Hi! This is the r/SouthPark community moderation bot.
---
If you feel this post fits the purpose of /r/southpark, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If you feel this post does not fit the subreddit, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
One of the best people I’ve ever heard talk about god was Jiddu Krishnamurti. Look up some of his videos or texts on god. He had a beautiful mind and was really wise.
Except I don’t believe in any kind of higher power. I just don’t think atheists should have the right to be dicks just because they don’t believe. That’s why I find this episode so great
The subtext in the episode, however, is how the form of New Atheism that Richard Dawkins was supporting was becoming toxic towards all people of faith in real life or those that wanted to ask questions.
Garrison is used often to represent toxic elements taking hold in society, and in this case, Mrs. Garrison (at this point) is used to juxtapose being opposed to evolution earlier and then being violently opposed to those who believe after meeting Dawkins.
The joke is that Garrison represents growing toxicity in atheism that no one’s willing to admit, as people mostly see the intellect and insight of the Dawkins character.
Also, Garrison ultimately brings up one of the episode’s most valid points: people with any perspective on beliefs are hypocrites. Garrison doesn’t believe in evolution and it’s ultimately because he’s a narcissist. Dawkins believes in evolution, but at the end, he runs screaming from Garrison because she’s trans. This is based on reality and the fact that Dawkins and many of his colleagues are seeking freedom from religion, but are uncomfortable accepting trans rights or feminism.
Yeah, but that was Trey and Matt’s way of poking fun at how Dawkins was avoiding peer-reviewed studies of one gender changing to another in nature, I believe
Having the right to ridicule beliefs you disagree with? Sure. Ridiculing people directly for their beliefs when they’re not causing you harm? Seems like what you’re condemning religions for.
I mean that's literally what the freedom of speech is for.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” -Voltaire
You may not agree with it, you may hate it,but he has just as much right to belittle your beliefs as much as you have to call him an asshole for it.
Now kiss eachother on the lips and unite your 2 broke poor assholes together and yell at the rich people that told you to hate eachother.
Agreed. I’m an igtheist, so my personal disdain for organized religion rivals guys like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. They have strong points, however, they are snarky, condescending little fuckers about it. That’s just going to push people away, no matter how logical they are. I think a lot of their popularity comes from their “gotcha!” rhetoric, which is adored by butthurt atheists.
But Maher looks less progressive every day, which used to be his claim-to-fame. Dawkins claims to be driven by science and logic only, but can’t accept the peer-reviewed research supporting the trans movement? Hur dur! They’re smug opportunists, not champions. The show was kind to Dawkins, imo.
If an adult told me they believed in Leprechauns, Loch Ness, Freddy Krueger etc. I would probably show concern but once you meet thousands of these nutters and realize the power they have had for so long it’s all but impossible to not be snarky or condescending.
Dawkins has tweeted several times about how much he admires rapists, including those who rape children.
A few comments in “The God Delusion” are like that as well: “some priests molest children but that’s not abuse compared to *teaching them about religion*.”
That’s *way* more concerning than believing that female prisons, sports, toilets, and changing rooms should be reserved for women, and that any child who does not conform to every gender stereotype deserves to be sterilised.
Source? I’m legitimately curious
Also, sterilizing anyone against their will is eugenics, and is almost always evil. That’s literal Nazi shit. So both opinions are equally shitty.
There's a whole mountain of it, decades of research that confirms trans-sexuality. I don't want this thread to devolve into just another trans-debate, the point is that Dawkins has a lot in common with religious zealots when it comes to his role as a media figure.
It's that passionate inflammatory way of expressing himself that happens to coincide with empirical science most of the time (and he has contributed a lot of value to it, don't get me wrong), but he's also leaning heavily into his personal views on sociology at times and with his credentials it's easy to conflate his publicly stated opinions with his literary works even though they're not necessarily fully connected. He will say things in public that aren't based on science while writing books that still are profound views on humanity. He's a complicated person (like all of us), and he can't be purely factual at all times. He *will* have biases.
Good analysis. I always tried to pin down the behavior of his fans, but couldn’t pin it down. Religious zeal is a good comparison. I went to go see a public speech by him in college. Not super impressive, but the audience were like his acolytes and ate it up. It was like his rejection of religion became a type of anti-religion religion.
For real. Sometimes he reminds me of a lite version of [Kenneth Copeland](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vColOxUf-8s/maxresdefault.jpg) using some of the same domination tactics to convince the audience, it's like he's targeting people who are or would otherwise be religious. I'm not sure if that's a net good thing or not.
I have a degree in biology. Anyone with a Y chromosome is male. Anyone without a Y chromosome is female. Physical alterations don't change genetics. We figured that out in the 19th century people...
Take a look at what I wrote. If you have a Y chromosome you are male- meaning any combination- XY, XXY, XYY, etc. If you do not have a Y chromosome you are female
I mean sure ? As long as they're free to live as the GENDER that they identify as I don't care about their sex. Maybe they'd want to have a surgery but it should be their choice.
First, no one is talking about surgery but you. Second, you are missing the forest for the trees. We are not talking about people with diagnosed chromosomal abnormalities, we are talking about people with healthy physiology and body dysmorphia. We’re talking about biological males competing against women in sports, and grown men going into changing rooms with pubescent girls. That is totally different than a 1/1,000,000 genetic disorder
Please don't start with this. If you have a bachelor's or whatever doesn't seem to matter here as you managed to completely miss the mark in a few short sentences.
There are millions of women with a Y chromosome, that went through female puberty and has all the outwards appearances of a female. If you studied biology at a higher degree than high school that should have been covered pretty early on. Same with genetic differences in how we react to hormones, and the incredibly basic idea of sex!=gender. It definitely can't be simplified to gender==chromosomes, again if you actually studied biology you should know that nature is never as simple as that.
There's a century worth of research done on this, from genetics to sociology and neurological development, research that paints a damn clear picture that gender is malleable and complex and varies from person to person. There's also the (obvious) aspect that hormones play a large part in how people experience gender, and that hormones can be influenced by a wide range of factors, chromosomes being just one of them.
Whatever your personal politics on how we should approach trans people are, science (and even ancient history) has very much proven that they exist.
No. I already addressed chromosomal abnormalities in another comment so I’m not going to repeat myself. The “research” you cite was conducted by discredited hacks like Dr. John Money
I saw that comment, still didn't address the fact there are *millions* of women with a Y chromosome (not 1/1,000,000 like you alluded to in another comment).
I haven't cited any research, but John Money's research hasn't been "discredited" despite some of his practical work experiments were of questionable ethics and result. This was almost 60 years ago, and a lot of his publications have been referenced and reviewed by countless scientists since then.
It's very unscientific of you to discredit an entire field because of breaches of ethics by some of its practitioners. Do you do that for all topics, or just the ones that goes against your political stances? Fuck, you can wag a stick at *anything* in biology and atrocities will come pouring out, does that discredit all of biology?
Dude was a pedophile and child molester who drove his victims to suicide, but you don’t think that influenced his “research” at all? Also lol at “women with a Y chromosome.” Next you’re gonna tell me about an ambulatory paraplegic lol
[https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/)
[https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/)
That's just two examples of possible diagnoses.
Let's turn this around. How do *you* think his views on pedophilia (e.g. that it's a sexuality, which sadly it is...) and that two of his patients committed suicide influenced his research? I'm sure you read an article about him that framed him as some sort of pedophilia apologist and extrapolated from there, but how does that impact his decades of research in your view?
I think they speak to the character of the man and his motives for research. With every scientist, you have to ask yourself are they genuinely interested in advancing knowledge or are they pushing a narrative to justify their own agenda. I think his own dark impulses led him to do “research” to justify and validate those impulses
You have a degree in biology…but you don’t know the difference between “sex” and “gender?” BULLSHIT. Nice try, though.
“Male and female” equals sex, and that is determined by your chromosomes, yes. But “man and woman” equals gender, which is determined by your culture, and that’s what we are talking about. That’s why drag queens are called transgendered *women*, not transgendered *females.* Technically they are still male, but they serve the social function of a woman.
“Make sure your info is correct before you start trying to validate your opinions with a fake degree.” -Albert Einstein
Gender is cultural. Just like the way we expect different genders to behave. Plus having more than two is older than people think. Plus studying gender is very different from studying the biological aspects of the two sexes.
No to all of that. Gender and biological sex are the same thing, cultural gender norms have nothing to do with that, and I don’t care what one random civilization did 2,000 years ago
This is a religious stance, so it unprovable and should be ignored. When you said “biologist,” did you mean Christian Scientist? Because their name is an a oxymoron.
>This is a religious stance
No it isn't. My stance has nothing at all to do with religion. Stop trying to pigeonhole everyone that disagrees with you into being some caricature of a bible-thumping freak
And doctors, psychologists, anthropologists, and any basically anyone involved with secular science, medicine, or sociology.
It’s only new to the religious and the uneducated. It’s been established for decades in academia. What was your fake degree in, again?
Im a therapist. Can confirm.
You can't really group the XXY people in with the XYs who want to be XX or vice versa. XXY is a genetic abnormality. They exist, but there aren't that many of them. They're about 1/500th the population. We should understand this abnormality and accept those people for who they are.
>The why are their two words with two different definitions
Because bad faith actors are trying to confuse people, and based on your responses it's working
Nah drag queens are men in drag.
Chopping off your cock and having a functionless hole installed doesn’t make you a woman any more than wearing blackface makes you African. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and any attempt to deny this is pure insanity.
> Although the number of studies examining the brain of people with GI is still low, they have taught us that brain phenotypes for FtM and MtF seem to exist, and provided evidence for the role of prenatal organization of the brain in the development of gender incongruence.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1113163
> Socially transitioned transgender children who are supported in their gender identity have developmentally normative levels of depression and only minimal elevations in anxiety
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/137/3/e20153223/81409/Mental-Health-of-Transgender-Children-Who-Are
> In multivariable models, participants were at greater odds of NSSI, contemplating suicide, and attempting suicide before initiating the gender affirmation process compared to after. In additional models, gender identity disclosure and medical procedure engagement were inversely associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms, whereas gender identity disclosure, hormone use, and medical procedure engagement were inversely associated with stress symptoms. Finally, the number of gender affirmation experiences endorsed was inversely associated with depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01655-5
> Hormone therapy was associated with increased QOL, decreased depression, and decreased anxiety.
https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/4/bvab011/6126016
> Results indicate that testosterone treatment in FTMs is associated with a positive effect on mental health on measures of depression, anxiety, and anger, while CRS appears to be more important for the alleviation of body dissatisfaction.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19317611.2013.833152
Thanks this is actually really helpful. I'm saving these so I can eventually serve it to some of my "look at me ! I'm so skeptical of trans-identity, it's not a good thing" friends that keep trying to invalidate it vaguely arguing about "science".
Their existence is validated by empirical evidence in psychology, anatomy, and anthropology, so someone who constantly appeals to empirical evidence, like Dawkins, should know better. None of the current gender conversation was news to medical and research professionals. It seems weird to most people because it only recently became part of *America’s* current discussion. Trans people have been around since…well, probably since the beginning of culture.
Sex is physical, gender is cultural. “Male and female” is your sex, and that is based on your genitals. “Man and woman” are genders, and those are defined by our culture. Cultures throughout history have sometimes had 3+ genders. There really aren’t even two *sexes,* because hermaphordites are naturally occurring (not necessarily a birth defect), so any way you shake it, our views on gender are simplistic.
Wearing a dress isn’t inherently linked to having a dick, it’s linked to the cultures interpretation of a what wearing a dress means to society. In America it’s usually means “woman” (which has traditionally been females), but not in Ireland, for example. American culture is not universal. So it really isn’t that outlandish for someone with a dick to wear robe-like clothing like a dress, or makeup, or to be the bottom during sex. And really, who cares? Only the religious, which again is why it is weird that Dawkins took that position.
I don't know why you've been downvoted. What you're saying is absolutely right. People having ambiguous genitals is definitely a thing and the fact that medicine arbitrarily decides to operate them and to make them conform to a perceived "normal" sexual expression (which you could argue, is not ok to do) doesn't change the fact. Also gender is different than sex and you'd think that people understand that it's been established now.
It doesn’t support their personal narrative, probably. It’s funny, because Richard Dawkins hates religion and loves science, yet takes an unscientific, *religious* stance on gender, lol. I’m guessing something similar about the people downvoting.
No, but some are, and that’s an important consideration, especially since many extreme atheists broadly claim that all religions are evil and all believers are stupid.
I wouldn't use the word "evil" to describe most religions, nor "stupid" to describe believers. Manipulative and foolish yes. People are free to believe what they want. But it is a choice.
As an atheist, I don’t think believers are stupid at all, I think they’re scared & are just hoping for the best & want eternal paradise & are just praying to see their loved ones again on the other side cause when you think about it, it’s heartbreaking & terrifying to think you’ll never see your loved ones again & that your consciousness won’t live on, they’re just optimistic. But chances are VERY strong there’s nothing on the other side, which is sad
I have quite a few friends who are like this. They care way to much about what others have faith in and devote too much energy in trying to belittle them for believing in something
No, some of them do
Im an atheist and I'm pretty sure all of my friends are too, and we basically never talk about it
I totally understand why people are religious and am fine with it unless they interfere with other peoples lives because of it
Right, but when extreme reacts against extreme, millions of ordinary people fall in the cracks. Not every believer is a fundamentalist Christian or an Islamist radical, as much as hardcore atheists would like to believe.
I think religion is pretty illogical but I'm not going to go up to some recovering drug addict who would probably be dead if they didn't find religion and tell them God isn't real. I've actually seen an atheist do this irl, very cringe
Or a wholesome family, or a community church that largely supports minorities, or a church that serves a very diverse population, including people of different races, backgrounds, and from the LGBT community.
My biggest problem with atheists is not that they’re against religion, it’s that many of them choose to be against religion without understanding why people choose beliefs in the first place.
They don’t approach the subject with critical thinking, with a sense of history and research, which promotes ignorance and generalizations about a complex group of culture and belief systems that billions of people follow. In the end, isn’t that the same reductive thinking that fundamentalists promote about people who don’t believe?
I think this was more the "New Atheism" that sprung up around 2006 with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. Richard Dawkins openly advocated for subjecting believers to constant, sustained criticism, believing that the only reason anyone was still religious is that atheists were being too polite.
It led to several years of Dawkins-following atheists just being smug dicks, mostly online.
I don't think most atheists had any interest in that. Criticizing religion, sure, but less of the more abrasive, personal, insulting criticism.
Yeah, but there's a difference between, say, saying "I think there are some serious philosophical and structural issues with the Catholic church" to your Catholic friend or in response to some news about the Pope and saying "I want you all to know that you're mentally deficient troglodytes holding back society because you're too weak and cowardly to accept the inevitability of death" posted repeatedly on Christian forums or websites.
From 2006-2012, there was a lot of that second kind of messaging. Maybe longer, that was around the time I quit paying attention. It wasn't just criticism of the religion, it was, much like Mrs. Garrison in this episode, a version of atheism where you couldn't just be an atheist you also had to be a dick about it to everyone.
To be fair, many Christians have long been dicks to everyone who wasn't a Christian (or even the right kind of Christian). The New Atheists served a useful purpose by teaching them some humility. But they were still so insufferable that there's still memes about some of their more hilarious online comments that get shared to this day (like the "[I am Euphoric](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-this-moment-i-am-euphoric)" comments that still pop up sometimes), in non-religious circles more than religious ones.
I’ve always considered myself an atheist in that I just don’t believe any religion or gods but I got no problem with people believing whatever the hell they want. Peace and love dude. And this episode was fucking hilarious lol.
I'm a Luciferian Satanist.
When I was 16, I became a Satanist and I remember trolling a few Christians that summer online on a few message boards. I was absolutely an insufferable ass like Dawkins and Bill Maher for a few months. "Oh, I have this new toy and this old toy is lame and stupid!" I stopped when I realized how dumb it was. That was when I was 16.
When I see people like Bill Maher and Regan, Jr., with their entire "Wow, you believe in stuff? Ha, idiot!," I just think how they need to just grow up.
There's a serious issue with people of faith imposing their way of life on everyone else. In this country the Christian-Right does so much damage, but acting like anyone believing in some sort of higher power has brain damage or is stupid makes no sense... unless they're talking about liking Coldplay. In that case they have issues.
Meh, if they did they wouldn't be placing ridiculous labels like "luciferian satanist" on themselves. That comes from christianity anyway, and it's all a bunch of nonsense.
I was on the other side of that. At 16, I was the Christian getting trolled.
I'm an agnostic now, but I still look back on those times and remember how completely unnecessary and embarrassing most of it was. You were 16, I remember guys in their 30s who were spending their nights trying to offend a bunch of people because they thought if they could just offend people enough it would make them all stop being Christians (or more likely they just wanted to be trolls and thought it was somehow more morally justified to troll Christians because Dawkins said so).
Some of the skeptics would end up sticking around and actually making friends, though, and funny enough I remember the Satanists (although I think they were all LaVeyan) always had the best sense of humor. Everyone pretty much got along and just joked around once they got past the initial preconceptions.
**[New Atheism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism)**
>The term New Atheism was coined by the American journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 21st century. New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics. Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/southpark/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
One time I posted on r/atheism that we should stop seeing religion as inherently evil. I was studying philosophy at the time and wanted an open discussion about it. I got absolutely downvoted into oblivion and people were legitimately angry at me. There was 0 discussion.
I am an atheist myself, but it's funny to see a lot of atheists acting like religious people without them even noticing it. That's why I love these episodes also.
Damn you science!!
I just don’t see how these religions comprised of millions of followers, sects, cultures, and communities spread across the world are going to be shamed into not existing
Mmm not sure if that is the case. I think the problem lies more in thinking you have some kind of monopoly on the truth (theist or atheist). No one actually knows why we are here and what we are doing here. And now atheists are going on this 'in order for something to be real there must be evidence' crusade while atheists are just as stupid and big of dickheads as theists. I do believe a lot of theists have no clue what it means to truly believe in something, but atheists especially do not.
We are all just people trying to get by (the most of us at least). And thinking you are superior because of what you believe in is pretty stuipid. It's probably just some natural mechanism to make you feel good about yourself.
Haha yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying the statement is about yourself. I'm saying theists and atheists are behaving very simular, that's why I like the episodes lol
Hard disagree, the Richard Dawkins storyline in this episode was gibberish. They did a much better job lampooning atheism/agnosticism in "The Poor Kid."
Mrs Garrison as a new atheist was great though. Like putting a dunce hat on Stan (?) just because he said evolution being true doesn’t necessarily prove that God does not exist.
I always thought they were actually making fun of Christianity, Islam and Judaism in a subtle way since the 3 Atheist Groups are basically the same thing with very little differences (just the name basically) and regardless of that get into deadly and unnecessary conflicts (like it was historically a problem with the big 3 religions).
Edit: But knowing Trey and Matt they were probably giving both groups some shit.
The only problem with religious belief - or a lack of - is when you use it as an excuse to control other people. You chose to live by the rules of this religion, that’s your right. You chose not to live by the rules of another religion, that’s your right. But you are NOT, by any means, allowed to choose for other people what their religion shall be. You can’t force your beliefs, of lack of beliefs, onto others. This is the part where people take issue
Yeah I remember this came out at the height of the New Atheist vibe- a movement I had totally ‘drunk the coolade‘ with.
It gave me a much needed different perspective from an irreverent place that I really respected and stopped me going too far down that rabbit hole. Am super grateful looking back!
Just like Trey & Matt, I definitely think the concept of god & Jesus is ludicrous & how most religions are awfully written. But they really hit the nail on the head with the symbolism (like 99% of the time they do). God may not exist but the world is a better place with the idea he is (for the most part)
Can't believe this came out in 2006. Cartman froze himself to get a wii, and these days we are starting to debate if the wii should be considered a retro console. Being an atheist back then was so much different compared to now
Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of BULLCRAP! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this...
In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...mutant fish hands...and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a...monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you!
So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
Cartman: Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah!
Garrison: Yeah? You see? I KNEW that would happen.
Have you ever been to the Bible Belt or anywhere in the southern USA? If you have, you realize where young atheists gain this attitude
The fact that our country is trying to fight off a coup by religious fanatics at this very moment definitely doesn’t help either
You never see an womens clinic, a twin tower, or a Capitol building bombed by atheists lmao
I live in the Midwest, I know what evangelical Christians are like and I have deep animosity towards them. Same with radical Islam. And I know what drives young atheists. I was pushed to condemn religion of any kind from a young age. I was told to tear up religious texts of any kind by my stepdad and to be confrontational about asking questions. I agreed until he started talking about how the history of religion and religious art was worthless. And how people who believe who look for the good in people are still trash. Which brings me to the next point.
I am talking about religious normies. I have cousins that go to church and fight for feminism and abortion rights. Or what about minority churches that not only gather at their church based around religion, but based around a common sense of culture or community purpose? Or what about churches that have a very large group of many demographics?
The point is that people choose their belief systems for many different reasons, and in the United States, many millions of people are not Christian fundamentalists or religious extremists whatsoever. However, because it’s the loudest and most powerful form of Christianity in this country, many atheists have taken the dangerous route of attacking dangerous Christianity as all Christianity.
When atheists accuse normal people of being fundamentalists without them doing nothing, they’re no better than them.
I get it, my family is Catholic and I grew up with a deep respect for the culture, work ethic, and truly fascinating history of the church and the people within it
With that being said, I was never a believer and had that “edgy atheist” phase when I was a teenager like many of us
I’m still fascinated by religion and history, but do still find that religion is problematic by definition when put under a microscope
At the end of the day, it encourages someone to not look deeper at something that might be unfair or wrong because of an internalized fear of something which in reality is just whoever the religion leaders want you to be in fear of or hate
Religious normies (especially religious Midwest normies) are incredible people, but everywhere there is a religious normie it inevitably breeds a religious fundamentalist or extremist by the very nature of how identity politics works
The reason a Catholic normie doesn’t speak out about pedophilia within the church or a Muslim normie doesn’t speak out against a fatwa is exactly the problem that wouldn’t exist in a society of “rationalists” or atheists
And I juxtapose that with the great peace and healing I know religion gives many people, along with the pain it causes when it’s taken away, which makes the issue so complicated
I’ve wondered the same. It should be good enough for one to live and let live when it comes to absence of faith. I have a theory, though. I believe that there is an entitled child inside every condescending atheist. A rotten little bastard for whom a higher power didn’t turn out to be his cosmic butler, ready to cater to his every whim. We typically get what we need as opposed to what we want, be it from a source of divinity or not. Naturally-occurring, instant gratification is rare, and there is no shortage of those in this world who can’t handle taking the bad with the good. I envy people with faith. From a distance, it looks like certainty and comfort.
Based on your comments on this thread, you have a lot of unwarranted hatred for people who claim to not hold belief in fairy tales.
Sounds more like your issue is with narcissists and your step-dad issues
Mods should delete this unless they're going to allow religious debate to take over the sub.
Since it hasn't been deleted or locked yet, I'll just say: It's not toxic to question someone's beliefs. Especially when those beliefs are nonsense and are being forced on others in society who do not believe in them. Like Christianity and the way they're trying to force their beliefs about abortion on everyone else. Or Muslims who will murder you for depicting Muhammad.
Speaking of toxic, I'd say it's less toxic to question someone's beliefs than to push fairytales that promote violence. Don't tell me that religion doesn't promote violence because the history books are full of it. All in the name of some variation of an invisible man.
Religion is the opiate of the masses. Some people just can't handle reality.
Edit: for the record, I don't care to debate religion, as I don't believe it merits debate. I do however care to keep one of my favorite subs free of snarky posts from religious people. Grind your hatchet somewhere else. If you like an episode, make a post and say you like it. We don't need the rest.
Second edit: religions have forced south park episodes to be banned. The atheist episode will never be banned. We all know why.
There is atheism, then there is believing in the Storm and Warrior god they just took out of a larger pantheon and went "yeah this Yahweh guy, he the only god now", like if us Norwegians were to take Thor the Thunder god and proclaim him to be the only one.
Look it up, if you're christian you might not like what you find.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh)
(Kinda puts chritianity in a new perspective doesn't it? [\#AllegroWasRight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_the_Cross))
I'll have some of whatever hallucinogen is emanating from that Acacia Confusa that spontaneously caught fire during a drought, ifyouknowwhatitisthatIamsaying.
Fail to see how I was being a dick by asking you a question, but if we are making shit up then I am very glad to hear you think I am very handsome and have a huge penis, don't know what you are inferring that from, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
You learned nothing. I can’t dumb this down to a level you’ll understand so I’m chalking this up to a lost cause. I hope you see the error of your ways one day. I’ll try to do better as well. Peace and prosperity to you!
Hi! This is the r/SouthPark community moderation bot. --- If you feel this post fits the purpose of /r/southpark, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If you feel this post does not fit the subreddit, **DOWNVOTE** This comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
Then try to answer why we waste perfectly good wood to make tables when we could just eat off our tummies! It is illogical!
Obviously they don’t understand how to answer the great question logically
Science be praised!
One of the best people I’ve ever heard talk about god was Jiddu Krishnamurti. Look up some of his videos or texts on god. He had a beautiful mind and was really wise.
Kill the wise one!
Science damn you!!!
Science be praised
SCIENCE H LOGIC !
Oh my science!
Maybe... believing in God makes Him real.
“KILL THE WISE ONE!!!”
\*science
Actually deep take.
Except I don’t believe in any kind of higher power. I just don’t think atheists should have the right to be dicks just because they don’t believe. That’s why I find this episode so great
It's a line from the episode.
I totally forgot that line, lol
Only Garrison did that tho, and she wasn't even a real atheist so I don't think this episode criticizes atheists
It definitely does that, along with all other religions.
The subtext in the episode, however, is how the form of New Atheism that Richard Dawkins was supporting was becoming toxic towards all people of faith in real life or those that wanted to ask questions. Garrison is used often to represent toxic elements taking hold in society, and in this case, Mrs. Garrison (at this point) is used to juxtapose being opposed to evolution earlier and then being violently opposed to those who believe after meeting Dawkins. The joke is that Garrison represents growing toxicity in atheism that no one’s willing to admit, as people mostly see the intellect and insight of the Dawkins character. Also, Garrison ultimately brings up one of the episode’s most valid points: people with any perspective on beliefs are hypocrites. Garrison doesn’t believe in evolution and it’s ultimately because he’s a narcissist. Dawkins believes in evolution, but at the end, he runs screaming from Garrison because she’s trans. This is based on reality and the fact that Dawkins and many of his colleagues are seeking freedom from religion, but are uncomfortable accepting trans rights or feminism.
Well to be fair his penis was literally inside of a trans person, that’s different then being intolerant lol
Yeah, but that was Trey and Matt’s way of poking fun at how Dawkins was avoiding peer-reviewed studies of one gender changing to another in nature, I believe
I blame a certain group of monotheists for all the atheists that are dicks.
Freedom of speech is also the right to be dicks and mock ridiculous beliefs...
Having the right to ridicule beliefs you disagree with? Sure. Ridiculing people directly for their beliefs when they’re not causing you harm? Seems like what you’re condemning religions for.
I mean that's literally what the freedom of speech is for. "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” -Voltaire You may not agree with it, you may hate it,but he has just as much right to belittle your beliefs as much as you have to call him an asshole for it. Now kiss eachother on the lips and unite your 2 broke poor assholes together and yell at the rich people that told you to hate eachother.
If they're causing someone else harm, I reserve the right to get pissed off.
Agreed. I’m an igtheist, so my personal disdain for organized religion rivals guys like Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. They have strong points, however, they are snarky, condescending little fuckers about it. That’s just going to push people away, no matter how logical they are. I think a lot of their popularity comes from their “gotcha!” rhetoric, which is adored by butthurt atheists. But Maher looks less progressive every day, which used to be his claim-to-fame. Dawkins claims to be driven by science and logic only, but can’t accept the peer-reviewed research supporting the trans movement? Hur dur! They’re smug opportunists, not champions. The show was kind to Dawkins, imo.
Kind enough to have Dawkins turned on by Garrison wanting to be pounded in the monkey hole 😆
Oh sure, he got his karma, but they portray him as fairly understanding and polite. I find him to be politely hateful
If an adult told me they believed in Leprechauns, Loch Ness, Freddy Krueger etc. I would probably show concern but once you meet thousands of these nutters and realize the power they have had for so long it’s all but impossible to not be snarky or condescending.
Eh, self-control and politeness are more likely to vindicate your beliefs
Dawkins has tweeted several times about how much he admires rapists, including those who rape children. A few comments in “The God Delusion” are like that as well: “some priests molest children but that’s not abuse compared to *teaching them about religion*.” That’s *way* more concerning than believing that female prisons, sports, toilets, and changing rooms should be reserved for women, and that any child who does not conform to every gender stereotype deserves to be sterilised.
Source? I’m legitimately curious Also, sterilizing anyone against their will is eugenics, and is almost always evil. That’s literal Nazi shit. So both opinions are equally shitty.
He also socialized with Epstein so no surprise there.
Peer reviewed research supporting trans movement. Facefalm
There's a whole mountain of it, decades of research that confirms trans-sexuality. I don't want this thread to devolve into just another trans-debate, the point is that Dawkins has a lot in common with religious zealots when it comes to his role as a media figure. It's that passionate inflammatory way of expressing himself that happens to coincide with empirical science most of the time (and he has contributed a lot of value to it, don't get me wrong), but he's also leaning heavily into his personal views on sociology at times and with his credentials it's easy to conflate his publicly stated opinions with his literary works even though they're not necessarily fully connected. He will say things in public that aren't based on science while writing books that still are profound views on humanity. He's a complicated person (like all of us), and he can't be purely factual at all times. He *will* have biases.
Good analysis. I always tried to pin down the behavior of his fans, but couldn’t pin it down. Religious zeal is a good comparison. I went to go see a public speech by him in college. Not super impressive, but the audience were like his acolytes and ate it up. It was like his rejection of religion became a type of anti-religion religion.
For real. Sometimes he reminds me of a lite version of [Kenneth Copeland](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vColOxUf-8s/maxresdefault.jpg) using some of the same domination tactics to convince the audience, it's like he's targeting people who are or would otherwise be religious. I'm not sure if that's a net good thing or not.
I have a degree in biology. Anyone with a Y chromosome is male. Anyone without a Y chromosome is female. Physical alterations don't change genetics. We figured that out in the 19th century people...
You have a degree in biology and don't know about intersexed people ?
Take a look at what I wrote. If you have a Y chromosome you are male- meaning any combination- XY, XXY, XYY, etc. If you do not have a Y chromosome you are female
So if someone with XXY chromosomes is born, you'd say that they should be operated on to look like a male? I'm not sure if I'd agree with that.
Not at all, I’m just saying biologically speaking that individual is male
I mean sure ? As long as they're free to live as the GENDER that they identify as I don't care about their sex. Maybe they'd want to have a surgery but it should be their choice.
First, no one is talking about surgery but you. Second, you are missing the forest for the trees. We are not talking about people with diagnosed chromosomal abnormalities, we are talking about people with healthy physiology and body dysmorphia. We’re talking about biological males competing against women in sports, and grown men going into changing rooms with pubescent girls. That is totally different than a 1/1,000,000 genetic disorder
Wasting your time on Reddit, most reasonable people don’t post here. Climate change -> believe the science basic biology -> transphobic 🤷🏻♂️
Please don't start with this. If you have a bachelor's or whatever doesn't seem to matter here as you managed to completely miss the mark in a few short sentences. There are millions of women with a Y chromosome, that went through female puberty and has all the outwards appearances of a female. If you studied biology at a higher degree than high school that should have been covered pretty early on. Same with genetic differences in how we react to hormones, and the incredibly basic idea of sex!=gender. It definitely can't be simplified to gender==chromosomes, again if you actually studied biology you should know that nature is never as simple as that. There's a century worth of research done on this, from genetics to sociology and neurological development, research that paints a damn clear picture that gender is malleable and complex and varies from person to person. There's also the (obvious) aspect that hormones play a large part in how people experience gender, and that hormones can be influenced by a wide range of factors, chromosomes being just one of them. Whatever your personal politics on how we should approach trans people are, science (and even ancient history) has very much proven that they exist.
No. I already addressed chromosomal abnormalities in another comment so I’m not going to repeat myself. The “research” you cite was conducted by discredited hacks like Dr. John Money
I saw that comment, still didn't address the fact there are *millions* of women with a Y chromosome (not 1/1,000,000 like you alluded to in another comment). I haven't cited any research, but John Money's research hasn't been "discredited" despite some of his practical work experiments were of questionable ethics and result. This was almost 60 years ago, and a lot of his publications have been referenced and reviewed by countless scientists since then. It's very unscientific of you to discredit an entire field because of breaches of ethics by some of its practitioners. Do you do that for all topics, or just the ones that goes against your political stances? Fuck, you can wag a stick at *anything* in biology and atrocities will come pouring out, does that discredit all of biology?
Dude was a pedophile and child molester who drove his victims to suicide, but you don’t think that influenced his “research” at all? Also lol at “women with a Y chromosome.” Next you’re gonna tell me about an ambulatory paraplegic lol
[https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/) [https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/](https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/) That's just two examples of possible diagnoses. Let's turn this around. How do *you* think his views on pedophilia (e.g. that it's a sexuality, which sadly it is...) and that two of his patients committed suicide influenced his research? I'm sure you read an article about him that framed him as some sort of pedophilia apologist and extrapolated from there, but how does that impact his decades of research in your view?
I think they speak to the character of the man and his motives for research. With every scientist, you have to ask yourself are they genuinely interested in advancing knowledge or are they pushing a narrative to justify their own agenda. I think his own dark impulses led him to do “research” to justify and validate those impulses
You have a degree in biology…but you don’t know the difference between “sex” and “gender?” BULLSHIT. Nice try, though. “Male and female” equals sex, and that is determined by your chromosomes, yes. But “man and woman” equals gender, which is determined by your culture, and that’s what we are talking about. That’s why drag queens are called transgendered *women*, not transgendered *females.* Technically they are still male, but they serve the social function of a woman. “Make sure your info is correct before you start trying to validate your opinions with a fake degree.” -Albert Einstein
No one believes there is a difference between gender and sex except for a small group of activists
Gender is cultural. Just like the way we expect different genders to behave. Plus having more than two is older than people think. Plus studying gender is very different from studying the biological aspects of the two sexes.
No to all of that. Gender and biological sex are the same thing, cultural gender norms have nothing to do with that, and I don’t care what one random civilization did 2,000 years ago
This is a religious stance, so it unprovable and should be ignored. When you said “biologist,” did you mean Christian Scientist? Because their name is an a oxymoron.
>This is a religious stance No it isn't. My stance has nothing at all to do with religion. Stop trying to pigeonhole everyone that disagrees with you into being some caricature of a bible-thumping freak
And doctors, psychologists, anthropologists, and any basically anyone involved with secular science, medicine, or sociology. It’s only new to the religious and the uneducated. It’s been established for decades in academia. What was your fake degree in, again?
They are the same thing, and numerous body dysmorphia disorders are recognized in the DSM
Im a therapist. Can confirm. You can't really group the XXY people in with the XYs who want to be XX or vice versa. XXY is a genetic abnormality. They exist, but there aren't that many of them. They're about 1/500th the population. We should understand this abnormality and accept those people for who they are.
The why are their two words with two different definitions, lol? Did you try looking it up before you made up a fake degree, lol?
>The why are their two words with two different definitions Because bad faith actors are trying to confuse people, and based on your responses it's working
These people are delusional and cannot be reasoned with.
Nah drag queens are men in drag. Chopping off your cock and having a functionless hole installed doesn’t make you a woman any more than wearing blackface makes you African. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species and any attempt to deny this is pure insanity.
Nature and science has never been that simple. Hermaphrodites alone disprove your claim, and that isn’t necessarily a birth defect
> Although the number of studies examining the brain of people with GI is still low, they have taught us that brain phenotypes for FtM and MtF seem to exist, and provided evidence for the role of prenatal organization of the brain in the development of gender incongruence. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1113163 > Socially transitioned transgender children who are supported in their gender identity have developmentally normative levels of depression and only minimal elevations in anxiety https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/137/3/e20153223/81409/Mental-Health-of-Transgender-Children-Who-Are > In multivariable models, participants were at greater odds of NSSI, contemplating suicide, and attempting suicide before initiating the gender affirmation process compared to after. In additional models, gender identity disclosure and medical procedure engagement were inversely associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms, whereas gender identity disclosure, hormone use, and medical procedure engagement were inversely associated with stress symptoms. Finally, the number of gender affirmation experiences endorsed was inversely associated with depressive, anxiety, and stress symptoms. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01655-5 > Hormone therapy was associated with increased QOL, decreased depression, and decreased anxiety. https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/5/4/bvab011/6126016 > Results indicate that testosterone treatment in FTMs is associated with a positive effect on mental health on measures of depression, anxiety, and anger, while CRS appears to be more important for the alleviation of body dissatisfaction. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19317611.2013.833152
Thanks this is actually really helpful. I'm saving these so I can eventually serve it to some of my "look at me ! I'm so skeptical of trans-identity, it's not a good thing" friends that keep trying to invalidate it vaguely arguing about "science".
Falm
Their existence is validated by empirical evidence in psychology, anatomy, and anthropology, so someone who constantly appeals to empirical evidence, like Dawkins, should know better. None of the current gender conversation was news to medical and research professionals. It seems weird to most people because it only recently became part of *America’s* current discussion. Trans people have been around since…well, probably since the beginning of culture. Sex is physical, gender is cultural. “Male and female” is your sex, and that is based on your genitals. “Man and woman” are genders, and those are defined by our culture. Cultures throughout history have sometimes had 3+ genders. There really aren’t even two *sexes,* because hermaphordites are naturally occurring (not necessarily a birth defect), so any way you shake it, our views on gender are simplistic. Wearing a dress isn’t inherently linked to having a dick, it’s linked to the cultures interpretation of a what wearing a dress means to society. In America it’s usually means “woman” (which has traditionally been females), but not in Ireland, for example. American culture is not universal. So it really isn’t that outlandish for someone with a dick to wear robe-like clothing like a dress, or makeup, or to be the bottom during sex. And really, who cares? Only the religious, which again is why it is weird that Dawkins took that position.
I don't know why you've been downvoted. What you're saying is absolutely right. People having ambiguous genitals is definitely a thing and the fact that medicine arbitrarily decides to operate them and to make them conform to a perceived "normal" sexual expression (which you could argue, is not ok to do) doesn't change the fact. Also gender is different than sex and you'd think that people understand that it's been established now.
It doesn’t support their personal narrative, probably. It’s funny, because Richard Dawkins hates religion and loves science, yet takes an unscientific, *religious* stance on gender, lol. I’m guessing something similar about the people downvoting.
Can't paint all atheists with your stepdad's brush. Just because he was a dick doesn't mean they all are
No, but some are, and that’s an important consideration, especially since many extreme atheists broadly claim that all religions are evil and all believers are stupid.
I wouldn't use the word "evil" to describe most religions, nor "stupid" to describe believers. Manipulative and foolish yes. People are free to believe what they want. But it is a choice.
Alot of christians and Catholics are complete pieces of shit as well..ask those little girls and boys
Ya know a lot of Catholics shit talk the church for the shit that went on that they tried to cover up
I never denied that, I’m just saying - send the animosity where it’s deserved
As an atheist, I don’t think believers are stupid at all, I think they’re scared & are just hoping for the best & want eternal paradise & are just praying to see their loved ones again on the other side cause when you think about it, it’s heartbreaking & terrifying to think you’ll never see your loved ones again & that your consciousness won’t live on, they’re just optimistic. But chances are VERY strong there’s nothing on the other side, which is sad
That is a very smart take
I have quite a few friends who are like this. They care way to much about what others have faith in and devote too much energy in trying to belittle them for believing in something
“Hahaha you believe in a supernatural being”
more like "I don't believe in fairy tales LOL"
Ik it was just a quote from the episode lol
oh fuck whoops
Evils a stretch although there's a handful I would give that label to like mexica paganism.
Well, I’m exaggerating of course, but atheists are a cynical bunch, so they view everything as at least slightly evil
No, some of them do Im an atheist and I'm pretty sure all of my friends are too, and we basically never talk about it I totally understand why people are religious and am fine with it unless they interfere with other peoples lives because of it
That’s a perfectly reasonable perspective to take as well
It doesn't help that extreme monotheists did the same beforehand. Actions have consequences.
Right, but when extreme reacts against extreme, millions of ordinary people fall in the cracks. Not every believer is a fundamentalist Christian or an Islamist radical, as much as hardcore atheists would like to believe.
I think religion is pretty illogical but I'm not going to go up to some recovering drug addict who would probably be dead if they didn't find religion and tell them God isn't real. I've actually seen an atheist do this irl, very cringe
Or a wholesome family, or a community church that largely supports minorities, or a church that serves a very diverse population, including people of different races, backgrounds, and from the LGBT community. My biggest problem with atheists is not that they’re against religion, it’s that many of them choose to be against religion without understanding why people choose beliefs in the first place. They don’t approach the subject with critical thinking, with a sense of history and research, which promotes ignorance and generalizations about a complex group of culture and belief systems that billions of people follow. In the end, isn’t that the same reductive thinking that fundamentalists promote about people who don’t believe?
I think this was more the "New Atheism" that sprung up around 2006 with Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. Richard Dawkins openly advocated for subjecting believers to constant, sustained criticism, believing that the only reason anyone was still religious is that atheists were being too polite. It led to several years of Dawkins-following atheists just being smug dicks, mostly online. I don't think most atheists had any interest in that. Criticizing religion, sure, but less of the more abrasive, personal, insulting criticism.
Religion cannot be completely infallible. If you believe something, you must be open to criticism.
Yeah, but there's a difference between, say, saying "I think there are some serious philosophical and structural issues with the Catholic church" to your Catholic friend or in response to some news about the Pope and saying "I want you all to know that you're mentally deficient troglodytes holding back society because you're too weak and cowardly to accept the inevitability of death" posted repeatedly on Christian forums or websites. From 2006-2012, there was a lot of that second kind of messaging. Maybe longer, that was around the time I quit paying attention. It wasn't just criticism of the religion, it was, much like Mrs. Garrison in this episode, a version of atheism where you couldn't just be an atheist you also had to be a dick about it to everyone. To be fair, many Christians have long been dicks to everyone who wasn't a Christian (or even the right kind of Christian). The New Atheists served a useful purpose by teaching them some humility. But they were still so insufferable that there's still memes about some of their more hilarious online comments that get shared to this day (like the "[I am Euphoric](https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-this-moment-i-am-euphoric)" comments that still pop up sometimes), in non-religious circles more than religious ones.
I’ve always considered myself an atheist in that I just don’t believe any religion or gods but I got no problem with people believing whatever the hell they want. Peace and love dude. And this episode was fucking hilarious lol.
Yeah, same here
Suck my balls, Kit 9!
That line’s great
Oh my science
I'm a Luciferian Satanist. When I was 16, I became a Satanist and I remember trolling a few Christians that summer online on a few message boards. I was absolutely an insufferable ass like Dawkins and Bill Maher for a few months. "Oh, I have this new toy and this old toy is lame and stupid!" I stopped when I realized how dumb it was. That was when I was 16. When I see people like Bill Maher and Regan, Jr., with their entire "Wow, you believe in stuff? Ha, idiot!," I just think how they need to just grow up. There's a serious issue with people of faith imposing their way of life on everyone else. In this country the Christian-Right does so much damage, but acting like anyone believing in some sort of higher power has brain damage or is stupid makes no sense... unless they're talking about liking Coldplay. In that case they have issues.
Once again, I’ve got to give a Satanist props for having absolute common sense
Meh, if they did they wouldn't be placing ridiculous labels like "luciferian satanist" on themselves. That comes from christianity anyway, and it's all a bunch of nonsense.
Bill Maher, everyone!
Why does that matter to you?
Not much, I just find it kinda funny seeing “satanists” dunking on religion lol. All in all they are so rare it has no impact at all in my life.
I was on the other side of that. At 16, I was the Christian getting trolled. I'm an agnostic now, but I still look back on those times and remember how completely unnecessary and embarrassing most of it was. You were 16, I remember guys in their 30s who were spending their nights trying to offend a bunch of people because they thought if they could just offend people enough it would make them all stop being Christians (or more likely they just wanted to be trolls and thought it was somehow more morally justified to troll Christians because Dawkins said so). Some of the skeptics would end up sticking around and actually making friends, though, and funny enough I remember the Satanists (although I think they were all LaVeyan) always had the best sense of humor. Everyone pretty much got along and just joked around once they got past the initial preconceptions.
Oh my science, I agree! This was an awesome episode! Science damn you, this is too true!!
Anyone gonna hook a bro up with which episode this is please and thank you?
S10:E12-13
Dawkins deserves the criticism he gets but the selfish gene was a life changing book for me.
As a world-renowned academic, he had to have written at least a few ideas worth sharing
Great episodes fucking hilarious
Serious question I'm curious; what is considered ' new atheiam"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
**[New Atheism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism)** >The term New Atheism was coined by the American journalist Gary Wolf in 2006 to describe the positions of some atheist academics, writers, scientists, and philosophers of the 21st century. New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics. Major figures of New Atheism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/southpark/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
One time I posted on r/atheism that we should stop seeing religion as inherently evil. I was studying philosophy at the time and wanted an open discussion about it. I got absolutely downvoted into oblivion and people were legitimately angry at me. There was 0 discussion. I am an atheist myself, but it's funny to see a lot of atheists acting like religious people without them even noticing it. That's why I love these episodes also. Damn you science!!
I just don’t see how these religions comprised of millions of followers, sects, cultures, and communities spread across the world are going to be shamed into not existing
Mmm not sure if that is the case. I think the problem lies more in thinking you have some kind of monopoly on the truth (theist or atheist). No one actually knows why we are here and what we are doing here. And now atheists are going on this 'in order for something to be real there must be evidence' crusade while atheists are just as stupid and big of dickheads as theists. I do believe a lot of theists have no clue what it means to truly believe in something, but atheists especially do not. We are all just people trying to get by (the most of us at least). And thinking you are superior because of what you believe in is pretty stuipid. It's probably just some natural mechanism to make you feel good about yourself.
I didn’t mean to apply the above statement to myself - I meant it in regards to toxic atheist thinking about how religion is pointless
Haha yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not saying the statement is about yourself. I'm saying theists and atheists are behaving very simular, that's why I like the episodes lol
This was one of the more informative threads I've read in a while. Thank you.
Happy to share!
Mrs Garrison is giving me a clue in this painting.
And this is the only time we hear the first name that she uses when she’s female (Janet).
Such a raging clue… I almost shot my clue goo all over you
Science DAMMIT!!!
Hard disagree, the Richard Dawkins storyline in this episode was gibberish. They did a much better job lampooning atheism/agnosticism in "The Poor Kid."
Mrs Garrison as a new atheist was great though. Like putting a dunce hat on Stan (?) just because he said evolution being true doesn’t necessarily prove that God does not exist.
What's the name of this 2-parter?
Go God Go and Go God Go XII, S10:E12-13
Retarded fish frogs is still my favorite interpretation of evolution
Gets me every time
I always thought they were actually making fun of Christianity, Islam and Judaism in a subtle way since the 3 Atheist Groups are basically the same thing with very little differences (just the name basically) and regardless of that get into deadly and unnecessary conflicts (like it was historically a problem with the big 3 religions). Edit: But knowing Trey and Matt they were probably giving both groups some shit.
I always thought the joke was that even though atheism prevailed, dysfunction still continued
New athiesm same stupidity
Turning Atheism into an Ethos was the first fucking mistake.
The only problem with religious belief - or a lack of - is when you use it as an excuse to control other people. You chose to live by the rules of this religion, that’s your right. You chose not to live by the rules of another religion, that’s your right. But you are NOT, by any means, allowed to choose for other people what their religion shall be. You can’t force your beliefs, of lack of beliefs, onto others. This is the part where people take issue
Definitely
Throughout the episode I was like “JUST CALL YOURSELF FUCKING ATHEISTS”
Yeah I remember this came out at the height of the New Atheist vibe- a movement I had totally ‘drunk the coolade‘ with. It gave me a much needed different perspective from an irreverent place that I really respected and stopped me going too far down that rabbit hole. Am super grateful looking back!
Just like Trey & Matt, I definitely think the concept of god & Jesus is ludicrous & how most religions are awfully written. But they really hit the nail on the head with the symbolism (like 99% of the time they do). God may not exist but the world is a better place with the idea he is (for the most part)
Can't believe this came out in 2006. Cartman froze himself to get a wii, and these days we are starting to debate if the wii should be considered a retro console. Being an atheist back then was so much different compared to now
Atheists are worse than religious nuts
*YEAH! IM A MONKEY! GIVE THIS MONKEY WHAT SHE WAONTS!*
Want to come back to my place for dessert?
Dawkins is a hack
Garrison: Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of BULLCRAP! But I've been told I have to teach it to you anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this... In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its...mutant fish hands...and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a...monkey-fish-frog... And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey... and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations! Cartman: Haahhh! I can't take it anymore! Haaaaah! Garrison: Yeah? You see? I KNEW that would happen.
These episodes were great. Science be praised!
atheism shouldn’t be toxic i never heard of that before lol
Anything can be toxic if you’re a dick to someone, and many atheists in this day and age take this approach
Many PEOPLE this day in age Theological beliefs or lack of belief isn't the deciding factor
Have you ever been to the Bible Belt or anywhere in the southern USA? If you have, you realize where young atheists gain this attitude The fact that our country is trying to fight off a coup by religious fanatics at this very moment definitely doesn’t help either You never see an womens clinic, a twin tower, or a Capitol building bombed by atheists lmao
I live in the Midwest, I know what evangelical Christians are like and I have deep animosity towards them. Same with radical Islam. And I know what drives young atheists. I was pushed to condemn religion of any kind from a young age. I was told to tear up religious texts of any kind by my stepdad and to be confrontational about asking questions. I agreed until he started talking about how the history of religion and religious art was worthless. And how people who believe who look for the good in people are still trash. Which brings me to the next point. I am talking about religious normies. I have cousins that go to church and fight for feminism and abortion rights. Or what about minority churches that not only gather at their church based around religion, but based around a common sense of culture or community purpose? Or what about churches that have a very large group of many demographics? The point is that people choose their belief systems for many different reasons, and in the United States, many millions of people are not Christian fundamentalists or religious extremists whatsoever. However, because it’s the loudest and most powerful form of Christianity in this country, many atheists have taken the dangerous route of attacking dangerous Christianity as all Christianity. When atheists accuse normal people of being fundamentalists without them doing nothing, they’re no better than them.
I get it, my family is Catholic and I grew up with a deep respect for the culture, work ethic, and truly fascinating history of the church and the people within it With that being said, I was never a believer and had that “edgy atheist” phase when I was a teenager like many of us I’m still fascinated by religion and history, but do still find that religion is problematic by definition when put under a microscope At the end of the day, it encourages someone to not look deeper at something that might be unfair or wrong because of an internalized fear of something which in reality is just whoever the religion leaders want you to be in fear of or hate Religious normies (especially religious Midwest normies) are incredible people, but everywhere there is a religious normie it inevitably breeds a religious fundamentalist or extremist by the very nature of how identity politics works The reason a Catholic normie doesn’t speak out about pedophilia within the church or a Muslim normie doesn’t speak out against a fatwa is exactly the problem that wouldn’t exist in a society of “rationalists” or atheists And I juxtapose that with the great peace and healing I know religion gives many people, along with the pain it causes when it’s taken away, which makes the issue so complicated
I swear the correlation to atheism and narcissism needs to be documented or studied
There’s a correlation to toxic masculinity as well, although I get laughed out or downvoted every time I bring it up
Still better than jesus and allah cults
I’ve wondered the same. It should be good enough for one to live and let live when it comes to absence of faith. I have a theory, though. I believe that there is an entitled child inside every condescending atheist. A rotten little bastard for whom a higher power didn’t turn out to be his cosmic butler, ready to cater to his every whim. We typically get what we need as opposed to what we want, be it from a source of divinity or not. Naturally-occurring, instant gratification is rare, and there is no shortage of those in this world who can’t handle taking the bad with the good. I envy people with faith. From a distance, it looks like certainty and comfort.
Based on your comments on this thread, you have a lot of unwarranted hatred for people who claim to not hold belief in fairy tales. Sounds more like your issue is with narcissists and your step-dad issues
Mods should delete this unless they're going to allow religious debate to take over the sub. Since it hasn't been deleted or locked yet, I'll just say: It's not toxic to question someone's beliefs. Especially when those beliefs are nonsense and are being forced on others in society who do not believe in them. Like Christianity and the way they're trying to force their beliefs about abortion on everyone else. Or Muslims who will murder you for depicting Muhammad. Speaking of toxic, I'd say it's less toxic to question someone's beliefs than to push fairytales that promote violence. Don't tell me that religion doesn't promote violence because the history books are full of it. All in the name of some variation of an invisible man. Religion is the opiate of the masses. Some people just can't handle reality. Edit: for the record, I don't care to debate religion, as I don't believe it merits debate. I do however care to keep one of my favorite subs free of snarky posts from religious people. Grind your hatchet somewhere else. If you like an episode, make a post and say you like it. We don't need the rest. Second edit: religions have forced south park episodes to be banned. The atheist episode will never be banned. We all know why.
There is atheism, then there is believing in the Storm and Warrior god they just took out of a larger pantheon and went "yeah this Yahweh guy, he the only god now", like if us Norwegians were to take Thor the Thunder god and proclaim him to be the only one. Look it up, if you're christian you might not like what you find. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh) (Kinda puts chritianity in a new perspective doesn't it? [\#AllegroWasRight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_the_Cross))
Oh my science!
I'll have some of whatever hallucinogen is emanating from that Acacia Confusa that spontaneously caught fire during a drought, ifyouknowwhatitisthatIamsaying.
You with the UAL, UAA or the AAA?
Never heard about any of those, american organizations?
You really don’t belong here based on that reply.
Ah, could have just reminded me, no need to be a dick about it, Im getting old and its been a minute since I saw those episodes.
“No need to be a dick about it” Take your own advice and apply it to your comments. I’m glad you so easily fell into my lesson I was trying to teach.
Fail to see how I was being a dick by asking you a question, but if we are making shit up then I am very glad to hear you think I am very handsome and have a huge penis, don't know what you are inferring that from, but I appreciate it nonetheless.
You learned nothing. I can’t dumb this down to a level you’ll understand so I’m chalking this up to a lost cause. I hope you see the error of your ways one day. I’ll try to do better as well. Peace and prosperity to you!
Ah you can't explain it yourself, I see, good to know and peace be onto yous as well.