Atheist League versus Atheist Alliance

[evolvedForm]

Are there any atheists here who saw the South Park last night and were irritated by it? I have no problem with making fun of Dawkins, but come on: you can't have different sects of atheism!

[John21]

I don't know if you could call them 'sects' but I notice a distinction between a 'strong' atheist who actively denounces religion and/or God, and a 'weak' atheist who simply doesn't believe in God.

[Johnny Drama]

Sciencedamn you!

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any atheists here who saw the South Park last night and were irritated by it? I have no problem with making fun of Dawkins, but come on: you can't have different sects of atheism!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because atheism is not a belief, it's simply a lack of a belief. However, you can very easily have different secular scientific paradigms. I think that was the point; note that each side defended not atheism, but their own breed of science.

However, giving science's overwhelming emphasis on deduction, logic and theory modification, and its regular dismissal of faith as a virtue, thinking that wars will be fought over it is pretty far-fetched.

[Prodigy54321]

it was simply meant to show that the absence of religion will not mean the end of war...

which is true..whether there is less war, or unnecessary death, or suffering, etc. is another issue.

I don't think that there was anything implied by the fact that they called themselves different atheist groups....just that they were all atheists.

[vhawk01]

Not to mention its South Park and they are sort of obligated to lampoon both sides of the issue. Obviously the fundie side got the worst of it, but it would have been an absurd episode if the Dawkins side had been exempt from any criticism.

[CityFan]

I wouldn't use the word "sect", but of course atheists differ in their philosophies. Why shouldn't there be just as many philosophies without a god as there are with one?

It makes me laugh when religious types try to prescribe what atheists "must" believe. Atheism is not a philosophy, merely a point of view on a particular issue.

[CityFan]

I notice that atheists may be "irritated", but if the programme had been about Christians they would have been "outraged".

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there any atheists here who saw the South Park last night and were irritated by it? I have no problem with making fun of Dawkins, but come on: you can't have different sects of atheism!

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw it. I have to admit I wasn't annoyed. I actually thought it was accurate. ie- we don't need religion to foster bigotry and the forming of elitist groups.

I don't know if I'm phrasing that well. But I didn't see it as lampooning atheists per se as just man in general.

[FortunaMaximus]

Well, I've never really enjoyed TV in general.

But somehow reading this thread and the discussion, perhaps some sort of antihero costumes are now mandated for atheists?

Perhaps in this age, atheism has the potential to become a non-theist religion of sorts. And why not. Buddhism has never suffered the illusions of theism for the most part, and, well, there are so many good atheists out there that i don't think it would violate anarchistic principles to work together, if only to improve the average standard of living and take a vocal debunkment of Christianity's dogmatic [censored] on all fronts.

That may sound silly though.

Addenum: Stone and Parker aren't unintelligent. They do have a pretty accurate read on society these days. And it's in palatable, dumbed-down form, which works well. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif