May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Brazilian Erection Spider | Main | Queen Protocol »


Sam D

Wait for it... damn, I think I missed the rapture while I was reading your blog.


Haven't you espoused this belief system for some time?

Dave K.

Frankly, it makes more sense to side with the Gnostics who believed that the universe conspires to negate us and our worthy, earthly efforts. This would explain entropic decline, Murphy's law, and God handing our harps. And other solid knowledge. I mean, do you know how hard it is to play a friggin' harp?


Scott, I had the same issue with Pascal's Gamble..when I was 6. I hate these bastards getting all the credit because they wrote it down first in a manner that endured hundreds of years ago. If Socrates said it at 30, I should get credit if I said it at 8!

"It turns out that being ignorant is almost exactly like being a well-read student of philosophy who can quote from the work of the masters. How lucky is that?"



Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein: "God does not throw dice."

Einstein did not "pretend" to believe in God, and deliberate ignorance could also be called absolute foolishness.

[It's no shame to be fooled by Einstein, Dougie. Don't feel bad. He was clever. -- Scott]

Jason Allen

Modern humans have walked the Earth for over 100,000 years (5,000 if you believe in that "young Earth" nonsense). There really isn't much left for the average person to say, think, or do that could be considered original. Someone somewhere probably already said it, thought it, or did it. Pondering what is and isn't original isn't even original. I saw it on an episode of South Park. People need to get over it and get on with their lives.


Since the comments are moderated, how can they be submitted twice? Some of them are. Unless the person writing has submitted twice and you have an automated process of dropping one or two comments randomly and put everything else here. Look me in the eye Mr.Adams, don't lie that you go through the drudgery of going through all the comments.

Rob Landley

Given your interest in hypnosis and religion (or lack thereof), I'm surprised you haven't mentioned this:

It's an online book a professional hypnotist wrote about the use of hypnotic techniques in fundamentalist christian evangelism.


[Holy cow! My opinions match Spinoza’s perfectly]

Well, you are made of the same substance ;)

Ms. Brandy Snaps

Hey! Its not the first time you are writing about running for president. You also believe in affirmations... Now, is something "interesting" gonna happen in the near future?

LA Clay

Spinoza doesn't give a crap, he's dead.


Too lazy to read all that. Couldn't you just summarize it?


Yeah, but if Karl Rove is among that 1%, and you are batting for the other team, you are screwed man.

John Keitz

"One of the great things about being ignorant is that I often think my ideas are original. It’s a wonderful feeling. I’m far too lazy to read an entire book, so I went to Wikipedia and read what strangers with no credibility had to say about him."

You just described the study of philosophy!


Scott Adams for president!!!! uhh what party would you run for


I must admit, I LOVE this blog, and I keep checking it every morning until it's updated.....except when you talk religion. Even though I disagree with a lot of your political opinions, your political entries are still good to read, humorous and nonconfrontational. However, your religion entries give off a vibe that you really look down on any of us out there who differ from you. I'm not going to try to sell you on my beliefs; however, I'm not going to look down on you either. Besides, if we really don't have free will, as you suggest, don't I not have a choice in what I believe?

BTW, I've been to your restaurant in Pleasenton. The food is AWESOME, and the menu is HILARIOUS.


I am assuming that you did not read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion."


It's really remarkable! Your belief of God being in bits and pieces of matter does match up nicely with Spinoza theory of god-is-nature. And same with no-free-will theory. Excellent.

But, but, but, I see one glaring difference. You seem to be a believer of randomness theory at quantum level since you have deified probability in your writings. But Spinoza and Einstein were determinists. Scott, may be it's time for you to rethink that part?


Wasn't Spinoza the guy who murdered Mozart in Amadeus??

Ethan Zara

Not only can Spinoza say, "In your face!". He also made it to Wikipedia! I wonder if the weasel article links to his page?

Backpacking on Little Money


Let me be the first to say:

"Nobody expects the Portuguese Inquisition!"


If there is such a thing as afterlife, and if the people there can look upon the stupidity of most people on Earth, I'm betting Eternity-in-Heaven against One-Day-In-Hell that afterlife is a pretty funny place, not to mention embarrassing (when you see your kids doing stupid things that got you killed, for instance)...

Lucky us there isn't anything after death.


So is your God omnipresent, omnipotent, or omniscient?


Like Confucius said (who lived 2500 years ago):

It is good for girl to meet boy in park...
but much better for boy to park meat in girl.

Jeffrey G. Harper

Hmmm, I'm thinking Spinoza was a bit kinky. Just look at his philosophy:

"Animals can be used in any way by people for the benefit of the human race"

I can just imagine him saying, "It'll be to the benefit of the human race if I don't go totally wacky and start knocking off people with a scythe due to a lack of shtupping, therefore it is permissible for me to doink this sheep."

Regarding another part of the document, I thought it interesting that he would need to bring up the thought that God doesn't have a personality. Of course not. Clearly, God would have a Godality. That detail should be obvious to even the casual observer.

I think my biggest issue, however, is the premise that "substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its existence." Unfortunately, in this case, the proof is apparently left as an exercise for the reader. I am not a philosopher, hence it would be an exercise in futility for me to attempt to either prove or disprove the premise. Would anyone else care to take a stab at it?

The comments to this entry are closed.