This would be where the matter of opinion comes into play. I did really like Inception, as pure entertainment. Yes, that episodes commented on that movie, but that is not important social commentary as I would define the term. At least not along the same level as say Stan telling his dad to just use self-control and enjoy alcohol occasionally instead of too much or never at all.

Yes, as someone who got to suffer losing Chris Bosh to Miami, I am all to familiar with Lebron and his commercial. I suppose we have different standards for social commentary. you want them to comment about pop culture, I want them to comment about important social issues.

That may be too much to ask of a cartoon like South Park, but its what kept my interest when the show started going down hill. Don't get me wrong, there are still funny parts and I still watch it. I just don't think its great.

"What was the social commentary in the Insheeption episode?"

At least in my social circle, everyone thought Inception was a really complex movie and it was "such a cool idea!" But in reality, it was just a convoluted, incomprehensible mess.

The Coon episodes not only made fun of BP but used the Lebron commercials, which was hilarious. I don't know how much of the Lebron hype makes its way to Canada, but using his Nike commercial as a platform was absolutely hilarious.

Loved that episode as well, hilarious!

"did they honestly expect the same tied arguments to suddenly convert large number of posters to this blog; is it some sort of attempt to fight the good fight even when it's hopeless as that's what god wants"

@Jabster: I would have to think that is at least part of it. I know I have never once in all my years on the internet gone to a Christian forum of any type and try to convince them to become atheists.

"Did you see Coon vs Coon & Friends, or Insheeption, or You Have 0 Friends? Southpark is still full of great social commentary and it is absolutely hilarious!"

@NewStoic: I guess that is all a matter of opinion. I did not find any of those overly funny or anywhere near as clever as many other South Park episodes in the past. What was the social commentary in the Insheeption episode? That Inception was overly complex for no reason? Ooooo! Sure, the Coon episodes made fun of BP, but all three were pretty terrible in my opinion. All of that said, my PVR still records them every Friday (Friday is when new episodes come out on Comedy Network in Canada) and watch them. Actually, the funniest one of the season was the most recent one with Shape Weight. Although the only real social commentary there was that more women should give their men hand jobs.

@ Waf

" Now it just suffers from what any other show that has been on as long as it has."

What?!? Did you see Coon vs Coon & Friends, or Insheeption, or You Have 0 Friends? Southpark is still full of great social commentary and it is absolutely hilarious! SP has pretty much always been offensive, I don't get this notion of it suddenly "being offensive to stay relevant".

@Wafik

There's about the same chance as Elvis turning up and saying "fooled you I'm not really dead". The question always is exactly what did they think they were going to achieve; did they honestly expect the same tied arguments to suddenly convert large number of posters to this blog; is it some sort of attempt to fight the good fight even when it's hopeless as that's what god wants; maybe even to make themselves feel better by reminding them of the amount of sinners that are destined to burn in hell?

@Mark the Pilgrim: Ok, I was just confused since I said I didn't really like South Park and then you also directed your dislike of South Park towards me. We shall unite in our general dislike of a cartoon.

Don't worry, I have faith... that more like Angel shall return...

If there was an indication of gender, I missed it, but in any case, yeah, I think angel isn't coming back anytime soon.

Angel was a female?
Well then, how ya doing Angel?

PS: @Wifik: I wasn't making a pot shot at you lol.

South Park and Family guy are indeed hit or miss....I have never seen Invader Zim...the joke about downs syndrome is not to soon as long as you agree that it's caused by prolonged exposeure to the Canadian border...up there in say Alaska. Also is it just me,or just this thread.....but Angel has not postes in a few days is she gone already?

@Mark the Pilgrim: I'm not sure if you wanted to direct that point at me, unless you just wanted to express your opinion about South Park to me. I do agree that they basically try to one up theirselves to stay relevant with the offensive shows. There was a time where their offensiveness was not so consistent, so when they were really offensive, it was fantastic. There were also many episodes that were actually really good social commentary, like the one where Stan's Dad is an alcoholic. Now it just suffers from what any other show that has been on as long as it has.

As for the new Futurama, no, I do not think it is better. I believe that is likely due to the fact of how much I have watched the first 5 seasons to the point that they are basically enshrined in my mind and anything new is well... new.
I'm also long winded in real life and when writing.
Britain JR???? We f*cking burned your White House dude! Well, technically the British did... ah crap.

@Elemenope: Yes, sadly I do use proper english spelling when I type. Humour, neighbour, colour, get use to it. And I absolutely love peameal bacon. Call it what you want but at least we can get fat together with something really delicious.

(I embrace the good humoured ribbing. I am very harsh on America for many things a lot more important then most jokes directed at my country. My mother is American, I have a lot of American family, and can literally see America from my window. Still better then seeing Mexico. Speak of places that see Mexico, I think we can both agree that making fun of Texas is easier then punching a kid with down syndrome. Too soon?)

I was trying to make a joke. Clearly it failed horribly due to bad timing, unless you factor in the reality that the new episodes are not amazing. I see humour is lost on America. Yes we have TV and yes we just got rock music.

What is this "humour" you speak of, eh? If it's body fluids you're talking about you can keep em, along with your perverse fake "bacon". We do "humor" down these parts.

(Lest you think we're just regionally mean to Canucks, ask LRA some time how much ribbing she takes from being from Texas).

Fuck sakes, my posts are too long.

BTW, what is this so-called Canada you're speaking of? Don't you mean Britain Jr?

@Angelofhope: I finally completed my essay...Okay, that's a lie; I have two more left. But I have enough time to get through it by Monday and Thursday. So I might as well respond to your post finally. :-)

Here's a response to the post you made four days ago.

I think what this discussion of the variety of religion and their contradictory points really shows, is that religion isn't motivated by some divine force, but merely as a response to sociological, climate and historical events. Using a Christian standard to juxtapose with religion fails on so many levels. You posit that the ethnic groups in the Caribbean were too recent to have a flood story - we've inhabited the place for 6500+ years. Pretty much falls in between the time line of the creation story. And you'd think that our stories about Gods would mention something as drastic as a global flood, but no, it doesn't. What the mythology references are things that actually affect us traditionally - earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes. No floods.

"I'm not an expert in Norse mythology; but, from what I've learned about it, even the Vikings had a mysterious source of all creation, from whom even their gods came."

What does this prove about the validity of your God? It doesn't. I could easily flip it around and state that your creation story verifies their own. You still haven't provided any objective evidence for a Christian God existing.

"Indeed, some religions are specific to certain cultures; but there's still an abandonment of an "egocentric" (simply meaning individually-based, nothing else) liefstyle for an omnicentric lifestyle. If there are aspects of one's life that are considered sinful by the Bible's definition, a Christian must abandon them."

That still doesn't verify anything. With regards to religion abandoning an individually based lifestyle for an 'omnicentric' approach, rather than assuming religion posits this abandonment, it is more likely that religion merely affirms it. An 'individually based lifestyle', in most circumstances, is not conducive for any societal group. Humans are an altruistic species because it's necessary for group cohesion and therefore survival. Religion isn't the creator of this abandonment, it's just the stamp of approval. If we lost all religions, do you really think we'd go on a raping, pillaging, murdering spree?

"I do claim that I've had personal experiences related to Jesus, but I also believe that empirical evidence can suggest my beliefs."

Personal experiences don't prove anything about the metaphysical. It's relative to your culture. Hindi's experience Krishna, Christians experience Christ. Also, what empirical evidence is this? You state that you agree that the nature of God makes him unprovable by science, but yet state that empirical evidence can prove the claims of Christianity? If I've misinterpreted you the I apologise in advance, but are you suggesting that Christianity can be proven by observation, experience and experiment?

"I'm not aware of how it could be faulty reasoning to claim that the universe shows too many instances of a pattern of design could be irrational; but I'm not here to argue."

I find this a little downing. Was this not a debate? You did say "If anyone wants to hear me ramble on some more, feel free to post" at the start of the topic. But if you're not willing to touch on this point, then it could be left for another topic, I suppose.

"There may be little to distinguish faith in Jesus from faith in anything else; but that just shows me that faith in Jesus is equally as logically valid as faith in any assertion"

A little vagueness at the end. Assertions of what exactly? You mean assertion of religions? Because in that case I would agree with you that religious claims are relatively equal to each other (all erroneous all the same, but still equal). But any assertion? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but assertions of anything? Science? Because faith is not logically on par with science. Philosophy? Depends. *Some* philosophical assertions use more logic and evidence than religion. Political ideology? Again, the same as the last. Again, if this isn't what you meant, then I apologise, but you have to admit it's vagueness can be misinterpreted this way.

"It doesn't mean I'm unwilling to accept science; it just means that I'm unwilling to believe that science defies my beliefs, without conclusive proof. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I learn something new every day."

Not sure I agree. Not to sound condescending or rude, but wouldn't it follow that if you were willing to accept science you would take account of scientific principles and theories with extensive evidence to support them?
You have on one hand the Bible's theory of the world, which is supported by only itself, contrasted with the 'theory' of evolution which is supported by fossils, genetic evidence, geographical evidence, vestigial structures, observed natural selection and inter-species relations. There's no two ways about it. If you don't accept something which has an amazing amount of evidence justifying it; it does hint that you are unwilling.

@Wafik: Not that I don't support freedom of speech, but a lot of the time I find SP tries to be offensive to stay relevant. Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not arguing for excessive censorship of SP and sometimes as with the Mohammed thing, I agree with it. It should be allowed to do what it wants. But it's just lame.
BTW, does anyone think the new Futurama is better than the old one?

I was trying to make a joke. Clearly it failed horribly due to bad timing, unless you factor in the reality that the new episodes are not amazing. I see humour is lost on America. Yes we have TV and yes we just got rock music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF1b1pf9DRY

Pshaw. They just got rock music.

Does Canada get TV?

@ Wafik: Futurama came back MONTHS ago!!!

Maybe it hasn't come to the remote ices of Canadia yet.

@ Wafik: Futurama came back MONTHS ago!!!

^^
Zim. Rules.

"I'll be the odd man out and admit I personally find Invader Zim to be simply annoying."

*slaps nope across the face*

What in the hell is wrong with you? Pull yourself together, man!

I dunno. On the other hand, everyone has some idiosyncrasy to their tastes; I'll be the odd man out and admit I personally find Invader Zim to be simply annoying. Obviously many others on this site disagree!

I will say that South Park does have an unevenness problem (much like Family Guy). When it's funny, it's hilarious...but it isn't always funny. When it isn't, it's quite tedious.

Why all the South Park hate?

angelsofhope2008, having a computer to learn is certainly a whole lot more useful then having a Bible. That said, you cannot trust everything you read on the internet, so I would suggest turning to the good old book. Amazon is your friend. Now, if you are disabled in some way, then you may also not have much money, so here is where the internet can help you again. Ebooks are all over the place is you know where to look, even free ones! Do you have a local library and a library card? Then as long as you don't live in Fairview, Michigan, your library likely offers free ebooks to its members. I would suggest starting with Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking and go from there. Sagan really is the best though. Don't like reading? No problem, search Neil deGrasse Tyson. He is, in my opinion, the most interesting scientific mind to listen to since Sagan. Even if any of that doesn't get you to question your religious beliefs, it is at least a ton of interesting stuff for you to enjoy.

Mark the Pilgrim wrote: "I don't understand what people like about South Park. It's lame. Very hit and miss."

I couldn't agree more. There are some episodes that are hilarious and I can quote word for word and then there are episodes like the last three that are retarded and unfunny. The coolest part about the three episodes was their exploration of Kenny's "powers," and that was only cool, not funny. Thats why I stick with Futurama and their five seasons of perfection, because since it is cancelled there is nothing they could ever do to ruin it...

Ah shit:
http://tv.ign.com/articles/107/1074312p1.html

"It doesn't mean I'm unwilling to accept science; it just means that I'm unwilling to believe that science defies my beliefs, without conclusive proof."

Sorry, this is a lie. It might be a lie you tell yourself, so you are unaware of it, but it is in fact a lie. You are surrounded by conclusive proof that defies your faith. But, as you've demonstrated in this and other threads, you choose to ignore it. Which is fine. You should have the freedom to live as you like. But don't try to pretend you are some truth seeker.

@Angel

Is this the John Clayton whom you are referring to?

http://www.doesgodexist.org/AboutClayton/AboutClayton.html

All the other John Clayton's I came across didn't seem likely to be someone who would've influenced your religion. I'm in the middle of reading his page, "Why I left Atheism." So far, I don't find his experiences very compelling; particularly the bits about his intro science courses and the seeming dichotomy around morality (between atheism and theism). I'm not saying that I don't believe that he is making this all up, just that I find some of his logic a bit too black and white or too much in the extremes. If this is the guy whom you were referring too, I can elaborate on this when I have finished reading, assuming you would like some discussion in this area.

The New Testament is a guide on how to live one's life in the best way possible.

Really? How is that so?

Good science has no presuppositions at all, it only builds on already proven premises.

That's definitely overreaching, but at least one can say that science strives to limit its presuppositions and axioms to those which are most basic, necessary, and self-evident, to reduce their number to an absolute minimum, and be willing to abandon them as presumptions if it becomes impossible to construct models with them that match with reality.

Good science has no presuppositions at all, it only builds on already proven premises. The same cannot be said for religion, which builds supposition on a foundation of more supposition.

Paul: As I do most of my debating online (I have mental issues that hinder my ability to function in a crowd), I'm not sure how well-educated they are. It's more related to the fact that neither side is willing to drop our presuppositions... and that's probably what grates on each side's nerves so badly.

As to your suggestion... in spite of the popular consensus, I do try to keep that in mind. Some of the problem may be from moving to a different school-system each year, but I estimate that I have the same level of scientific understanding as any high school graduate. The thing that really made me question what I was being taught, was the work of John Clayton; and the refusal of my science teachers to discuss the origin of life or matter itself. As far as looking for scientific studies about origins went, I was basically on my own (discussions about mutations and the origin of stars notwithstanding): I had computers, and a Bible... so I've gone with what I have to work with. It doesn't mean I'm unwilling to accept science; it just means that I'm unwilling to believe that science defies my beliefs, without conclusive proof. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I learn something new every day...

@Angels

I'm sorry that has been your experience talking about science; has it been with people educated in the science, because I'm a little surprised it would degenerate in that manner? I can certainly see annoyance being cultivated out of impatience if there is a noticeable difference in your understanding with whomever you are speaking, but it should never result in out right juvenile insults...

All I can suggest about understanding how any evidence our society has accumulated comments on the bible's claims is: learning as much as you can, understanding how various fields are interrelated, knowing what the data means, and always, always ask questions. The questions part is probably the most important.