Idiot Scott Adams falls for the Worst. Apologetic. Ever.
Someone give me a lobotomy so I too can become a rich and famous cartoonist. I already can't draw, so I'm good there.
(h/t to 20 gram Soul via Planet Atheism)
Monday, July 30, 2007
9 comments:
Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.
With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.
No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.
See the Debate Flowchart for some basic rules.
Sourced factual corrections are always published and acknowledged.
I will respond or not respond to comments as the mood takes me. See my latest comment policy for details. I am not a pseudonomous-American: my real name is Larry.
Comments may be moderated from time to time. When I do moderate comments, anonymous comments are far more likely to be rejected.
I've already answered some typical comments.
I have jqMath enabled for the blog. If you have a dollar sign (\$) in your comment, put a \\ in front of it: \\\$, unless you want to include a formula in your comment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The stupid. It burns. :banghead:
ReplyDeleteI didn't know that believing in Spinoza's God was enough to get into heaven?
ReplyDeleteDeer Lowered.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that SA bills himself as a philosotainer (i.e., a self-consciously half-baked maven of pseudo-profundity), not to be confused with popularizers of philosophy (Law, Warburton, Bagini, et al.), should tip anyone off that he's just an imitation highbrow feces-agitator.
Sorry, I liked his blog last year, for about a week. Then I kept reading for another week or two, hoping it would get better, before I realized he was doing the same thing on his blog that he was doing with his comic strip: making fun of people. The difference being that his readers, rather than imaginary office personnel, were now the collective butt of his "jokes."
But I'm not bitter.
IIRC, I started, then quit, reading his blog around the time he and PZ Myers had their little spat.
Let's turn this sucker on its head:
ReplyDeleteIn order to believe there is a God, doesn't one have to be 100% certain He exists? Otherwise, one is demonstrating a propensity to retain illusions that one has a God-like intellect to know for certain everything. If agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position, then agnosticism is the only intellectually defensible position. The theist -- especially one who chooses one Scriptural truth such as accepting the divinity of Jesus Christ -- then is acting with identical arrogance. Spinoza's non-scripturally specific, non-anthropomorphized God isn't a viable option either, under that logic, because it still requires 100% certainty.
Under this logical construction, the only way to get around this is to call faith as much of a choice as atheism. In which case, having been made on equally firm/loose footing, they are equally respectable. Faith being a choice, if it is made under the terms of the W.A.E. it is little more then a Cover Your Ass choice, like choosing not to steal even if one is 99.9999% certain that absolutely nothing will stop you.
What an ass.
Much becomes clear, I think, when you remember that before becoming a cartoonist, Adams was not in engineering or even IT but in management. Anyone can write Dilbert (the character), but it takes first-hand knowledge to write the Pointy Haired Boss.
ReplyDeleteHey! Thanks for the link-love... ;)
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I do find Scott Adams' humour a little dry at times, and he certainly doesn't always think his positions through properly, but he does occasionally come out with a few decent posts (which actually make you think), so I keep reading.
That said, I thought this one was just SOOO thoughtless it deserved comment...
...he does occasionally come out with a few decent posts...
ReplyDeleteEven a stopped clock is right twice a day.
...he certainly doesn't always think his positions through properly...
I suspect the bolded portions of that comment could be omitted without loss of generality.
Thanks for the link-love... ;)
You're most welcome! You get to read him so I don't have to.
I think the idea that Scott is more of an asshole than an idiot should be entertained. As a regular reader of his blog I know that he likes to come up with silly, half-baked ideas that he throws out there because they are (to some) amusing to read about and argue over. The mistake I most commonly find with people who review his blog is that they assume he's serious, when he's not, he's a cartoonist. If you read it as philosotainment, as he recommends, it's enjoyable, if you treat it as actual philosophy and subject it to the rigorous standards therein, you're bound to be disappointed. That said, I must have missed that post, it wasn't particularly funny, or on the money with Pascal's wager, which I agree is weak.
ReplyDeleteI go by Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
ReplyDelete