Prickly City by Scott Stantis

Prickly City

Comments (11) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. cheapskate0

    cheapskate0 said, over 2 years ago

    This is the Prickly City that I remember – actual banter between Carmen and Winslow. Meaningful conversation, too.
    What’s that? Short memory? Oh, yes. This is a rerun.

  2. FerretMaster

    FerretMaster said, over 2 years ago

    Spoken like a true Lib there Winslow….

  3. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 2 years ago

    Wrong, barrel cactus, it’s not all relative. There is such a thing as true objective morality, though none within the atheistic worldview. It’s one of those inconsistencies within atheism. Many of them want morality to exist, yet they have no valid basis for it. Objective morality requires a source that is outside of and above humans. Otherwise, all you are left with is mere human opinion and no way to distinguish one random collection of atom’s opinion from another’s.

  4. DOSQueen

    DOSQueen GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    I’m guessing you have never once spoken to an atheist.

    And you certainly aren’t paying attention to the moral relativism of televangelists who rant about homosexuals who want to destroy the sanctity of marriage while they practice serial monogamy and engage in bigamy, polygamy and adultery.

  5. Dogday88

    Dogday88 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    None of which negates doc’s statement.

  6. ysutliff

    ysutliff GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    I think Winslow has a point (couldn’t resist)

  7. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 2 years ago


    You guessed wrong. I have had discussions with a number of atheists, and not one of them has ever been able to answer this question. You obviously missed the point of what I am saying entirely, as well as lacking an understanding of what moral relativism is. Televangelists who do one thing while saying another is not an example of moral relativism, it is hypocrisy. And I note you failed to provide a basis for morality within the atheistic worldview, just as all other atheists have. Don’t feel too bad, though. No atheist in history has ever done so, either, including Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins (who admitted the lack).

  8. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 2 years ago

    Nonsense. In the atheistic worldview nothing can be “intrinsically wrong.” That is just a dodge. Who says something is intrinsically wrong? Who determines that? Again, you are just using human opinion with no way to distinguish the validity of different opinions. All you did was list your opinions. But what makes them correct and more valuable than any one else’s?

  9. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 2 years ago

    Yeah, that seems to be about the best they can do. Pretty sad substitute for morality. And even then, of course, if someone disagrees with the opinion that might makes right then there is nothing to distinguish which mere opinion is more valid.

  10. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 2 years ago

    Pretty weak argument. A pitiful insult to try and divert attention from the fact that you, also, have no valid answer to the question. So who decides “observable harm” is bad? Harm to who? Some things that harm one helps another. You still have the same problem and no answer.

  11. exoticdoc2

    exoticdoc2 said, over 2 years ago

    You really don’t understand what “intrinsic” means, do you? No one wants harm to come to them, but that does not automatically make it wrong from a moral standpoint in the atheistic worldview. In atheism, we are random collections of atoms with no more value than your average rock. Since we are just another form of atom aggregate, how can right and wrong exist intrinsically? It cannot. Desire does not make morality, as you have just tried to say. Otherwise, since Hitler desired to kill the Jews that makes it moral. The egregious falsehood is trying to claim atheists have a valid standard for morality with nothing to back the statement up. As for humanism, it is the atheists/humanists who have had the bloodiest, cruelest, and most violent regimes in history such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others. No, humanism is no proof against atrocities. As for your claims as to Christianity, show me where it says in the Bible to kill apostates, otherwise your claim is baseless, empty words. As for homosexuality, yes it declares it to be immoral. The death penalty was imposed in ancient times for many crimes for those who were part of the Sinaitic Covenant. With the coming of Christ those harsher penalties were lifted even for them. And the is no “high horse” here. YOU are the one claiming humans don’t need God and can make up their own morals (relative morality is no morality at all). YOU are the one saying you can run your own life better without God and do not need him. I am pointing out the need for God, not holding myself up as the example to follow. You have that one backward.

  12. Refresh Comments.