Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xxthe_leewitxx · 05-09-2004, 01:10 PM

I only started watching Bullshit a few weeks ago, but this episode made me really glad that I get Showtime! I, too, would have loved for it to have been more than a half-hour long. All the semi-religious people that I love were watching it, and I think it demonstrated quite nicely some of the conclusions I've come to that have made me realize I'm an atheist. Hopefully it gave them some things to think about on their own, too.

I could have slapped the guy who wasn't Michael Shermer for that whole 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' comment. I was sitting there yelling at the tv- 'maybe not, but it sure ain't evidence, either!' I had to explain Occam's Razor to my mother after that, too. I loved Penn's last remarks about reading the bible. Overall, that has been one of the best half-hours I've spent watching TV lately (well, other than those hours watching 'Dead Like Me'

).

Peregrine · 05-09-2004, 10:22 PM

The Bible show suffered from time constraints. Basic discussion concerned the Flood, Exodus, resurrection, and the 10 commandments. Shermer was okay, I don't think the editing did him justice, because he is great.

But I'm getting disappointed in the show. After each show, I now go check on the credentials of the people they use to support their position. In their PETA show they used an organization that is a front for the restaurant industry and hunters and Ted Nuggent. And in the environmentalism episode last season the main guy they used, they labeled as the "founder of Greenpeace", was not the founder, actually left the organization because it supported regulations concerning salmon hatcheries (his family business and apparently a very environmentally unfriendly industry), and runs an environmental group that is a front for the British Columbia lumber industry. And of course they used Bjorn Lomborg, the "Skeptical Environmentalist" and mouthpiece for such environmental groups as the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and oil industry.

Solsticin · 05-10-2004, 02:17 AM

Sometimes I think the main point of the show (from P&T's point of view) is to make people think. The recycling show was a good example where they clearly left out a lot that was important for a full blown argument. There was data missing (Or they think money is the only reason to do anything ... could be that).

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2004, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solsticin

Sometimes I think the main point of the show (from P&T's point of view) is to make people think. The recycling show was a good example where they clearly left out a lot that was important for a full blown argument. There was data missing (Or they think money is the only reason to do anything ... could be that).

That recycling is a money-losing effort (except for aluminium cans) was only part of the show. They covered a whole list of alleged benefits. The only one that remained was that it made people feel good because they thought it was beneficial to the environment.

They also pointed out that recycling products creates more environmental waste than starting from scratch and that landfills can be used to actually produce energy as well as being turned into parkland.

What did they miss? Frankly, I think it was sufficient to show that the original EPA report that started the whole thing had no evidence to support it.

blueshuttle · 05-10-2004, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godric Gryffindor

Good, but way too short. There's way too much bullshit in the bible for a 30-minute show.

Favorite quote: "the bible contains equal amounts of history, fact, and pizza"

Elvis didn't do no drugs!

Okay I suck... I missed the episode and I am waiting for it to appear on bearshare.

Can someone tell me what is the inside joke about "ELVIS DIDNT DO NO DRUGS"????

Amaleq13 · 05-11-2004, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueshuttle

Can someone tell me what is the inside joke about "ELVIS DIDNT DO NO DRUGS"????

The joke is there are people who actually make this claim.

Cognitive dissonance at work.

Godless Wonder · 05-11-2004, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

The joke is there are people who actually make this claim.

Cognitive dissonance at work.

C'mon, there must be more to it than this! (I didn't see the show, don't have cable). Why is 'Elvis didn't do no drugs!' funny? My guess would be there was a particular person on the show who made this claim in a very ridiculous way -- super indignantly, with an absurd backwoods hick accent -- or something. But I'm just guessing.

nescio · 05-11-2004, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godless Wonder

C'mon, there must be more to it than this! (I didn't see the show, don't have cable). Why is 'Elvis didn't do no drugs!' funny? My guess would be there was a particular person on the show who made this claim in a very ridiculous way -- super indignantly, with an absurd backwoods hick accent -- or something. But I'm just guessing.

Well, I'll explain why it's funny, but most jokes no longer seem funny after you try to explain why they are funny.

Penn brought up as an example the existance of people who claim "Elvis didn't do no drugs!" These people deny the obvious reality of what Elvis was to cling to their idealized version of him. And a mere 25 years after his death. He made a parallel comparison to those who believe the Bible literally, even though books of the Bible were written decades if not centuries after the events they describe.

Penn repeated the "Elvis didn't do no drugs!" comment throughout the episode, as a puchline/catchphrase, whenever they showed people choosing the Bible over reality.

Enjoy the laugh,
nescio

Worldtraveller · 05-13-2004, 07:01 AM

FYI, it's on again tonight for those of you (like me) who missed it the first time around.

Cheers,
Lane

Deacon Doubtmonger · 07-10-2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porky Pine

I thought P&T's show slightly amusing when it first aired but I was never into hearing someone being called names for their beliefs. Not exactly a show to foster good feelings other than if you want to reinforce your beliefs against a group of people that don't share your views. If you think that calling people names is reasoned debate, then I guess this show is for you.

Leave it to the fucking lawyers to stick their fat beezers in and prevent P&T from calling people "frauds" outright. From Penn's opening monologue in the first episode:

Quote:

... you'll notice more obscenity than we usually use. That's not because we're on Showtime and we want to get a little more attention; it's a legal matter. If one calls people "liars" and "quacks," one can be sued and lose a lot of one's money. But "assholes" and "motherfuckers" is pretty safe. If we said it was all scams, we could also be in trouble -- but "bullshit," oddly, is safe. So forgive all the bullshit language. We're trying to talk about the truth without spending the rest of our lives in court because of litigious motherfuckers!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-09-2004, 01:10 PM	#41
xxthe_leewitxx Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Here is where I am. Posts: 1,636	I only started watching Bullshit a few weeks ago, but this episode made me really glad that I get Showtime! I, too, would have loved for it to have been more than a half-hour long. All the semi-religious people that I love were watching it, and I think it demonstrated quite nicely some of the conclusions I've come to that have made me realize I'm an atheist. Hopefully it gave them some things to think about on their own, too. I could have slapped the guy who wasn't Michael Shermer for that whole 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' comment. I was sitting there yelling at the tv- 'maybe not, but it sure ain't evidence, either!' I had to explain Occam's Razor to my mother after that, too. I loved Penn's last remarks about reading the bible. Overall, that has been one of the best half-hours I've spent watching TV lately (well, other than those hours watching 'Dead Like Me' ).

05-09-2004, 10:22 PM	#42
Peregrine Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 385	The Bible show suffered from time constraints. Basic discussion concerned the Flood, Exodus, resurrection, and the 10 commandments. Shermer was okay, I don't think the editing did him justice, because he is great. But I'm getting disappointed in the show. After each show, I now go check on the credentials of the people they use to support their position. In their PETA show they used an organization that is a front for the restaurant industry and hunters and Ted Nuggent. And in the environmentalism episode last season the main guy they used, they labeled as the "founder of Greenpeace", was not the founder, actually left the organization because it supported regulations concerning salmon hatcheries (his family business and apparently a very environmentally unfriendly industry), and runs an environmental group that is a front for the British Columbia lumber industry. And of course they used Bjorn Lomborg, the "Skeptical Environmentalist" and mouthpiece for such environmental groups as the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and oil industry.

05-10-2004, 02:17 AM	#43
Solsticin Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Grand Prairie, Texas Posts: 435	Sometimes I think the main point of the show (from P&T's point of view) is to make people think. The recycling show was a good example where they clearly left out a lot that was important for a full blown argument. There was data missing (Or they think money is the only reason to do anything ... could be that).

05-13-2004, 07:01 AM	#49
Worldtraveller Banned Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 7,834	FYI, it's on again tonight for those of you (like me) who missed it the first time around. Cheers, Lane

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.