ilovefuzz.com

Again, Roseweave, you seem to be insinuating that Trey and Matt have some sort of societal obligation to be objective, sensitive to the feelings and views of all of the stereotypes they are lampooning, and fair. I submit that they are not obligated to be any of those things, and in fact are completely in the right to be the exact opposite to all of them.

Why are they not? A lot of the views they espouse have that good old conservative "Personal responsibility", yet they display none themselves. Why can they not be held to any kind of standard? If they are the exact opposite of fair and objective, that is ultimately harmful. That is what I hate about this way of thinking, no grasp of utility or a wider effect.

Christ!! I go to a class, teach some brats and a dumb thread gets even more ridiculous. I regret starting it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go. Southpark's on and they're making fun of Christians. How bout backing THEM up?

I'm having a wonderful time

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_WI0VI7aIw[/youtube]

Brettski wrote:Christ!! I go to a class, teach some brats and a dumb thread gets even more ridiculous. I regret starting it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go. Southpark's on and they're making fun of Christians. How bout backing THEM up?

Christians need backing up?

Matt and Trey hate religion, but hate atheism too.

On a September 2006 airing of the ABC newsmagazine Nightline, Parker articulated his position on religion. He stated that he believes there is more going on than we even know about and cautioned that it would take a long time to explain exactly what he meant by his belief in God. Stone subsequently quipped, "I still don't understand it."[16]

Regarding Atheism, Parker stated the following:[17]

"Basically ... out of all the ridiculous religion stories which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous—the silliest one I've ever heard is, 'Yeah ... there's this big giant universe and it's expanding, it's all gonna collapse on itself and we're all just here just 'cause ... just 'cause'. That, to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever."

Once again it's blatant he's commenting on something he doesn't understand, the big crunch isn't even the current accepted model. It would have taken him like 2 minutes to read up on this on wikipedia, but no. I fail to see why the transsexual episode was any different, there is certainly more evidence to suggest it's just them mouthing off without thinking than against.

These are the kind of dumbass comments you often get from "centrists" though.

Haha! I just figured it out! Roseweave is fucking with us!

How? Why? Trey really made that comment...

It's not like I'm happy about it. I still love Devi and this forum, there's just no way for me to reconcile people thinking comments like the above are the work of a informed person.

Well, atheism is widely accepted or thought to be the disbelief in a God or Gods. From my understanding, Atheism as a whole has no formal "accepted model." Most self-proclaimed atheists that I've met have simply been unable to prove themselves right, choosing instead to attempt to prove me wrong... Which, in a philosophical debate of any kind, would (hopefully) leave them in the wrong from the beginning. Regardless, I (despite my disinterest of South Park) kind of side with the guy on his views of atheism. I do find it silly. Personally, I'm the type of person who simply doesn't believe that humanity is meant to understand what's going on in the cosmos. This doesn't mean that I don't sit and ponder constantly about my purpose, etc. I am 20 years old, after all.
But who cares? Maybe the guy's opinionated, big deal. If he was in politics and not making a TV show he'd get the same hard time. It's not like people consider him a hero or a criminal. I'm pretty sure most people think he's just a dude. There's people out there who think Hitler's a righteous dude. Fuck those dudes. Be pissed off at them. As for South Park, let it be. Just don't give em yer money.
Eh, I'm beginning to rant.

veteransdaypoppy wrote:Well, atheism is widely accepted or thought to be the disbelief in a God or Gods. From my understanding, Atheism as a whole has no formal "accepted model." Most self-proclaimed atheists that I've met have simply been unable to prove themselves right, choosing instead to attempt to prove me wrong... Which, in a philosophical debate of any kind, would (hopefully) leave them in the wrong from the beginning. Regardless, I (despite my disinterest of South Park) kind of side with the guy on his views of atheism. I do find it silly. Personally, I'm the type of person who simply doesn't believe that humanity is meant to understand what's going on in the cosmos. This doesn't mean that I don't sit and ponder constantly about my purpose, etc. I am 20 years old, after all.

I'm pretty sure Roseweave was saying that the "Big Crunch" is not in the accepted model for Cosmology/Astrophysics, not Atheism.

As for the rest of what you said, there is nothing for atheists to "prove". Their argument is a negative one. You can't prove a negative. They take the view (as do scientists) that it is those who hold a belief that has no physical evidence that have the burden of proof. The atheist argument is very simple. If you are asserting something that you cannot see, hear, touch, or explain using any easily deducible laws of nature, then prove to us it exists. If theists can't "prove" their belief in God/Allah/Vishnu/Flying Spaghetti Monster, then atheists are most certainly not in the wrong in a philosophical debate. Quite the contrary.

Awww...religion...can't we go back to lgbt bashing?

veteransdaypoppy wrote:Well, atheism is widely accepted or thought to be the disbelief in a God or Gods. From my understanding, Atheism as a whole has no formal "accepted model." Most self-proclaimed atheists that I've met have simply been unable to prove themselves right, choosing instead to attempt to prove me wrong... Which, in a philosophical debate of any kind, would (hopefully) leave them in the wrong from the beginning. Regardless, I (despite my disinterest of South Park) kind of side with the guy on his views of atheism. I do find it silly. Personally, I'm the type of person who simply doesn't believe that humanity is meant to understand what's going on in the cosmos. This doesn't mean that I don't sit and ponder constantly about my purpose, etc. I am 20 years old, after all.
But who cares? Maybe the guy's opinionated, big deal. If he was in politics and not making a TV show he'd get the same hard time. It's not like people consider him a hero or a criminal. I'm pretty sure most people think he's just a dude. There's people out there who think Hitler's a righteous dude. Fuck those dudes. Be pissed off at them. As for South Park, let it be. Just don't give em yer money.
Eh, I'm beginning to rant.

It's generally accepted that neonazis are in the wrong, whereas it's generally accepted that Matt and Trey are cool witty guys rather than uninformed hicks. The reason I oppose it so much is that their way of doing things is to satire based on a very poor strawman, and the whole popularity and defense of their stuff is an attack on rational discourse, which in one further step could very easily lead to irrational thought such as neonazism.

It's actually more effective, politically, to be making a popular TV show than being a politican, since people generally don't respect politicans or what they have to say as much as their favourite writers.

bigchiefbc wrote:

veteransdaypoppy wrote:Well, atheism is widely accepted or thought to be the disbelief in a God or Gods. From my understanding, Atheism as a whole has no formal "accepted model." Most self-proclaimed atheists that I've met have simply been unable to prove themselves right, choosing instead to attempt to prove me wrong... Which, in a philosophical debate of any kind, would (hopefully) leave them in the wrong from the beginning. Regardless, I (despite my disinterest of South Park) kind of side with the guy on his views of atheism. I do find it silly. Personally, I'm the type of person who simply doesn't believe that humanity is meant to understand what's going on in the cosmos. This doesn't mean that I don't sit and ponder constantly about my purpose, etc. I am 20 years old, after all.

I'm pretty sure Roseweave was saying that the "Big Crunch" is not in the accepted model for Cosmology/Astrophysics, not Atheism.

As for the rest of what you said, there is nothing for atheists to "prove". Their argument is a negative one. You can't prove a negative. They take the view (as do scientists) that it is those who hold a belief that has no physical evidence that have the burden of proof. The atheist argument is very simple. If you are asserting something that you cannot see, hear, touch, or explain using any easily deducible laws of nature, then prove to us it exists. If theists can't "prove" their belief in God/Allah/Vishnu/Flying Spaghetti Monster, then atheists are most certainly not in the wrong in a philosophical debate. Quite the contrary.

I'm not really an atheist by the modern definition, but I always assume that position for debates. I hate the way Trey descibes his belief in god, basically because there is something more, it has to be GOD and no doubt one that resembles the one in mainstream religion, but of course much better since all those religious non-centrists are much sillier than him.

morningstaru wrote:Awww...religion...can't we go back to lgbt bashing?

lulz. Yeah, you're right; how the hell did we get from there to here? My bad. In my defense, I'm not the one that brought up religion, I just reacted.
<whiny>
HE STARTED IT!!!!
</whiny>

morningstaru wrote:Awww...religion...can't we go back to lgbt bashing?

theres only one way to fix this, its gay bashing time followed by straigh bashing time and culminating in left wing-liberal-bush support

morningstaru wrote:Awww...religion...can't we go back to lgbt bashing?

The point is Trey likes to mouth off on things without doing any proper research first. The fact that he thought the Big Crunch is the currently accepted model proves my case, he's just going with "common knowledge" and making assumptions based on that, same deal for the trans episode, that's why the strawman resembles the idea most people had anyway.

Out of interest there was a transgendered character on Ashes to Ashes yesterday. Even though the character was a criminal, it was still done a lot more sympathetic and realistically, so it didn't really offend me.

I didn't see him say that was the currently accepted model-- he just said he thought it was silly. I think the way he said "'we're all here just 'cause... just cause" kinda sums up the point he was trying to make. It had nothing to do with the universe collapsing on itself... it was more about the fact we're not here for any reason at all. He was saying he doesn't think it's as random some people see it. The idea of a creator is no more ridiculous than the fact that nothing exploded, created life, then will collapse on itself.

Now you're gonna argue that "the big bang/crunch isn't the accepted model." Then I'll argue "Nobody said it was. Neither is creation/divine apocalypse, but it still falls under the 'people believe it, but we don't really know' catagory." Then you'll give me some kind of shit about just sticking up for them or something...

Nobody is looking at the south park guys as scholars. Nobody is getting their views from South Park-- at least nobody smart enough to matter. You're not paying attention to yourself. Everyone tells you to "lighten up-- it's just comedy" because, to them, it really is just comedy. And now you're making that argument with people that obviously accept
you as a transsexual-- but you just don't get it.





I just watched the episode where Kyle got blamed for 9/11. It was genius, IMO.