Bad Reporter by Don Asmussen

Bad Reporter

Comments (24) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Coyoty

    Coyoty GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    SPIDER CHOSEN AS NEW POPE: Vatican stresses need for someone who can handle web of conspiracies and sinful clergy.

    Spider Conducts First Mass

  2. jukeofurl

    jukeofurl said, almost 4 years ago

    That’s why they call it Papal Bull. . ..

  3. rmacprivate

    rmacprivate said, almost 4 years ago

    Maybe the church should hire one of those L.A. spin doctors the celebrities use when they are in trouble.

    Or better yet, declare that they have been “born again” like politicians used to when they were caught in compromising situations.

  4. TruckDriverFritz

    TruckDriverFritz GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    re Manti, bit mean, on a few levels, but laugh out loud funny.

  5. Ajax 4Hire

    Ajax 4Hire said, almost 4 years ago

    You stand in the dark and do not believe there is a sun.
    If I am in the darkness, I still have the light of the Son (of God) in me.

    I’m sorry but your description of “belief in fictional” comment is to backward and dark ages for me. I prefer to live in the light, to bask in the glory and share in the advantage of having the Lord on my side. You can have it too, all you need to do is ask.

    Both the Son and the Sun is real. All you need is eyes to see.
    Even in the darkness, I have the light in me.
    Good bye.

  6. pschearer

    pschearer GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    “Where’s the harm?” Where to begin?

    Faith is belief without evidence or logic. It puts the source of morality outside reality and reduces your ability to live successfully in this one-and-only world. It induces guilt, self-doubt, and unhappiness. It prevents rational agreement between people which invites irrational conflict. It has been the cause of countless deaths throughout history.

    “Where’s the harm”? Ha!

  7. thehag

    thehag said, almost 4 years ago


    Love it! It even has a little cross in the middle!

  8. peachguy

    peachguy said, almost 4 years ago

    That last one is hilariously mean! I feel guilty for laughing.

  9. prrdh

    prrdh said, almost 4 years ago


    There can be no harm in believing as such because there is no way to avoid it. Science and religion are both systems of exploring the implications of different metaphysical assumptions. You assume that we live in a ‘one-and-only’ world; many (but not all) theists and agnostics (such as Buddhists) do not. You assume that inerrancy is attained by subjecting documents to the cleansing ritual of peer review, even under circumstances that any social psychologist or behavioral economist can tell you are conducive to systemic bias; fundamental Christians assume that it was attained by subjecting documents to a synod of religious scholars. Like all such assumptions, they stand outside ‘evidence or logic’; they form the structure within which logic is applied to whatever is deemed admissible as evidence.

  10. androgenoide

    androgenoide said, almost 4 years ago


    As an agnostic I generally do not see a problem with either belief or disbelief but you have touched on one aspect of belief that can have negative implications. Many believers have built their entire moral code of behavior around their faith in a system of eternal reward and punishment and that’s OK as long as that belief remains untouched… they remain capable of behaving like normal humans. The problem is that I know how easy it is to learn to believe six impossible things before breakfast and such moral codes strike me as pretty fragile.

  11. pschearer

    pschearer GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    Your argument assumes faith (such as religion) is as valid as reason (such as science) as a means of gaining knowledge. You say I “assume” there is only one world; no, I KNOW there IS one world and that in all of history nobody has proved there are more. It is the faithful who assume there is more than one, on no other reason than that it must comfort them, but that does not make their feelings a valid source of knowledge. Note too, reason is broader than what scientists do; it encompasses the very foundation of everything you know. Aristotle knew that the laws of logic were at root laws of existence, so the idea that there is anything outside of what is knowable by “evidence and logic” is pure wishful thinking (as if that word would apply).

  12. griffon88

    griffon88 said, almost 4 years ago


    Inerrancy is not what science is trying to accomplish. That would require knowing everything, which would be extremely arrogant. Instead, science is a process for getting closer to the truth. Not absolute truth, because that doesn’t exist outside of a rigorous logical system. But science is what we use to get closer to the truth because it has been proven time and again to work.

  13. prrdh

    prrdh said, almost 4 years ago


    The absence of proof (of multiple worlds, say, or of God or gods or flying spaghetti monsters) is not the proof of absence. I don’t believe in God, myself, but that doesn’t mean that I believe that there is no God.
    If the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, our universe is one of many. As I understand it, there is in principle no way of knowing if that is true, or whether the Copenhagen interpretation (or another) is correct.
    If that “many” is an infinity (aleph-null? aleph-aleph?), then what has happened in ours just happened to happen that way, just as a bunch of typing monkeys might happen to knock out the collected works of Shakespeare, not because of some ‘natural law’…or divine plan.
    In the face of that possibility, I personally assume (i.e., have faith) that there is in fact natural law, and that the principles of identity, mutual exclusion, and non-contradiction have utility. But I don’t see any grounds for being ‘certain’ that my assumptions are true. And I don’t care if other people make alternative assumptions, as long as they recognize that they too might be wrong.
    I doubt that there is a single root of all evil, but if there is I don’t see ‘love of money’ as a plausible candidate; in fact, I find much more merit in Emerson’s comment that ‘the greatest meliorator of the world is selfish, huckstering trade’. Still, if I had to present an alternative candidate I would submit ‘a sense of certainty’.

  14. griffon88

    griffon88 said, almost 4 years ago


    Can we know with absolute certainty that there is no god or gods? No, of course not. But as a practical matter, I act as if there are no gods. As far as we can tell, our universe behaves in a way in which there is no need or evidence of a god.
    The rest of this is no longer directed at prrdh alone.
    I also act as if unicorns, leprechauns, gnomes, gorgons, dragons, and chupacabras don’t exist. I don’t need to provide proof that they don’t exist, so I don’t see why I need to provide proof that god doesn’t exist. The onus is on the believer to provide proof that their god exists. Until that proof is provided, the most reasonable position to take is that god doesn’t exist.
    Like all positions I take, I am willing to change my mind if presented with good evidence to do so. I have yet to meet a theist that would be willing to do that about god. And yet the theist will call me close-minded and dogmatic.

  15. prrdh

    prrdh said, almost 4 years ago


    That is the ideal, yes. But the idea (of Carl Sagan’s, I think) that science is ‘self-regulating’ has infected scientific practice with the idea that no one lacking arbitrary academic credentials has any business questioning the conclusions of self-defined scientific ‘experts’ on a topic. This is especially true in areas where Eisenhower’s warning about ‘scientific-technological elites’, funded exclusively or overwhelmingly by government, applies.
    As for science having “been proven time and again to work”, I agree that it has worked time and again, but don’t agree that that proves anything. See Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s story of the turkey on the limits of induction.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (9).