know. There's no use flogging myself unnecessarily.

thaiboxerken

30th January 2007, 04:24 PM

Can you cut and paste where someone has this? And is it any more a statement of faith than "Fairies don't exist and that's a fact."

I've said it, and I don't agree that it's a statement of faith at all.

Oh, and Tai Chi would say that the statement about fairies is a statement of faith.

delphi_ote

31st January 2007, 06:15 AM

I just think people have learned to hear a failure to respect religious beliefs as something radical.
In my experience, that seems like the problem. Dawkins and Harris both wrote about changing the conversation, and I think this is what they meant. In a society where technology exists which makes one person is capable of killing hundreds, maybe thousands, of people, we absolutely must be able to speak freely about what people believe and why they believe it.

It's total hypocracy that public intellectuals can deride atheism, but any those who are critical of religion are considered rude, out of line, or inconsiderate.

Foster Zygote

31st January 2007, 07:49 AM

Well, Foster Zygote and Delphi_ote, I agree with you--and I think I always do. You are both amongst my favorite posters.

I'm honored by your compliment. Thanks.

Troylus

31st January 2007, 12:48 PM

I think that Dawkins has been careful not to overreach and become militantly anti-god or anti-religion. While he is clearly opposed to religious belief and openly criticizes it, he has never (as far as I know) suggested that religion should be outlawed or forcibly destroyed. Rather, he has been clear that it should simply be held to the same standards of rigorous scrutiny and debate to which our other social institutions are.

In my opinion, Dawkins has aimed at advancing atheism in the true sense of the word - as in being "god-free" or "without religion."

The problem, as I see it, is that the pre-eminence of Dawkins as an intellectual and public figure has emboldened many who are actually anti-theist. These folks I would typify as not really being grounded in the epistemology that gives rise to measured and rational atheism but rather those who aim to rebel against societal conventions for emotional or juvenile attention-getting. Rather than encouraging free inquiry and critical thinking, these atheists dogmatically decry that belief in god is simply stupid and all religious believers are themselves, equally moronic. These atheists have themselves become religious in their zeal and close-mindedness.

My guess is that Trey and Matt erroneously conflated Dawkins's rational atheism with this other strain of juvenile atheism. After all, Matt and Trey traffic in comedy and juvenile behavior so it wouldn't surprise me if that such "in-your-face-God-sucks-and-so-do-you" atheism might be their primary exposure to the re-invigorated atheist movement. If true, it would explain why they chose to pillory Dawkins as their figurehead.

So, in my estimation, we might be able to loosely categorize atheists into two broad camps. First, there are the rational atheists who, while critical of religion, are open to engaging in a consciousness-raising and productive dialogue about the topic. And second, there are the juvenile or dogmatic atheists who aren't interested in a dialogue at all but rather just want to belittle and aggravate anyone who doesn't agree with them. For them, atheism is an anti-religion religion.

Most of the high-profile atheists are of the first type - but there are plenty out there who I think fall into the latter category.

Several of you have asked for evidence that any atheists of this latter type actually exist. Here are a few examples that spring to mind:

1. Many participants in the youtube Blasphemy Challenge seem to me to be juvenile atheists. Not all of them are, mind you, but if you watch the videos for a bit, you'll come across plenty who are clearly participating for no other purpose than to try and piss off religious folks. These are generally the ones who suggest that god-believers should be shot or who punctuate their blasphemies with profanities and obscene gestures.

2. Goths/ Emos/ Satanists. Again, not everyone who might self-identify themselves in this way would qualify, but I think that a lot of them do. For example, if you investigate the modern Church of Satan movement, you'll find that most of these folks are rabidly anti-Christian atheists (they actually don't worship Satan at all). And, they'll quote Dawkins as proof of their "superiority". (Strange bedfellows, indeed.)

3. Some Randian Objectivists. Again, while there are plenty of well-reasoned and thoughtful intellectuals who have taken inspiration from the works of Ayn Rand, there are also quite a few who have taken the extremist view and see those who believe in God as weak or even sub-human. (Some of Ayn's own writings makes me wonder if she too might have fallen prey to dogmatism).

Foster Zygote

31st January 2007, 05:37 PM

I think that Dawkins has been careful not to overreach and become militantly anti-god or anti-religion...

Wow! Great post. I think you've described the situation clearly and accurately. It pains me to read the comments of these juvenile anti-theists who identify themselves as atheists because I know that many will read their comments as being representative of atheists in general.

Dogdoctor

31st January 2007, 06:02 PM

It's total hypocracy that public intellectuals can deride atheism, but any those who are critical of religion are considered rude, out of line, or inconsiderate.

No one said life is fair. Stamping your foot and demanding it to be fair doesn't work.

TheChadd

31st January 2007, 08:48 PM

One of my friends is a creationist, he hadn't read dawkins book but since he works in a school library he had to catalogue it... Anyway I'm guessing the title probably annoyed him, so he looked up a review for it and got: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

This is what he based his view of dawkins book on. After actually arguing the points of the book with him, he doesn't seem to see me as an 'atheist extremist' in fact he said he thinks it's great that I take the time to get to know people's religions in depth before arguing with them. So I think alot of the reaction may just be based on some sort of a stereotype and not the actual words/meaning of dawkins book.

delphi_ote

1st February 2007, 10:12 AM

No one said life is fair. Stamping your foot and demanding it to be fair doesn't work.
Hypocricy is not the same as unfairness. You should look them up in the dictionary. Since you've offered me a plattitude, here's one for you: knowledge is power.

luchog

1st February 2007, 10:56 AM

The problem, as I see it, is that the pre-eminence of Dawkins as an intellectual and public figure has emboldened many who are actually anti-theist. These folks I would typify as not really being grounded in the epistemology that gives rise to measured and rational atheism but rather those who aim to rebel against societal conventions for emotional or juvenile attention-getting. Rather than encouraging free inquiry and critical thinking, these atheists dogmatically decry that belief in god is simply stupid and all religious believers are themselves, equally moronic. These atheists have themselves become religious in their zeal and close-mindedness.
This is what I was trying to say earlier in the thread, but it's stated much better than I managed. I do think Dawkins does tend to veer a little too close to anti-religious at times, which is why he's been turned into a quasi-cult figurehead by some of the more strident juvenile atheists. I doubt he would appreciate their support all that much, though.

First, there are the rational atheists who, while critical of religion, are open to engaging in a consciousness-raising and productive dialogue about the topic. And second, there are the juvenile or dogmatic atheists who aren't interested in a dialogue at all but rather just want to belittle and aggravate anyone who doesn't agree with them. For them, atheism is an anti-religion religion.

Most of the high-profile atheists are of the first type - but there are plenty out there who I think fall into the latter category.

I haven't seen any high-profile atheists of the juvenile type that I can recall, at least not since Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but am constantly dealing with them in my day to day life. Most of them are either hardcore far-Left or outright Communists/Socialists; or are rabid Randroids (a difficult bit of alliteration, that). Rand herself was not quite as dogmatically anti-religion as some of her followers, but had nothing good to say about it.

2. Goths/ Emos/ Satanists. Again, not everyone who might self-identify themselves in this way would qualify, but I think that a lot of them do. For example, if you investigate the modern Church of Satan movement, you'll find that most of these folks are rabidly anti-Christian atheists (they actually don't worship Satan at all). And, they'll quote Dawkins as proof of their "superiority". (Strange bedfellows, indeed.)

I'm kind of curious why you lumped these three together, since they have pretty much nothing whatsoever in common, aside from a predeliction for bad poetry and lots of black clothing. Satanists of the CoS and Crowleyan variety are typically engaged in an exaggerated self-worship, and for them the use of "Satan" is symbolic rather than theological. The often tend to have some pretty woo beleifs aside from their rabid anti-Christianity; and are not necessarily atheists, though a good percentage are.

Emos, like Punks before them, tend to be sophomoric nihilists or New Agey woos for the most part, although there's a good deal of variety and range in their beliefs.

Goths run the full spectrum of beliefs. "Goth" itself referrs to a particular group of musical and fashion styles, and unlike the Punk and Glam subcultures that spawned it, had no common philosophical thread, aside from a certain social liberalism and openness to "alternative" lifestyles (and a tendency toward hedonism). Goth is purely an aesthetic. The majority tend to be very intelligent people, and a number of my aquaintances are IT professionals, business executives, scientists (I know three organic chemists), lawyers, and such. As well as a whole lot of artists (and an unfortunate number of dumba$$ losers). Religious/philosophical beliefs among Goths run the full gamut from moderate Catholicism and orthodox Judaism, to agnosticism, to rabidly anti-religious juvenile atheism; and includes a variety of New Age and Neopagan beliefs, several different forms of Buddhism, esoteric "magickal" traditions (eg. Golden Dawn), Satanism of various flavours, and even liberal Islam. In fact, I think the only religions I haven't seen represented are the more extreme New Age weirdness; and Scientology, which is pretty universally despised in the scene, for what should be obvious reasons.

One thing to keep in mind is that there are a couple of other subcultures that are commonly mistaken for Goths. One is the Vampire-wannabees, who are generally into some pretty weird-a$$ blend of Satanism and New-Age stuff (they're quite fond of past-lives); and who are pretty seriously disliked by most Goths because of their extreme self-centered attention-seeking and apparently tenuous hold on reality. The other are what are commonly known as "spookykids", "doom cookies", or "Mansonites" (the last moniker is derived from the fact that most are rabid fans of singer Marilyn Manson). They're usually young, though not always, and are sort of a "Goth without the style, intelligence, or humour"; and tend to be horrible trend-whores. They're the ones you'll usually see shopping at places like Hot Topic. They're simultaneously derided and tolerated by Goths, because the more intelligent and rational ones will often grow up to be Goths, and the rest are just really annoying and tend to move on to other fads when the current one stops annoying their parents as much. Most of the militant anti-religious juvenile-atheist "Goths" are actually spookykids, and a few do grow out of it eventually.

Dogdoctor

1st February 2007, 12:34 PM

Hypocricy is not the same as unfairness. You should look them up in the dictionary. Since you've offered me a plattitude, here's one for you: knowledge is power.

Knowledge is meaningles without an application. Power is power

delphi_ote

1st February 2007, 01:26 PM

Knowledge is meaningles without an application. Power is power
Irrelevant nonsense like that is meaningless with or without an application.

ZirconBlue

1st February 2007, 01:36 PM

Knowledge is meaningles without an application. Power is power

"When you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack." - The Sphynx

Dogdoctor

1st February 2007, 01:47 PM

Irrelevant nonsense like that is meaningless with or without an application.
OK Knowledge is not power. It is merely knowledge. It can be used as a tool to attain power but by itself it has no use. You can complain about the world being hypocritical, yet hypocritical isn't exactly the right word since it may not be the same persons holding those beliefs about atheism or religion. Perhaps there are individual hypocrites but in general not necessarily hypocritical. Power is power, not the smartest or most knowledgeable person wields the most power. But those who are able to use their intelligence hold power. All the intelligence in the world doesn't matter if you can't apply it.

delphi_ote

1st February 2007, 03:45 PM

OK Knowledge is not power. It is merely knowledge. It can be used as a tool to attain power but by itself it has no use. You can complain about the world being hypocritical, yet hypocritical isn't exactly the right word since it may not be the same persons holding those beliefs about atheism or religion. Perhaps there are individual hypocrites but in general not necessarily hypocritical. Power is power, not the smartest or most knowledgeable person wields the most power. But those who are able to use their intelligence hold power. All the intelligence in the world doesn't matter if you can't apply it.
Sorry. I'm not following you down a rabbit hole of epistemology and pedantry over an argument about the difference between hypocracy and fairness, nor am I going bother reading your strained literal interpretation of a common idiom. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder and an abundance of time on your hands.

I stand by my point that it's hypocritical of religious people to be harshly critical of others' beliefs while screaming every time someone points out the inanity of their own beliefs.

skeptifem

1st February 2007, 05:59 PM

they didnt delete my snarky comment. weird.

Troylus

1st February 2007, 06:22 PM

Goths run the full spectrum of beliefs. "Goth" itself referrs to a particular group of musical and fashion styles, ...

I admit that I'm not well versed enough in these subcultures to really be able to distinguish them one from another. I apologize for lumping them together in my ignorance and thank you for enlightening me as to the more correct nature of things.

thaiboxerken

1st February 2007, 08:19 PM

No one said life is fair. Stamping your foot and demanding it to be fair doesn't work.

Who's doing that? I mean, besides the fundie christians.

articulett

1st February 2007, 10:10 PM

next time someone runs across one of these "radical atheists" via the Blasphemy challenge, or anything else, can you post it? I'm sure there are some radicals who say things like "religious people should be stoned to death"...or whatever...but I would just like to see a quote...even if it's from a forum...or from youtube. How about a quote from Madelyn Murray O'Hair. I know she's described as a radical atheist, but everything I've read and seen of her made her seem like a smart, down to earth woman. Does anyone have a "radical atheist" quote I can actually look at--even from someone on this forum since others have accused members in general of being "rabid" in their atheism, materialism, etc. I'm just asking for a few "radical atheist" quotes--radical in it's "atheism". I just don't know how, really, one can be a rabid non-believer... But I keep hearing people talk about these atheist extremists...but I'm wondering if there is anything to support it. An Ayn Rand quote maybe? Or are people remembering what was said in a way that's more "radical" than it really was? I don't know any Satanist kids...or if I do, I haven't heard anything radically atheist out of their mouths. I mean there are radical people who are atheists...but I'm looking for some genuine radical atheist quotes--especially from those who are certain there are such people.

I keep hearing about groups of people...but I haven't got a quote yet...except for the statement "there is no god; that's a fact"...which is pretty benign...and I actually haven't heard anyone say that. Not even Dawkins or Randi. I mean, I would readily agree with the statement, but is that more radical than people saying "there is a god; that's a fact"? "There are no fairies; that's a fact?"

I think that there is a taboo factor that makes the former seem radical. But it's an opinion (which is also most likely the case given the evidence.). I'm just tired of propping up this delusion.

Troylus

4th February 2007, 09:10 PM

next time someone runs across one of these "radical atheists" via the Blasphemy challenge, or anything else, can you post it?

I think that a quick perusal of some of the folks taking the Blasphemy Challenge turn up some of these juvenile or radical atheists. Brett Keane comes to my mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5uQgn1MJAw

He's got quite a few videos out there and, as far as I can tell, he's much more interested in angering believers than he is in making any sort of sensible point. In my opinion, intent is the primary telling point between rational and juvenile atheism. In my estimation, if one has arrived at atheism as the result of intellectual or rational inquiry they tend to express themselves differently than one who appears to have chosen atheism as merely a good way to draw negative attention from his or her peers.

Smidge

5th February 2007, 06:27 AM

Firstly apologies but I really did not have time to read through every single one of the 200 plus posts in this thread. I was attracted to read it as I am a South park fan. I also wanted to find out what, if anything, Matt and Trey had to contribute to TAM5 recently. I scanned a lot of the content here but can’t promise that I won’t be repeating comments already posted.

(BTW I have a very dry humour style and use it in my writing always so please take this into account when reading anything I post. Please and thank you)

I was surprised and more than a little amused that a thread in this forum could be started based on a blog from myspace account that could belong to any, well, EEJIT. (That’s Dublinese for ‘idiot’)

This forum promotes critical thinking and is regarded for, amongst other things, its sceptical stance. Yet there was a, dare I say it, blind and naive belief that the myspace account is real and the words are truly those of Matt Stone. Very bizarre!

I could have started that myspace account. I didn’t but I could have!

So, OK, who knows? Maybe Matt Stone DID create that account and these are his words but there is strong evidence to the contrary.

www.southparkstudios.com (http://www.southparkstudios.com) has a FAQ section that is not very informative or revealing but if, say (like me), you went to the site and typed ‘myspace’ in the FAQ search box, the result would show several answered questions denying that Matt or Trey had/has a myspace account.

‘Nuff said and there is no reason for them to lie.

Or maybe I’m not being sceptical enough… ;)

Then more recently at the South Park Studios website this announcement appeared: http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=26573&sid=sid=31d355c79c7984108f3cdac5102f179b (http://www.southparkstudios.com/fans/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=26573&sid=sid=31d355c79c7984108f3cdac5102f179b)

Granted this announcement was made after the thread here was started but a little research would not have gone amiss as to the authenticity of the myspace in question and the blog on Richard Dawkins therein.

For alls we know, this announcement could have been made because this thread was brought to the attention of someone at South Park Studios.

I’m very amused that someone here didn’t question the myspace and blog’s veracity IMMEDIATELY.

C’mon – it’s myspace for Chrissakes!!! :D

Matt and Trey have often said, and more recently, strongly re-iterated, their belief that it’s all alright to make fun of or it’s not.

I disagree – I can’t be as certain as they are that all subjects, people, issues etc, can be OK to make fun of (or not) in such a black and white way.

For their part, I think it’s important to them to keep this belief as staunchly as possible. In their eyes if they agree to change or censor something, for whatever reason, a domino effect could follow and this would be to the show's detriment. Keeping their united front on any issue maintains their integrity and their freedom of speech within their programme.

I haven’t yet seen the Richard Dawkins related South Park episode. Most of what I know about RD was featured in very patchy documentary on UK Channel 4. I didn’t warm to his point of view. What annoyed me the most is how terribly middle class it all was… In my opinion.

Beerina

6th February 2007, 07:03 PM

Like we, or Dawkins should not be made fun of…

Perhaps they missed the mark a bit but still, I’m glad there is a show that will attack any -ism they can get their hands on.

It really was funny when Cartman wound up in a future where religion was a thing of the past and atheist sects were literally fighting each other over a small detail like what to call their groups…

That was part of the point -- that if humanity rid itself of religion, they'd find something else to fight over. Witness the very end when history was re-written yet again and they were all friends, and Carman asks, "So there's no more war?" "Of course there's war! The stupid French Chinese think they have the rights to Hawaii!"

thaiboxerken

6th February 2007, 07:15 PM

Beerina, religion contributes much to war. There would be less war if religion was gone, but the other factors that people go to war over would still be there. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to stop those factors.

Morrigan

6th February 2007, 07:32 PM

This forum promotes critical thinking and is regarded for, amongst other things, its sceptical stance. Yet there was a, dare I say it, blind and naive belief that the myspace account is real and the words are truly those of Matt Stone. Very bizarre!

To be fair, MySpace has become so damn ubiquitous these days that the thought of it being a fake account barely crossed my mind. It seems that everyone and their grandma has a damn MySpace these days. A year ago I would have agreed, but now... I still despise MySpace myself. But you are right, some of us jumped to hasty conclusions.

www.southparkstudios.com (http://www.southparkstudios.com) has a FAQ section that is not very informative or revealing but if, say (like me), you went to the site and typed ‘myspace’ in the FAQ search box, the result would show several answered questions denying that Matt or Trey had/has a myspace account.

‘Nuff said and there is no reason for them to lie.

That's actually a relief. Thanks for posting this. I therefore take back everything I said about Trey and Matt. :)

TheChadd

6th February 2007, 07:44 PM

Yea the southpark episode its self was fair game on dawkins/atheists, it was the comment and further annunciation of such comments by immature SP fans that got me (and I think the others here) upset with trey & matt.

articulett

6th February 2007, 09:35 PM

I must have been on a different thread...I was talking about Matt and Trey at TAM and how they pointed to Dawkin's book as though the book, itself, indicated he was a "radical atheist"...but they didn't say what it was in the book that made them think that, and I don't think they actually read it.

Moreover, it seems like the finer points of the conversation are completely missed by some of the younger people...or those who sound young to me. I am a big South Park Fan. I am also a Big Dawkins fan. I am a big Randi fan. I wouldn't find it funny if Rani was the "evil atheist" egomaniac, because, as all atheists know...atheism is already associated with "evil"... usually South Park pokes fun at sacred cows that get more respect than they deserve... Scientists, atheists, and skeptics have enough bad press and stereotyping--
And yet you really can't define any group of people by what they don't believe in, can you?

I just think their approach would have been different had they read any of Dawkins. Fortunately Dawkins took it in stride, as did most people--even if some of us didn't find it a particularly funny or insightful episode.

delphi_ote

6th February 2007, 09:56 PM

www.southparkstudios.com has a FAQ section that is not very informative or revealing but if, say (like me), you went to the site and typed ‘myspace’ in the FAQ search box, the result would show several answered questions denying that Matt or Trey had/has a myspace account.
Well done, sir. It's always good to see critical thinking and a little research combined to shatter an illusion.
What annoyed me the most is how terribly middle class it all was… In my opinion.
:confused:
Middle class?

thaiboxerken

7th February 2007, 08:46 AM

south park faq says there is no official south park myspace acct and that trey doesn't have one. nothing to say that matt doesn't.

Smidge

7th February 2007, 09:17 AM

south park faq says there is no official south park myspace acct and that trey doesn't have one. nothing to say that matt doesn't.
You didn't check the front page news item. The exact wording from the FRONT PAGE of southparkstudios.com item follows...

MySpace?
Hey kids, we have a quick message from Matt Stone. He has been getting some questions about this and would like everyone to know that he and Trey have never had a MySpace page. They do not currently have them nor will they ever!

I know this cannot be my pet hate alone but why do people not even TRY to read things properly?

I've received replies to a few comments I've posted here in the short time I've been a member where I had to ask the person to re-read my post to check their facts as they clearly hadn't done so and decided to see what they wanted to. I find it more than a little disturbing. I posted a link to this news item and commented on it. I was really trying to minmise the effort involved! Obviously, not enough.

If someone is bothered enough to take the time to reply to reply on a specific point they shoud take the time to read the relevant comments in the thread.

IllegalArgument

7th February 2007, 09:26 AM

I haven’t yet seen the Richard Dawkins related South Park episode. Most of what I know about RD was featured in very patchy documentary on UK Channel 4. I didn’t warm to his point of view. What annoyed me the most is how terribly middle class it all was… In my opinion.

Really curious what you meant by "middle class"?

Smidge

7th February 2007, 09:39 AM

Well done, sir. It's always good to see critical thinking and a little research combined to shatter an illusion.

:confused:
Middle class?

I was about to briefly explain that very thing to delphi_ote, IllegalArgument!

So briefly, I do not mean solely in an economic sense. The best way that I can describe what I mean is someone who is used to and has had a certain amount of privilege and access to better resources. I feel RD's arguments speak very much to those who are of a similar advantaged background.

Apologies if this doesn't make sense to either of you or anyone else who read this. I've done my best with my by now quite tired brain at the end of my working day!

valis

7th February 2007, 09:45 AM

Beerina, religion contributes much to war. There would be less war if religion was gone...

Your evidence for that is what?

thaiboxerken

7th February 2007, 10:01 AM

Your evidence for that is what?

it's a simple proof. religious wars make up a percentage of total wars. no religion = no religious wars.
=> total number of wars goes down.

Foster Zygote

7th February 2007, 10:59 AM

I just posted a reply to the blog with this message, courtesy of Smidgen.

MySpace?
Hey kids, we have a quick message from Matt Stone. He has been getting some questions about this and would like everyone to know that he and Trey have never had a MySpace page. They do not currently have them nor will they ever!

It was immediately removed and he has now changed the settings so that only friends are allowed to post relies. A similar warning in reply to another blog entry by Thaiboxerken is sure to be removed shortly.

Foster Zygote

7th February 2007, 11:23 AM

Granted, I have almost no familiarity with MySpace, but now I know better. This prat has really pissed me off (can we type 'pissed'?). I've begun sending the following to as many people as I can on "Matt Stone's" friends list with the heading "Matt Stone" MySpace page is bogus.

Go to the front page of www.southparkstudios.com and scroll down a bit to see this message:

MySpace?
Hey kids, we have a quick message from Matt Stone. He has been getting some questions about this and would like everyone to know that he and Trey have never had a MySpace page. They do not currently have them nor will they ever!

Whoever is running the Matt Stone MySpace page is not the Matt Stone of South Park. Go see for yourself. He (she?) has been trying to delete all reference to the above southparkstudios.com message from his blog replies.

Faustina

7th February 2007, 12:40 PM

Heh heh. I posted almost the exact same message, with the quote from the South Park faq and the url to the faq in the comments section last night. I see it's gone today too. What a punk.

Edited to add: Awww, now all comments have to be approved.

thaiboxerken

7th February 2007, 02:08 PM

I wonder what that kid is trying to accomplish by pretending to be Matt.

RvLeshrac

7th February 2007, 08:06 PM

Irritating some of us, apparently. I'm glad I can go back to enjoying Southpark now. :p

Really, though, as I've said before, I have no beef with the episode itself, just the comments of this twit. I'm quite happy that Matt was not the architect of the comments.

I still submit that they do believe in some woo, but I don't care about that so long as they aren't being hypocritical. I think I've also said before that they're both perfectly intelligent individuals.

Also, a response to Smidgen:

The comments here have mostly been reasonable. Nothing in the myspace account gave an indication that it was not Stone, etc., and note that most of us have not attacked Trey (though I have, as per above, mentioned him a few times), as the myspace account did not bring him up - unreasoned commentary would have demonized both of them equally. That said, how difficult could it have been for Matt to have gotten the word out a little sooner? This is not the _only_ place where this topic has been raised.

deBergerac

8th February 2007, 01:34 AM

One should really be on the forum 24/7. If one is here less, as I am, it is very possible that one will find a thread about an interesting topic that one would like to contribute to but there is a two digit number of pages in the thread; and who is going to read through all of that.
The alternative is of course to say what one wants to say and not bother to find out if anyone else said it earlier; that is what I am going to do.
If anyone thinks that it is presumptuous of me to think that I have something to say without finding out if it is original or not I can tell you that it is going to be even worse, I do not know that much about Richard Dawkins.
So if anyone gets annoyed of what I have to say you are right to disregard it since it is not based on a long study, certainly not a scientific study, but only an opinion.

To me Dawkins comes across as dogmatic and fanatic. The fact that his arguments concerning the scientific evidence for the existence of any god is extremely good, I would go as far as to say he is correct, does not help.
The reason is that Dawkins does not limit himself to speaking the truth, that there is no scientific evidence for any god, that there is good reason to think that all gods been invented by humans, and that a lot of monstrosities has been done in the name of religion; he also voice his opinion that religion is the root of all evil.
Since Dawkins and I have different views on religion and I can understand his while he appears to be unable to understand mine he comes across as being dogmatic and fanatic. He is not much for dialog with religious people, he is an iconoclast and an attacker and while his fans admire him for that I often find people like that tedious.

When I told a friend that I found Dawkins to be slightly arrogant she pointed out the he is British upper class and a parvenu at that; so of course he has to be arrogant. (She is British herself so she should know.) It appears to me as if he confuses respect for religion with respect for religious people.
Although I am religious myself I think that no religion should be spared from criticism, one should not respect religion. I guess I agree with Dawkins on that point. One the other hand I think that one should respect people, even if you do not agree with them or if they are stupid there is no reason to look down on them.
(I have a big problem not looking down on people I feel lacking intellectually but I do my best to correct myself.)
It may almost seem metaphysical but I think that you can speak against a person’s belief and a person’s actions without attacking the person. Some will consider it an attack on themselves if their beliefs or their actions are criticised, I think they are wrong in doing so. Others, as Dawkins, are unable to attack a person’s beliefs and actions without attacking the person. The bottom line here is “Dawkins is not a nice person”.

Perhaps it is that so many of his fans are praising him for fighting the good fight that make some people talk about cult like behaviour. In being ecstatic about someone fighting for “us” against “them” you are probably closer to the root of all evil than what religion per se is. Religion can be used to divide the world into “us” and “them” but so can many other things sports, and politics are some examples.

Before I end I must once again point out that I am not as familiar with Dawkins work as I would like to be. I will do my best to correct that mistake and I will also add to my earlier confession that I have a problem with looking down on people who appears to think that they are in some way superior to others.

Foster Zygote

8th February 2007, 08:01 AM

I wonder what that kid is trying to accomplish by pretending to be Matt.

If it was some 52 year old fat guy pretending to be a 19 year old girl I would just find it funny, pathetic, but funny. But this jerk is passing himself off as someone else's real identity. Because of his sock puppet I came to think less of someone who didn't deserve it.

BayAreaGuy

10th February 2007, 11:12 AM

Heres the link to RD's Myspace, a little down on the page is a comment by Matt Stone, If you follow it to Matt Stone's site you can see it's the actual Matt Stone.

http://myspace.com/richarddawkinsfoundation

This is precisely the reason I think the "MySpace Fad" is pathetic. The link you gave does nothing for us. When I click it, I'm taken to a "site" that changes minute-by-minute. I can't "follow it," because the comment is no longer on the front page. I'm then forced to register for a MySpace account I'll never use, log in, click the link, click on View All Comments, and search through hundreds of them, page after page, to find some obscure comment made by someone who may or may not be Matt Stone.

Why not just cut and paste the damn comment here?

BayAreaGuy

10th February 2007, 11:19 AM