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

« The Bobby Hoax? | Main | Basic Instructions, Part 1 »

Comments

katherine

I find it appalling that his post has almost as many comments as yours does. Do you think that means that his site sees almost as much traffic as yours does, or simply that atheists are more likely to post comments?

BobUK

Does PZ Myers even know what "wank" means?

Tim

Scott, I back you to the hilt in undermining this guy, however, I must be the third type of athiest, I believe we are surrounded by evidence that there is no god.

Noah Vaile

"WEAK ATHEIST" is a term as stupid as as a term can be. One could then say a devout Catholic, say the Pope, who is a human being and even he, therefore, must upon occasion have or had harbored a doubt, is a "very, very weak atheist."

The term is moronic. A_theist means that you have no belief in a god, G_D (or a higher being) and not that you are plagued by doubts on the matter. "Weak atheist" is a term thrown together by apologists to try and subsume those who are not in their political camp and to increase their self-perceived numbers. Weak thinker is more appropriate for the creator(s) of the term.

I am an a-atheist. I have questions about the existence of a singular god but I don't believe in atheists at all.

gav d

Anyone else love the irony in that guys last paragraph after having written a giant essay correcting and refuting everything.

"In many online contexts, this is known as a form of trolling: a person posts something designed to annoy others. People who take the time to correct and refute are too bitter and humorless to see the entertainment in it all; those who don't come away thinking that something serious and valid might have been said. It's a clever trick if no one catches on but I've never seen anyone create an entire blog devoted to trolling legions of devoted fans."

Even when he correctly picks it out as trolling he just can't see that he is taking it all just way too seriously. Honestly why get so worked up about believing in not believing in something.... the doors said it -- people are strange!

williamryall

In my mind - the difference between being Agnostic and being a 'weak' Atheist is that the later tries to force their opinions on others. Either way, there is no point in getting in a hissy fit over something somebody else believes - as long as it doesn't harm or hurt anybody else. (Feel free to point to instances where religion doesn't hurt anybody, then I'll counter argue with some ridiculous statistic that drinking to much cola can turn you into a cold blooded killer).

If everybody just relaxed and took it easier, they'd enjoy life a lot more and stop worrying about trivial issues like what god your neighbor prays to.

I only got one gripe, if you want to talk to me about any religious ideas - please respect my views by not waking me till at least noon on the weekend.

wolfizzi

Back at the Pascal's Wager Post I commented about my religion requiring the participation of whales and dogs. Toward the end of my comment I was about to give up on forming an animal inclusive religion, but I have now seen a comment here about the eyes of eagles and owls. Apparently, according to the comment, these birds see much more of reality than I do. Also, some women can see more of reality than men!

This is fantastic, because women tend to like me almost as much as my dog. This is further proof that I may be God(like). I haven't tested my newfound deitism on owls yet, but I am certain I can get some owls to like me. My monkey priest says he knows a couple of impressionable owls.

Someone was commenting on unicorns. I've never seen one, so I am agnostic on their existence, but I'm willing to let unicorns in too. What would be really cool would be to get some phoenix birds to join my religion. That would be a potentially nonexistent creature (to stump the agnostic crowd) with eyes that have so many color receptors that it must have a sharp sense of reality.

This religion of mine is really coming into focus. It doesn't matter to me that most of you won't join. I have dogs for company, monkeys to do my bidding, the largest creatures on the planet are part of my religion. Now I have real and imaginary birds that can see better than you. Plus, I am expecting women to join readily, now that I know some of them can see reality quite well.

Frosty

Your a fool Scott. You could insert your argument to the existence of Santy Claus and POOF HO HO HO their he is.

Frosty

Your a fool Scott. You could insert your argument to the existence of Santy Claus and POOF HO HO HO their he is.

Frosty

Your a fool Scott. You could insert your argument to the existence of Santy Claus and POOF HO HO HO their he is.

Frosty

Your a fool Scott. You could insert your argument to the existence of Santy Claus and POOF HO HO HO their he is.

Kerry Neighbour

I must say that these couple of threads have been quite disappointing - not up to your usual standard.

As an atheist myself, I was annoyed at your mispresentation - even straw-man argument. ie incorrectly state what you think the other person's argument is, then argue against that mistake. I have seen you goad readers into this mistake, and with some humour. To fall for the same trap is weird. I keep looking for the trap...

Still, we all have bad days, I guess. Love your work.

GLK

Religion gets blamed for everything from minor disagreements to full-out wars. If this "My disbelief in God is better than your disbelief in God" topic proves anything, it's that people just like to quarrel.

Daniel

Example of agnostic who is NOT a weak-atheist:

Joe believes that KNOWLEDGE of God (or anything else), or its absence is not possible without evidence. However, he has chosen to believe that God exists because he thinks his life will be better that way, or he's placing his bets, or whatever. Joe is an AGNOSTIC THEIST.

Example of weak-atheist who is NOT an agnostic:

Betty is a mystic who believes that KNOWLEDGE can come to us through our dreams or ESP. Having scanned the realms of existence with her mind in this way, she still has come up with no indications of a deity. However, she says it may be that her ESP has simply not searched everywhere yet. Still, having not found any knowledge of God, she is therefore skeptical and does not hold a belief in such a deity. She still admits that one MIGHT exist, however. Because she believes that KNOWLEDGE can come through intuition or other means than evidence, she is NOT an agnostic. But lacking a belief in a deity AND YET still being open to the possibility of its existence, she is a WEAK ATHEIST.

PS - I like Scott a lot, but must agree in all intellectual honesty with Cline, that trying to make your argument about these things and then claiming 'it's just entertainment' doesn't paint the picture of 'silly humorless people jumping through Scott's hoops'. It paints a picture of Scott being reluctant to admit when he's wrong. It's obvious the argument is not simply part of some joke - as though he were telling a 'why does the chicken cross the road' joke and some chickenologist was chiming in with complaints that chickens don't do this or that. That is clearly not what's happening here. At the very least, it convinces any rational person that Scott (or anyone who dishonestly dodges criticism of his points with such tactics) should be ignored on any matters on which he speaks, except for 'jokes' in the strictest sense (at which Scott, of course, excels). However, I'm posting this in the hopes that Scott can do better. Thanks for a hilarious strip and blog Scott. :)

Martin

My opinion about being an atheist is this:

I disbelieve in 'god' in much the same way as I disbelieve in Santa Claus. It's not really that I actively think that 'god' doesn't exist, I just don' really think about whether he does or not. There is certainly a lack in evidence to suggest he does, so I just don't concern myself with it. Obviously, if he were to appear in front of me, I would change my mind. Then again, if I encountered the real Santa, I would also alter my thinking on him too!

Adam

I think Scott made his first argument in "The Atheist Who Thought He Was God" in all seriousness.

Then the Internet jumped all over him because he said some weak and ignorant things. So in his next post he mounts a half-hearted, weaselly defense. He claims that Pascal's Wager makes a lot of sense, but then waffles that it's 3AM, so maybe he's not making any sense after all.

The Internet jumps all over him again, so then he decides to take the position that he's just been trolling all along. (Dance, monkey, dance!)

And that's just sad.

Egg

This is truly great comedy; all this fussing and posturing about something which cannot be solved by virtue of the human condition. I like it even more when ‘experts’ lob heavy lingo and fill their pants while shrieking about how correct they are. Hee Hee.
Keep up the entertaining thought experiments.

joe blow

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

JB

Brandon

I've got your back Scott. I posted (don't know if he'll actually let it through) on PZ Meyer's website:

"I hate to tell you PZ, but Scott Adams is a much deeper thinker than you will ever be. You've fought creationists for so long that you've begun to adopt their tactics of false certainty and ruthlessly attacking any idea that offends you emotionally. The arguments you laid out regarding Pascals Wager had been dealt with by Mr Adams in his post. Surely you knew that, but you chose ignore this fact and instead argued, somewhat childishly against exerpts the did not capture the true nature of his post. In this matter, you're no better than Fox News. "

Irishman

Scott is suffering from his own cognitive dissonance. He has chosen his own definition of "atheist" and "agnostic", and then tried to argue that agnosticism is better based upon his definition. But when someone else tells him his definition is incorrect, Scott cannot accept that he is wrong. So instead Scott tries to equate "weak atheist" with "agnostic" in order to make himself right. This is Scott's cognitive dissonance, ignoring the semantic difference between the two terms and describing the use of "weak atheist" as politics.

I now predict that a half a dozen posters will call me a moron for caring. Go on, dance, you monkeys, dance!

I also predict that Scott Adams will continue to believe he is correct and will not post admitting his defeat.

Go on, dance, monkey, dance!

(See how easy it is to mock people by posting "dance, monkey, dance" after predicting what they were going to do anyway? This "philosotainment" stuff is easy. I need to start me a blog where I can call people morons and then laugh at them when they respond, and tell them they shouldn't take themselves so seriously.)

Scholar

Dance Monkey Dance !!! HAHAAHAHAHAAA WOW!!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/scott_adams_wanks_again.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link
WANKITY WANKITY WANKITY
WANKITY WANKITY WANKITY
WANKITY WANKITY WANKITYWANKITY WANKITY WANKITYWANKITY WANKITY WANKITYWANKITY WANKITY WANKITY
WANKITY WANKITY WANKITY
v
WANKITY WANKITY WANKITY
WANKITY WANKITY WANKITY
WANKITY WANKITY WANKITYWANKITY WANKITY WANKITY
WANKITY WANKITY WANKITYWANKITY WANKITY WANKITY
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/scott_adams_wanks_again.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/scott_adams_wanks_again.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link

G

Most of the arguments pointing out why atheism is not "just another religion" are old as moldy cheese, so I wont bother rehashing them.
Atheist vs Agnostic
Atheist are X% certain God does not exist where X% equals the percentage of certainty that unicorns, flying spagetti monsters and pixies on invisible ponies do not exists. Agnostics are Y% certain God does not exist where Y% < X%
Now, I need to go back to my hobby of not collecting stamps.

me

You are the one dancing. At the very least you are dancing together. This no-name athiest now has an increased following and revenue.

Leahn

I swear I read half the comments, at least. Then laziness kicked in and I decided to stop and post. This may get lengthy, so go grab a snack and some coffee before reading. I, by no means, consider myself a phylosoph (sp?), but I am for certain logical and rational.

There was that guy that once said that absolute truth cannot be reached because we are intrinsicaly biased by our own nurture. Yet, absolute truth DO exist. It is just that us, humans, cannot correctly point it out. Thus, in any question that matters (please no more 'I can be 100% sure of which of my hands is my right hand' arguments), the truth is out of reach for humans. Based on it, we can never be 100% of what we know. Take, in example, what you see. You believe that what you see is real, but your eyes have only 3 kinds of receptors for colors. Some women (it only happens in women) have 4.
So, do you really trust what you see? Certainly what these women see is closer to reality than what you see. Not impressed? Eagles have 9 receptors. Owls see a small spectrum of infrared. They see things that you don't even KNOW that are there. Still trust what you see as 'reality'? Sorry, you are just plain dumb and I can't counter that with logic.

Your mind is not much better than your eyes.


Thus, any person that stopped questioning their own knowledge can be disregarded as a logical and thinking person. Only a person that is constantly proving his own assertions against their newfound knowledge can be considered 'rational'.

But why am I writing all this nonsense stuff? Database is down and I am bored. And I don't get this counter-prejudiced people that harass others for not believing on what they believe because they feel harassed because people do not believe what they believe. They go all like "I do not like you trying to make me believe in what you believe but I want you to believe in what I believe or die. Or you are a moron."

Any person that claims to be a rational thinker must follow the laws of rational thought. One is always forgotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

For one to claim that if not a then b, it must prove all other possibilities to be wrong. So, if you say that since no proof of God was presented, then God must not exist, then you must prove than everything that is accepted as true is proved so to exclude the possibility that things can be true even when they can't be proved. I point you to this:

Because of the law of the excluded middle, one CANNOT use the absence of proof of truth to rule out the possibility of truth. In fact, together with this law:

one can only say that God do not exist if he can prove that God do not exist and not by lack of proof that God exists.

Now comment. Go.

P.S.: I have only written the post so I could end saying it.

mjb

I love the "100 percent atheists" response. They are all like a bunch of lemmings:

"Scott, there is no way you can be right." "I am 100 percent sure that God does not exist". (No proof to validate that statement, but still, I am right and you are wrong).

They are so blind with their ignorance that they can't even see the logical argument you portrayed. Even in layman's terms they are still confounded. This is hilarious.

The comments to this entry are closed.