Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Go God Go South Park

I just watched the episode Go God Go and Go God Go XII for South Park. I thought it was pretty hilarious, and an interesting pop culture schism of the difference we've been talking about in class between simple atheism and 'dogmatic' atheism.

For those who haven't seen it: In the year 2546, worldwide atheism, founded by Richard Dawkins and his wife Mrs. Garrison, has eradicated religion. Atheism has in turn split into three hostile denominations at perpetual war over the so-called "Great Question": the super-intelligent otters of the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the humans of the UAA (United Atheist Alliance), and a rival human faction, the UAL (Unified Atheist League).
As the vicious sea otters of the AAA complete their planning for a sneak attack against the UAA and UAL, one elderly otter, known as 'The Wise One', asks whether the war is worth fighting, and implies that logic and science can be harmonized with some sort of belief in the supernatural. After pondering this for a moment, the rest of the otters brutally murder the Wise One. A massive battle between the three atheist groups begins, during which Cartman discovers the nature of the "Great Question": the war is being fought over which denomination name is the most logical for atheists to call themselves: the AAA, the UAL, or the UAA (with the otters passionately defending the alliteration of the acronym "AAA").

For South Park at least, the implication seems to be that even in a world that has 100% embraced atheism and that has logic and science as the totally dominant paradigm, we'd still find reasons to slaughter each other. Pessimistic maybe. But on our worst days, I fear it's all too true.


  1. "Imagine no religion" (Lennon's challenge) does seem to promise a utopian paradise, and that does seem exceptionally naive. Human nature will have to change significantly before we can expect people to just get along. Meanwhile, if religion helps some people be nice I say good for them. And if others can be good without god, that's even better for us all in the long run.

  2. i find that last part to be a monsterous insinuation of future generations of human beings. it seems like you are saying that we dont need to worry about religious violenc, because even if we got rid of the pointless land disputes in the desert, we would replace it with something equally rediculous and everybit as violent. i disagree. just my oppinion.