Spamgaard Free

My avatar is licensed under the Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0). Peace be upon ------------------------------------------------------- Interesting forums and blogs: ------------------------------------------------------- I am an agnostic atheist, the most smug of all positions to embrace!

Comics I Follow

All of your followed comic titles will appear here.

For help on how to follow a comic title, click here

Recent Comments

  1. over 11 years ago on Candorville


    That’s fine. But you can add me to the list of people who don’t find skepticism of existing arguments to be a persuasive counter-argument.

    Touche! My response was meant to be tongue-in-cheek (with apologies to Douglas Adams), as a substantive (and unique) critique of the ontological argument would take a bit more time to write, and someone would probably just flag it anyway! Hmm, one more thing to do when I have some real down time…

    I’m an agnostic. I don’t think it’s’ possible to prove or disprove the existence of God, because faith is not something that can be proven or disproven. If you base your belief on empirical evidence, that’s science, not faith. Faith is something you feel. It’s perspective, and it doesn’t make any more or less sense than the belief that everything happens by chance.

    I agree with most of what you’ve written. My perspective tells me that faith in the existence of something which cannot be proven is intellectually dishonest, at best. Faith may have many positive values, it may inform you, it may even be based on a logical construct that has merit. At its core, however, it is based on nothing more substantial than a gut feeling, a hope, a dream… an intangible abstract thought.

    And even when there is no hard evidence, many theories are widely accepted. I don’t think there’s any reason to dismiss the plausibility of God any more than there is to dismiss the plausibility of extrasolar life.

    Do you have a specific theory in mind? Scientific theories differ from faith in that you can have a logical “provisional belief” in a theory, but as evidence accumulates, that theory (and the “belief” in it) must necessarily be weakened or strengthened (otherwise, it isn’t science). With faith, however, no evidence is required. Evidence contrary to one’s faith generally does not sway belief in that faith.

    How do you determine what is plausible? I would say evidence and observation. Is extrasolar life plausible? Sure. Why? There is evidence that Earth-like planets likely exist in other solar systems. There are billions upon billions of solar systems in the universe. It is plausible that life may exist or have existed on another planet.

  2. over 11 years ago on Rudy Park

    Yer gonna need a bigger cafe!

  3. over 11 years ago on Candorville

    You’d think a supremely infinite perfect being would have done a better job creating life, the universe, and everything… You can add me to the list of people who don’t find the ontological argument persuasive.

    Not sure I get what you’re saying in the rest of this, one moment you seem to be arguing for an abstract belief in god separate from religion, the next you’re using the “Bible” (assume the NT?) as a “confirmation” of what the faithful see in their lives. Sounds like confirmation bias, but that’s just my opinion.

    As far as “strong” and “weak” atheists go, I hedge and say I’m an agnostic atheist. 99.99% sure, but if there were a scientifically provable repeatable experiment for the existence of god, well, I’d believe.

    I’m fond of Bertrand Russell’s statement on the matter:

    As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. —Bertrand Russell, Collected Papers, vol. 11, p. 91

  4. over 11 years ago on Non Sequitur

    People who don’t need people are the happiest people…

  5. over 11 years ago on Doonesbury

    People don’t want nice, they want consistency.

  6. over 11 years ago on Doonesbury
    The Reps had one goal for the last four years, make Obama a one term president. As a result they succeeded in absolutely nothing. Lets hope they come up with some real goals this time.

    I suspect their number one priority for the next four years will be to continue blocking any Democrat sponsored legislation to help the American people. Just like the last four years.

  7. over 11 years ago on Doonesbury
    Well, what will be will be. God is still on the throne.

    Courtesy flush, please!

  8. over 11 years ago on Rudy Park

    Yes, but Obama is no enemy to the plutocrats. He’s just not their BFF like Rmoney. Let the gouging of ’Merkuh continue…

  9. over 11 years ago on [Deleted]
    Nice stock market crash post electionProbably more to do with reelection of the same Tea Bag Hat Wearing Party

    and other Republicans that swore fealty to King Grover of Norquist, to help realize his fantasy as a 12 year old of a ‘no tax pledge’ no matter the cost to the country that conspired to hold the debt ceiling limit hostage, costing a downgrade of America’s credit rating.

  10. over 11 years ago on Non Sequitur
    Say what you want, the Electoral College was obsolete when Marconi invented the wireless telegraph.

    Marconi? It was Nikola Tesla!