Online Cartoonist Finds Financial Success Offline

destinyland writes "The first collection of Perry Bible Fellowship comics has racked up pre-sales of $300,000 due to its huge online following. Within seven weeks the volume required a third printing. Ironically, the 25-year-old cartoonist speculates people would rather read his arty comics in a book than on a computer screen, and warns that 'There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page...' He also explains the strange anti-censorship crusade in high school that earned him an FBI record!"

Comments

PBF transcends the net

[Anonymous Coward]

My father, who isn't even a geek was describing one of the comics to me. If I recall correctly, it was on display in Maxim magazine.

on another note, here is a fun task: read all the PBF comics: he has hidden references and messages across the whole series.

Re:PBF transcends the net

[Enderandrew]

I've read all the strips a couple of times. Many jokes are subtle, but I'm not sure what you mean about hidden messages across the whole series. Please enlighten us.

Re:PBF transcends the net

[arodland]

Heh... do you remember which one it was that "made it"? Was it "weeaboo"?

Re:PBF transcends the net

[TheRaven64]

They also appear in the G2 section of the Guardian newspaper in the UK. Somewhat ironically, considering his anti-censorship record, the version the Guardian runs is often censored.

Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page

Which is perfect for the bible, because it's a myth.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Anonymous Coward]

Funniest troll in awhile.
I'm glad I browse at -1.

Thank you.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[kinabrew]

I think the parent may think "Perry Bible Fellowship" actually has something to do with the Bible.

It's not so much off-topic as ignorant as to what is the topic.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's those Tijuana Bibles...

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Faith in the bible doesn't require "proof". Supplying proof that it's a myth is possible, but worthless to people who demand it.

What you meant to type, if you're defending on bible terms, is "poof".

What is necessary in an argument about whether the bible's stories of relentless supernatural events as explained by an epoch (or more) of primitive, aggressive and hypocritical people are true is even the tiniest proof that it's not a myth. If you're not impressed by just making stuff up according to voices in your head, that is.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Any time.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[aussie_a]

I'm holding a copy of the bible in my hands. I think you'll find there's more facts supporting the existence of the bible then against it.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[yoshi2.0]

ZOMG that is soooo not a troll, but is the funniest- BEST POST EVER!!!!

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

While you won't be able to prove to me tonight that your holding a bible is indeed a fact, that's entirely besides the point.

Proving the bible's stories are true is also besides the point, if the point is faith. Because faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven, not just because they're too inconvenient to do so on a given night.

I'm not going to get into a long debunking of the bible's "facts". I'm not even going to get into a debate about whether a book about the otherwise undocumented past, that's been the supporting document for people with often unlimited power for millennia, isn't still a myth, even if it's got lots of facts in it. I'm just going to point out that the value of the bible, other than in some of its rules for humane behavior (certainly not all of them, like stoning so many people), is in its myths, as myths. Because myths require faith. If its all proven, there's no faith left, just routine knowledge. And if you destroy faith with your defense of the bible, then you're entirely missing the point of god.

Save yourself. Concede the argument.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Duncan Blackthorne]

As far as I'm concerned the real issue is whether the contents of the bible are historical fact, a less than factual account of historical events, or pure fiction (or some combination of all the above). If you want to look at that book from the perspective of how it's been used in the modern era, then it's the most completely worthless and potentially the most destructive printed work known to man, because every asshole and his brother spins the damned thing to mean anything they want it to so they can justify whatever crimes against humanity they're looking for an excuse to commit.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[aussie_a]

I was joking. You had implied that the bible wasn't real. Sheeesh.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Getting your joke was done in my first sentence. The rest is for the people with no sense of either humor or faith.

Me and god, we've got an understanding. He doesn't exist, and I don't mind.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Anonymous Coward]

ZOMG, little kiddie, Doc Ruby is a well-known troll.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[WNight]

Definition: "Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."

Challenge the belief that all religion is false. Until then, the belief that it is a joke does seem universally acceptable.

Religious people think that because crazy opinions are everywhere (for instance, that Adam Sandler is funny) that their crazy ideas must be just the same, and accepted as valid alternatives. Not at all. Religious people assert fact - that their god exists and their holy book is right. You can't disprove that Adam Sandler is funny because humor is subjective. You can disprove any religious assertions made, because they aren't opinion. They're incorrect fact.

Anyways. Insulting religious people is good. They're stupid and need to be made to realize it, if only so that they slink away from society and don't try to poison more minds with their trash. It's like insulting people who spout KKK filth - cut and belittle them and their opinions until they're ashamed of how people make them feel. The correct answer to "Black are subhuman" isn't "Oh I can see how you might think that, but really ...", it's "You're an idiot - just fucking stupid." Ditto for 'My god lived, then died, then was reborn, for your right to eat shellfish which is no-longer bad!"

If the person drops the beliefs, they might not be a permanent waste of skin. Until then, they're just lying to you about their sky fairies, or the inferiority of the black man, etc.

If someone persists in believing something obviously wrong you should think less of them. They're either stupid, insane, or lying. None of which is a desirable quality.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't dispute the fact that the bible exists. You have a copy in your hands, I have a copy on my bookshelf, there are several in the library, and many many more at the bookstore.

I'm a bit more skeptical when it comes to the veracity of the events described in the bible, but even many of those (but not all or not even most) can be shown to have occured by other accounts of history.

Or, more succinctly, "Religion, lol"

Re:Mythical Bibles

[eraserewind]

You seem to be big on faith. Can you tell me why you think it's such a wonderful thing (other than purely selfish reasons, "it makes me feel closer to god", etc)? For my part, I view it as an abrogation of personal responsibility.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[PJ1216]

religion has never been proven an incorrect fact. nor has it been proven a correct fact. to spout that god has been proven to not exist as a fact is just as silly to claim white supremacy.

people who try to force their religious beliefs on others are troublesome. i don't disagree. however, there are plenty of them who are fine with keeping it to themselves. you can be follow a religion and still believe all the science that we have.

and on a further note, science has yet to ever be proven as fact. there's one assumption that is always made and can never be proven (just as one could say a higher power could never be proven, therefore you can only assume there is or there isn't); you assume that a cause will always have the same effect. the only reason people accept this as true is because no one has disproved it. repeated tests are only circumstantial tests at best. don't get me wrong, i fully believe that science is true, but i'm just saying, there's still the same amount of assumption as there is with a higher power and even moreover, you can believe both science and in a higher power. they are not mutually exclusive.

also your adam sandler analogy has got to be one of the worst analogies i've ever seen. even removing that terrible analogy, the idea behind it is far from being any well-constructed thought. as someone who believes in a higher power (though not a follower of any religion), i can tell you thats NOT the reason i think my opinion is valid. i believe my opinion is valid because no matter how much science you bring behind you, you will never be able to explain its creation (of existence, not of the earth... i believe creationists are retarded).

so, in summation, there are a lot of religious folk who are stupid. however, not ever religious person is stupid.

and using your definition of bigotry, i'm gonna have to say yes, you do seem like a bigot. before this last post of yours, you didn't. i found the joke hysterical as well. in fact, i bet even some religious people can find it humorous. though, with this last post, you have definitely shown a lack of credulity as someone who can form a well-structured opinion.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Culture]

You have several valid points here but ignore the big picture. While a specific religion cannot be proven "true" or "false," what we can say is that at a minimum, all but one are wrong. This is obviously true because they are mutually exclusive. Thus, we can safely say that when laughing at a specific individual religion you are probably 99% safe from being stuck down by the FSM or local equivalent. Additionally, we can state that those who do believe, believe without proof (i.e. through faith). I know some will argue that they have a "personal revelation" but I am talking about the kind of proof on which science relies. Thus, I think that we can safely laugh at those who claim they are certain or "know" that their religion is right, and all else are wrong and you should follow them because they know this (that you are wrong and they are right). These people are stupid (or willfully ignorant). OTOH, I respect those who admit their believe is based solely on faith and cannot prove the superiority of their god over someone else's. These people are, in my opinion, rational enough to function in the real world (for the most part, exceptions exist for every rule).

Re:Mythical Bibles

[I(rispee_I(reme]

and on a further note, science has yet to ever be proven as fact. there's one assumption that is always made and can never be proven (just as one could say a higher power could never be proven, therefore you can only assume there is or there isn't); you assume that a cause will always have the same effect. the only reason people accept this as true is because no one has disproved it. repeated tests are only circumstantial tests at best. don't get me wrong, i fully believe that science is true, but i'm just saying, there's still the same amount of assumption as there is with a higher power and even moreover, you can believe both science and in a higher power. they are not mutually exclusive.

This thread is offtopic and should be modded as such, but just in case anyone comes to slashdot for spiritual guidance...

Science deals with probabilities, not facts, and never claims to present facts.
The only assumption made by science is that the universe is capable of being understood using only rational thought, without invoking magic or superstition.

The reason people make this assumption has nothing to with whether or not it has been disproven, since in fact it cannot be disproven. It is because it is a necessary assumption, unlike the assumption of a "higher power" (aka deity). Since such belief in a deity explains nothing and requires further assumptions to be made, I dispute that there is "the same amount of assumption" in either case.

You are correct that you can believe in both science and magic... if you're willing to do both in a half-assed fashion. See Doublethink.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Smidge204]

I'm glad you "won't get into it" because this isn't the place for such arguments.

As an athiest, I would like to thank you in advance for shutting the fuck up and stop making the rest of us look bad.

Save the anti-religion vile for a topic that's actually about religion. This topic is about a comic strip that has nothing to do with religion except to occasionally mock it, and even then such comics are few and far between.

I'll see you in the next proper religious-involved topic, and I'll probably be agreeing with most of what you say. For now, though, just... shut up already.
=Smidge=

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Peter Cooper]

Ridiculing religion is like ridiculing conspiracy theorists. To be fair, that's kinda what religious people are.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[prelelat]

I think your just plain wrong.

I'm a religious person, it doesn't mean that I believe every word written in the bible. You are confusing Christianity with religion which is plain wrong. There are religions that don't even believe in a god. How does your logic work there?

I've always considered atheists to be religious, they seem to religiously believe that their is nothing in the universe and that the universe appeared by some miraculous event that no one can explain. Takes a lot of faith if you ask me.

I've seen atheists be bigots and hate mongers I don't think this has to do with religion as much as that people are just dicks to one another and if they can blame it on something besides themselves they will. This hurts people who actually have those beliefs because those good peoples reputations are ruined by association. I have a lot of Christian friends that I was close with in high school, I no longer share their same belief but they still associate with me and I with them. We have many great debates about things, mainly because we are open minded but share different thoughts. The obviously never were racist because we had friends of multiple backgrounds, even some that were outspoken atheists.

This idea that people in religions are not open minded is crazy, people in general are not open minded, look at your comments bundling all religion into Christianity. Also putting a subgroup like the KKK into Christianity is moronic. Just because a hate group pretends to share a religious value with someone doesn't make everyone in that religion a hate monger.

I think I'm a good person I believe in Deism, I am religious and I'm not a racist or closed minded. I also don't believe that someone has to be brainwashed or crazy to believe in something. You have to be a pretty lonely person to believe in nothing(and by believing in nothing I don't mean atheism because I do believe they believe in something just not in a god).

Frankly I find your comments to be very close minded and closer to the akin of the KKK. You generalize people of any faith to be the same. You think them of lesser quality and you see them as "waste of skin." I see that as a huge hole in your logic.

Why can't people just be open minded and get along.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

You're just a coward who's too tolerant towards these superstitious dupes to have a little fun at their expense. I'm not your fellow member of some atheist kumbaya, and I'm not worried about your pious judgement of what I find amusing in mocking the bible. Besides, there's nothing about making a quick joke about the very same subject that the name of the comic mocks, and following it up with serious argument for those who want to argue about it, that makes "the rest of you" look bad. Whining like this makes you look bad: like there's some kind of "atheist agenda" that I'm revealing. I must have missed that revival meeting.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Well, because faith is a way of knowing things that are unknowable otherwise. We know direct experiences (including experience of deduction and other logic) as fact, by proof. We can also know those facts, that can be proven, but have not been personally, by belief (the vast majority of the facts we know). But there is info we cannot prove, no matter how hard we try or lucky we get, which can be known by only faith.

Some of that knowledge that faith alone can offer is some of the most important (depending on the answer). Life after death, omnipotent/omniscient persona, answerable prayers, mandatory consequences of moral behavior, specific prophecies, the nature of soul - all knowable only by faith (as they all require the existence and performance of metaphysical entities or phenomena, which by definition cannot be proven, and perhaps not even experienced, but could still exist). And then there's the big picture, where there seems likely to be more to existence (unlimited by the merely human mind) than to experience (which even science hints with deductions like Godel's incompleteness theorem, and rational philosophy indicates is an experiential incongruence to a larger existence).

Now, I'm all for a minimum of faith. Proof is reliable, belief is less so but workable (or we'd never get anywhere), but faith, though the only way to know metaphysics, is much less reliable. But since even proof and belief indicate there is metaphysics knowable by faith, that minimum is not zero. Unless you think metaphysics is of no interest, perhaps because faith is too unreliable for you to indulge (or perhaps because you're really just denying that some faith you cannot ignore is telling you answers you don't like).

So I appreciate faith's place in the grand scheme (of human life). I also know that we act out of mostly learned behavior, and even our instincts seem likely to favor faith (knowing the "unknowable" can be a survival mechanism, especially if you guessed right), so I respect all kinds of human idiosyncrasies, including faith itself.

I don't respect people who ignore the unreliability of faith, and its proven disastrous consequences when treated as proof (or even mere belief). When people tell others what to do or think because of their own faith, despite the faith (or its lack) of their targets, they've exceeded the reliability of faith. And of course any time faith contests proof, proof must always win (unless you have faith in supernatural con jobs). But faith is powerful, even if it can be treacherous. I refuse to abandon it just because it's risky. I just think anyone who's going to use it should understand its limits, and not play games exaggerating its power in face of stronger proof/belief when available, or just mistaking for faith what is really either mere belief or even just lazy failure to prove.

That attitude lets me know the most, with the least risk (and least risk of ignorance). And it also allows me to accept (some) people who operate (even primarily) on faith.. Some of them through history have done quite a lot to benefit me, even when their faith has (probably) been misplaced - doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, like perhaps some self-sacrifices that protected civilization or preserved useful (or just beautiful and harmless) ancient knowledge. And it lets me distinguish between those who are properly faithful, objectively, and those who are sloppily faithy.

If more people interested in faith evaluated it along these undeniable lines, we'd probably be better at practicing faith without the pitfalls. A little goes a long way, in an infinitesimal inverse proportion.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Smidge204]

Uh, yeah. You might want to do a little searching before you call me a member of some "atheist kumbaya." I made that post (and this one) because I think it's important to distance passionate athiests like myself from militant dickheads like you.

Clearly the "quick jokes" (which you didn't hesitate to expand into multi-paragraph essays) are wasted here. Your joke was an obvious troll and I'm sure you just couldn't wait to start shit over the word "bible" in a headline. There are plenty of opportunities to argue about religion in places where people who willing to argue are already looking to do so. It's bad enough that the jesus freaks take every opportunity to shove their bullshit superstitions in everyone's face and there's no advantage to acting the same way.

Also remember that the majority of the religious consider direct and rabid confrontation like yours to be reinforcing of their beliefs. Random bile spewing is not going to cure anyone of their delusions. If that wasn't your intention to begin with, which I suspect is what you're going to say, then you're just a run-of-the-mill non-theistic fuckwit. Have a nice day.

Go firebomb a church or something. I'm sure that'll teach 'em.
=Smidge=

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Fuck you. I posted a tangential joke, some people wanted to argue and even discuss the point rationally, and I had some fun doing all of it. Along the way it seemed some people either learned something (including me, as always when discussing something complex with reasonable strangers), or at least heard something new about something they're interested in.

And some people didn't like it, all of them (including you) uptight dogmatists who think everyone should think and act about religion the way they do.

I like direct confrontation, even when it's strong enough that pussies like you think it's "rabid" just because you're too coward to do it yourself. Nothing I've said is remotely like firebombing a church - that evil scene just popped out of your demented mind. Nothing "militant", "rabid", "bile spewing", or any of the other insane bullshit that actually describes what you are posting, you deranged, self-blind shitard.

If I cared what onlooking religious brainwashees thought about me, the way that evidently tortures you so much, I wouldn't be provoking this stupid conflict over my perfect right to mock the crudely superstitious while seriously discussing what's actually valuable in their oafish dogma. "Look at the atheists fighting, only Jesus can bring peace to pagans like them." But so what? If even a paranoid coward like you can throw distorted angry trolls at me because I dared to both mock blind faith and respect the real thing, then of course I'm perfectly righteous in talking legitimately about the joke that is religion at the expense of the gift that is faith.

I mean, what the fuck are you telling me, anyway? That I shouldn't provoke the brutes with little jokes and some reasoning, without taking any of their shit? Because somehow I'm firebombing a church? That I should keep quiet purely because you yelled at me with a bunch of strawmen and projected images of hysterical attack? You sound like you're trying to be a little voice in my head telling me how to morally conduct myself. I'm not tempted, because you're an obvious joke troll yourself.

Fuck you very much for your generous contribution.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Hatta]

What value is there in faith?

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Its value is irreplaceable, if unreliable.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Hatta]

Well, because faith is a way of knowing things that are unknowable otherwise.

Isn't it just arrogant to think that somehow you know these things that no one else does? Isn't there more to be gained by humility in admitting you don't know things and acting accordingly? After all, who's the bigger fool: the one who knows he's a fool or the one who doesn't?

And what if you're wrong? A great deal of evil is caused in this world by people who think they know what God wants.

I have faith in absolutely nothing. I have expectations, I make educated guesses. But none of that can be described as knowledge. I am ignorant about what happens after death. You are too. I fail to see what I stand to gain by denying that fact.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[m50d]

and on a further note, science has yet to ever be proven as fact. there's one assumption that is always made and can never be proven (just as one could say a higher power could never be proven, therefore you can only assume there is or there isn't); you assume that a cause will always have the same effect.

Au contraire. This can be, and is, tested, and to a certain extent this is done in every scientific experiment. Furthermore, what if that were provably false? It wouldn't kill science, at all - science would eventually discover it, and then go on to investigate why, and how, it happened. Contrast this with what would happen to a religion whose basic tenets were proven false.

the only reason people accept this as true is because no one has disproved it. repeated tests are only circumstantial tests at best.

Of course; you can't prove something universally. But it's a lot more reasonable to assume that this holds than that it holds in the particular locations we have tested it, and doesn't somewhere else. Occam's razor, and good sense. In a word, science.

believe my opinion is valid because no matter how much science you bring behind you, you will never be able to explain its creation

Go on and prove that. Less than 150 years ago there were people saying no matter how far science advanced it would never be able to explain what the stars were made of.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Your question was just a troll. Because it's obvious you didn't even read my answer.

If you read it, you'd see that I'm not claiming some exclusive province of "knowing the unknowable" that no one else can know. As I detailed, some knowledge is not provable. It's a class of knowledge that is metaphysical, so it cannot be proven. But it can be known by faith, even if any given faith-derived knowledge is probably wrong. But some probably isn't. And faith is the only way to know it.

Look, if you don't want to know whether there's experience after death, or whether prayers have any delocalized effect, or whether there's a moral behavior code beyond arbitary human constructs, and how any/all of that works (if indeed it does), that's your problem. But don't come to me with empty talk about "educated guesses", when you won't even bother trying to learn something you asked about, by reading my answer to your question.

Especially when even proof depends on principles of falsifiability and consistency, which are themselves articles of faith, as easily revealed when evaluated in their own terms. You're welcome to your own ignorance, but don't pretend that it's somehow knowledge, that you have and I don't.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[toriver]

I've always considered atheists to be religious,

You mean 100% atheists yes? Christians for instance are 99% atheists - there are hundreds of gods they do not believe in. Why is it so hard to understand that people can not believe in one more god than they do?

they seem to religiously believe that their is nothing in the universe and that the universe appeared by some miraculous event that no one can explain

Er, ever hear of the Big Bang theory? As good an explanation as science (not this strawman "atheism" you refer to) can come up with at present. You mean scientists looking for possible explanations is more religious than taking a fairy-tale non-answer provided by a nomadic tribe thousands of years ago as the truth?

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Hatta]

Your question was just a troll. Because it's obvious you didn't even read my answer.

I read it, I just saw a bunch of apologetics about how faith isn't really so bad and not so much on why faith is actually good.

As I detailed, some knowledge is not provable.

Then it's not knowledge.

But it can be known by faith, even if any given faith-derived knowledge is probably wrong. But some probably isn't. And faith is the only way to know it.

What's the value in "knowing" something that's probably wrong? If you act on those beliefs and they are wrong, isn't that likely to have negative consequences? Aren't you more likely to be better off if you withhold judgement and keep your options open?

Look, if you don't want to know whether there's experience after death,

I do, but the only way to find out is to die. I don't see any value in assuming an answer that's probably wrong anyway. If you do, I'd like to hear what it is.

whether prayers have any delocalized effect,

We don't need faith for that. We can test it.

Especially when even proof depends on principles of falsifiability and consistency, which are themselves articles of faith, as easily revealed when evaluated in their own terms.

Falsifiability and consistency are not mere articles of faith. They are important because they work. Adherence to these principles gets you results, real knowledge that is embodied in technology that works. Adherence to faith as a principle gets you what exactly?

You're welcome to your own ignorance, but don't pretend that it's somehow knowledge, that you have and I don't.

I could say the exact same thing to you.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[WNight]

How does it take faith to refuse to believe anything until you see proof?

I guess you could say that I believe it's a bad idea to blindly trust things. Only a religious person could equate examining things for yourself with blind faith.

Not people of any faith, people of any faith who open their mouths and let their faith be known. They're like racists, or idiots who don't know we're fighting a war with their tax dollars. Stupid enough to need to be called on it.

If you still believe in sky fairies you probably believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy, Speed Racer, Peter Pan, and all manner of fiction. Or if not, your rationale for choosing one over the other should be amusing. The world isn't for children. If you do believe any of these things you'd better hope that someone cares enough for you to make you feel bad by insulting your faith and wakes you up to reality.

Talking to invisible friends is textbook insanity. Believing god will help you is as damaging as believing homeopathic remedies work, that there's a system for winning the lottery, or that raping children cures aids. All of those ideas have been proven to be wrong, and yet have destroyed families and killed people. Why subscribe to any of them?

Yes, I do generalize all people of faith to be like the KKK - they take the religious orders to be more important than what they see or feel for themselves. They have a higher purpose that can motivate them to do anything in this world, however horrid or dangerous. They abdicate all responsibility for their actions. To fully godwin, they act just like the nazis who were following orders.

Maybe not all religious people are suicide bombers or holy warriors, but that's only because they didn't get a religion that preached that - they certainly aren't exercising critical thinking skills and choosing their own actions or they would be religious. Have whatever philosophy you wish, but when it crosses the line to invisible friends it crosses the line to insanity.

To be religious is pretty much synonymous with not being responsible your own actions.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

So you deny that metaphysics is knowledge. What is the answer to the question "does god exist"? Either yes or no, it's knowledge. That cannot be proven. That could be either right or wrong, but is nevertheless knowledge.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[JynXed]

and on a further note, science has yet to ever be proven as fact. there's one assumption that is always made and can never be proven (just as one could say a higher power could never be proven, therefore you can only assume there is or there isn't); you assume that a cause will always have the same effect. the only reason people accept this as true is because no one has disproved it. repeated tests are only circumstantial tests at best. don't get me wrong, i fully believe that science is true, but i'm just saying, there's still the same amount of assumption as there is with a higher power and even moreover, you can believe both science and in a higher power. they are not mutually exclusive. I agree with you to a point, but I must say that science is the closest we've got in terms of measurement towards "fact". Of course it depends on your criteria for "fact" and for something to be "proven". But science brings with it a peer-reviewed and largely-agreed-upon set of criteria for which we may measure facts and "proofs" as evidence in seeking witnessed patterns. Using science as a tool (along with all of the tools within science, ie: empirical method, etc) we can aid our own predictive analysis and make workable assumptions/assertions about reality. It seems to me your sentiment is that science does not necessarily bring us to some sort of ultimate buck-stops-here truth. I agree completely with this. Everything you can think of in whichever language you have your thoughts in will be like this. It would take reality itself to properly understand reality, 1:1 ratio. The map is not the territory. When you really think about it though, science is what brings us to the closest approximation in reality-pattern-recognition when weighed against ANY other tool(s) we have at our disposal. Reality is chaos, and we can never hope to understand it in its entirety... we can only slice it up and look at it bit-by-bit until we can reasonably assume (via methods and peer review) we see the patterns. Or at least as close of approximation as possible. Personally I believe that science and God are (or perhaps Should Be) mutually exclusive. When they are inclusive, God becomes a default end-point for anything that is outside of your current understanding. This is nothing more than a comfort blankey we keep around ourselves to shelter us from the sheer uncertainty we truly face on a day-to-day basis. Science doesn't actually have much to say about God. That would be the meta-physics department which should be viewed as more of a "testing ground" for theories and hypothesis, not as our closest approximation (science) of reality. It's mostly full of speculation whichever way you look at it. Science is a tool for our outward exploration. Religion is a tool for our inward exploration. The only role religion has to play in science is within Social Sciences, which is its own bag of fun, seperate from the core sciences. People who look to religion for outward exploration are, IMO, stuck holding onto their security blankets, afraid of not-knowing.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Hatta]

Ok, so for the sake of argument metaphysics can be considered knowledge. But it's knowledge that's probably wrong. Knowledge that at best is irrelevant to life, and at worst extremely dangerous. Where is the value in this "knowledge"?

Re:Mythical Bibles

[mav[LAG]]

Proving the bible's stories are true is also besides the point, if the point is faith. Because faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven, not just because they're too inconvenient to do so on a given night.

Nah - the koine Greek word for faith is pistis which means either forensic proof, assurance based on a track record or faithfulness. It does not mean some vague belief in unknowable nonsense which is why you find the authors of the new testament documents constantly exhorting their audience to use their eyes and ears and go check things out for themselves.

I'm just going to point out that the value of the bible, other than in some of its rules for humane behavior (certainly not all of them, like stoning so many people), is in its myths, as myths.

There are plenty of scholars of ancient literature who will be mightily impressed if you would share these textual discoveries with them. Or they might just laugh at you. Hint: the great myths and the Bible have precious little in common liguistically, stylistically or historically.

Because myths require faith. If its all proven, there's no faith left, just routine knowledge. And if you destroy faith with your defense of the bible, then you're entirely missing the point of god.

The God of the bible has revealed more than enough evidence for people who want to trust him. There is absolutely no chance Christianity would have survived if its founders had started making claims that were trivially falsifiable by the authorities of the day. That's incredibly powerful evidence for me (and I've studied it for decades as well as all the other evidence). So does that now mean I trusted the evidence by just cutting off my head and hoping for the best? I think not.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[LWATCDR]

Funny I know I have seen bibles in the store.
The Bible is real. The contents of the bible contains some facts and many parables.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[PJ1216]

Au contraire. This can be, and is, tested, and to a certain extent this is done in every scientific experiment. when was cause and effect tested beyond a doubt? (notice the lack of of the word "reasonable," because for absolute certainty, you have to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever).

Of course; you can't prove something universally. But it's a lot more reasonable to assume that this holds than that it holds in the particular locations we have tested it, and doesn't somewhere else. Occam's razor, and good sense. In a word, science. you seem to be using an arbitrary usage of the word reasonable. plus, i never was referring to location. i was referring to repeatability. you can repeat an experiment a billion times, but you technically you cannot prove beyond any doubt that it will occur the same way every time after that. each experiment only proves that during the time you tested it, whatever idea or theory you were testing still held true. however, just because it was true before does not mean it will be true forever. plus, science gets rewritten over and over again. nothing is ever true for that long. what was true yesterday may not be true today. could science just be a religion that isn't afraid to change its mind when faced with new knowledge?

Go on and prove that. Less than 150 years ago there were people saying no matter how far science advanced it would never be able to explain what the stars were made of. anecdotal evidence is not proof, its completely circumstantial. right now, science really can't explain to any degree of certainty whatsoever what was in existence before the creation of the universe. just because we held that something in the past was unknowable, but figured it out, does not mean that every single thing we run into in the future will be explainable. i know that we do not know it now nor do we have any way of knowing. i'm am fully capable of changing my mind in light of new evidence. but until someone gives me a simpler explanation than a higher being (not God, but a higher being) putting forth such an improbable scenario such as existence, then fine. its true that other people may go too far and what not, but when it comes down to it, i'm not close minded enough to think that science is infallible. i won't close my mind to anything, i'll just pick what seems to be the best explanation at the time. there's nothing wrong with changing your mind.
you're fine in believing what you want. i just don't think you should be so close minded as to say someone else is incorrect because obviously your set of beliefs is definitely the correct one and to say it with such certainty. though, don't get me wrong, i don't think any of this alternative way of thinking should *EVER* be taught in science, because it is definitely without a doubt not science.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

The value is to those who, through faith, guess right. Without which faith no one will guess at all, so no one will be right.

Metaphysical questions are not irrelevant to life, depending on their right answers. The right answers can be extremely valuable, perhaps of paramount value (depending on what they are).

As I said, faith is not to be abused by people without admitting its unreliability. But that kind of probabilistic uncertainty, though not simple or easy, is exactly what life is really like. To deny it is to ignore some of the essence of life.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[m50d]

when was cause and effect tested beyond a doubt? (notice the lack of of the word "reasonable," because for absolute certainty, you have to prove beyond any doubt whatsoever).

It wasn't; nothing can be proven beyond a doubt. But it was proven firmly enough to be accepted as fact.

i never was referring to location. i was referring to repeatability. you can repeat an experiment a billion times, but you technically you cannot prove beyond any doubt that it will occur the same way every time after that. each experiment only proves that during the time you tested it, whatever idea or theory you were testing still held true.

Everything I said still holds true though - apply Occam's Razor.

plus, science gets rewritten over and over again. nothing is ever true for that long.

False. Although new theories arise, the predictions made by the previous ones remain accurate across a huge domain - it's only in the newest areas that the theories disagree. You could live well based on the state of science at any point over the last century.

could science just be a religion that isn't afraid to change its mind when faced with new knowledge?

Well, no, because it doesn't have all the usual attributes of a religion.

anecdotal evidence is not proof, its completely circumstantial

If you're disputing the truth of my statement I'll find a source; do you actually not believe me, or are you just complaining to make yourself look better?

i'm am fully capable of changing my mind in light of new evidence. but until someone gives me a simpler explanation than a higher being (not God, but a higher being) putting forth such an improbable scenario such as existence, then fine.

The universe coming spontaneously into existence is a more satisfactory explanation - a higher being only makes things worse, because you now have to explain the existence of the higher being, and the higher being gives no explanatory power or ability to make predictions.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

We're not playing word games. We're talking about the only way to know metaphysics. You can assert there's no chance Christianity would have survived with "trivially falsifiable claims", but that's a straw man that I never said. What shows even that strawman is nothing but your assertion is that you'd have to concede the same about other religions that are as old as, and older than, Christianity, and plenty that are younger, about which the same can be said, but

The bible indeed has much in common with other myths, including various ones popular among early Christians but out of sight for the last 3/4 or more of their history, even if you're referring to just the New Testament. It's far from the only messiah myth, the only martyr myth. The Osiris cycle, well known throughout the region that first believed the Christian bible, is a blueprint for the mortal divine sacrificed to rise again and take the blessed followers along with him. The list goes on and on.

So I don't know just what "evidence" and myths you've been studying the past decades, and how you've magically found "all the other evidence" from a couple millennia ago, but it doesn't really matter. You clearly are using some other way of knowing these things than proof. That's your faith, your business, but you're not going to fool me just by using the words with which we accurately describe factual knowledge.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[superflyguy]

While I agree that religion lacks the kind of proof science relies on, you're begging the question by assuming that scientific proof is the only valid type of proof. However, the scientific method is incredibly limited: it tells us what has happened under a given set of conditions, relies on our extrapolations, interpretations, and re-testing. Science cannot prove that the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon, and it cannot prove that we're here because we evolved from single-celled organisms. It cannot prove that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, it can only prove that it has not been reliably measured traveling at a different speed. There's only so much science can prove, and beyond that things must be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, the same standard that is supposed to be used in court. I believe that I know my religion is right, but I admit that it's possible I'm wrong about that. I have studied my the evidence for and against my religion enough to know that while my belief is in the realm of faith, that faith is based on facts. While I cannot scientifically prove the superiority of my God (I believe I have to wait for Him to do that), it is possible to have compelling evidence based in science and 'know' something strictly outside the realm of science.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[PJ1216]

It wasn't; nothing can be proven beyond a doubt. But it was proven firmly enough to be accepted as fact. Occam's Razor is not a law. Occam's Razor has been, can be, and will be wrong at times. "All things being equal, the simplest solution TENDS to be the right one." please stop spouting on about Occam's Razor as if it really held any water.

and no, it has not been proven to be accepted as fact. if it were fact, it wouldn't be disputable in any school of thought... which unfortunately is not the case. show me an experiment where it has been proven. some scientists have even hypothesized that we may have it backwards a effects may cause the cause. hell, people aren't even completely agreed on time in this aspect. so, no. cause and effect are NOT fact. they are as solid as evolution. so, while i tend to think that cause and effect most likely are true or at least close to being some form of truth and therefore will base my assumptions on the world on it, i will not say its absolute fact. we might very well be wrong.

False. Although new theories arise, the predictions made by the previous ones remain accurate across a huge domain - it's only in the newest areas that the theories disagree. You could live well based on the state of science at any point over the last century. Being close does not mean its true. Newton's Laws are "good enough," but they actually fall apart at a certain point. So, while they may be good enough to apply today, there's no reason to think that in the future they'll still apply.

Well, no, because it doesn't have all the usual attributes of a religion. i'm surprised you've come up with a concrete list of what defines a religion. are you going to give a list of what qualifies as art next?

If you're disputing the truth of my statement I'll find a source; do you actually not believe me, or are you just complaining to make yourself look better? I didn't say what you said was wrong. I was referring to the logical fallacy of using anecdotal evidence as proof. Just because it happened on occasion does not mean it will always happen. Here's a mathematical analogy: extrapolating a line from a single point. It really can't be done.

The universe coming spontaneously into existence is a more satisfactory explanation - a higher being only makes things worse, because you now have to explain the existence of the higher being, and the higher being gives no explanatory power or ability to make predictions. i don't have to explain the existence of the higher being. that existence is outside the realm of my own. i do not, nor will i ever claim to be capable of understanding something that exists completely outside of our reality. i don't have to bother with explaining their existence, only mine for now. one step at a time. we cannot apply our logic outside of its own bounds. logic exists as a system within this universe. trying to apply it outside of it doesn't make sense. So i'm done with just saying something else created existence. i'll leave it to the entit(y/ies) that created existence to ponder their own existence.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[yndrd1984]

Nah - the koine Greek word for faith is pistis which means either forensic proof, assurance based on a track record or faithfulness.

Which makes no difference. If the word "God" came from the Latin word for delusion, it wouldn't have any effect on whether God exists or not. The word "Slavic" shares a root with "slave", but you wouldn't use that fact to defend keeping them as slaves, would you? Besides, the meanings of words change over time.

... authors of the new testament documents constantly exhorting their audience to use their eyes and ears and go check things out for themselves.

Then they can't get upset when I use the evidence I have to conclude that religion is a product of psychology.

Or they might just laugh at you. Hint: the great myths and the Bible have precious little in common liguistically, stylistically or historically.

All that means is that Greco-Roman and Middle-Eastern myths have systematic differences. They both use supernatural events to explain natural ones, push a certain moral outlook, inspire positive emotions and soothe negative ones, etc.

There is absolutely no chance Christianity would have survived if its founders had started making claims that were trivially falsifiable by the authorities of the day.

That's absurd. 9/11 conspiracy theorists still think that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to bring down the towers - ignoring the fact that steel looses strength when it gets hot even if it doesn't melt. Anti-immunization people still think that MMRs cause autism, despite the clear evidence that they don't. And those exist in a modern, literate, educated culture! And look at "sleeping with a virgin will cure AIDS", "AIDS was developed by westerners", "condoms don't stop AIDS" - all from Africa on a single topic. And you think that Christianity wouldn't survive because it made potentially disprovable claims?!?!?

Mormonism survived a beginning as unlikely as Christianity (persecution, miracles that supposedly had evidence for a time, wacky beliefs, etc) and now they've got strong influence in a US state, BYU, missionaries worldwide, and a presidential candidate in a major party. Heck, if Mitt becomes president and inspires converts, they'll have almost exactly duplicated the rise of Christianity. Do you find that "incredibly powerful evidence" for Mormonism?

Re:Mythical Bibles

[mav[LAG]]

We're not playing word games. We're talking about the only way to know metaphysics.

You're the one playing word games. You claim:

* faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven
* the bible's value is as something mythological that needs to be accepted blindly
* accepting the bible by defending the evidence for its reliability is missing the point

But faith did not - and does not - mean that in the documents. It means the kind of hard nosed questioning and scepticism about evidence and eyewitness testimony that is constantly appealed to by the early christians. Sorry if it upends your preconceptions. Maybe you should study more.

The bible indeed has much in common with other myths, including various ones popular among early Christians but out of sight for the last 3/4 or more of their history, even if you're referring to just the New Testament. It's far from the only messiah myth, the only martyr myth. The Osiris cycle, well known throughout the region that first believed the Christian bible, is a blueprint for the mortal divine sacrificed to rise again and take the blessed followers along with him. The list goes on and on.

The bible incorporates no mythical elements and has no contents that could remotely be described as myth. Osiris was not sacrificed, did not rise again and did not take his blessed followers along with him. Maybe you should study more.

As for the long list of pagan copycat saviours, by all means post it so I can shred it.

So I don't know just what "evidence" and myths you've been studying the past decades, and how you've magically found "all the other evidence" from a couple millennia ago, but it doesn't really matter.

Amazingly, plenty of people were there at the time and some of them even wrote down what happened. Even more amazingly, those documents survive and all evidence we have points to them being both textually and historically reliable. Maybe you should study more.

You clearly are using some other way of knowing these things than proof.

What exactly would be proof to you? I study eyewitness testimony, accounts from both friendly and hostile sources, scientific fields like carbon dating and archaeology and make decisions based on the weight of evidence - the way a court of law works.

That's your faith, your business, but you're not going to fool me just by using the words with which we accurately describe factual knowledge.

Using your definition of factual knowledge, you wouldn't be able to prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was a real person.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[m50d]

Occam's Razor is not a law. Occam's Razor has been, can be, and will be wrong at times. "All things being equal, the simplest solution TENDS to be the right one." please stop spouting on about Occam's Razor as if it really held any water.

Occam's Razor is very much a law; it's the only thing that stops us believing in a chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter. Of course it is occasionally wrong, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that it's wrong here, because it is right in almost all cases.

so, no. cause and effect are NOT fact. they are as solid as evolution.

Or gravity, or any piece of history you care to name, or the fact that there is a world outside our heads. If you define a fact to be that which is absolutely impossible to dispute, then there is no such thing as a fact.

Being close does not mean its true. Newton's Laws are "good enough," but they actually fall apart at a certain point. So, while they may be good enough to apply today, there's no reason to think that in the future they'll still apply.

Yes there is - the fact that they've been experimentally verified across a huge domain. The planets didn't stop following their orbits when Einstein's laws replaced Newton's.

i'm surprised you've come up with a concrete list of what defines a religion. are you going to give a list of what qualifies as art next?

If you like.

i don't have to explain the existence of the higher being. that existence is outside the realm of my own.

Then how can you claim it explains anything inside your own existence?

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Culture]

You are the type of person whom I respect, as I discussed. However, keep in mind that I have met, and you probably have also, people of all religious stripes who "know" they are correct, the same way that you do.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[PJ1216]

Occam's Razor is NOT a law. It's a belief. You can't PROVE Occam's Razor. Just because it stops us from believing there is a chocolate teapot orbiting Jupiter does not make it a law. It just keeps things in the realm of practicality which is a convenience more than anything.

history isn't necessarily fact. You can't actually prove that everything isn't happening instantaneously or that memories are made up, etc, etc, etc.

Your comment about Einstein's Law replacing Newton's, I'll just respond again with anecdotal evidence. You can't rule out the possibility something out there will just cause it to fall apart when applied to it. I don't claim to know the existence of everything in the universe. There could be something that affects physics in such a way that most of our laws collapse. So, while they may hold together here and now to the point that its practical to assume its a fact, there's still a chance that its assuming a bunch of things are constants which very well may not be.

if you have a made a test of what qualifies as art and what doesn't, i'm pretty sure it'd be pointless to continue this conversation.

This universe is a subset of whatever else is out there (if anything). A subset can fall under the same governing rules as the entire set. However, the rules that govern the superset may not apply to all its subsets.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

No, you're just bound up in your book in the typically circular reasoning of people of "faith" who aren't so good as people of "proof", even in recognizing the limits of proof.

You have no more ability to prove that Osiris did not rise from the dead than you can prove that Jesus did. Unless you call "proof" the words written in records that survive today as hearsay. There's larger amounts of evidence for longer times supporting Osiris' claims than Jesus'. But the point is that Osiris' story predates Jesus', as do so many others prefiguring bible stories. If anyone was a copycat, it was whoever retold Osiris' story with Jesus' name edited in. You're not going to convince me you're an expert in ancient evidence when you evidently believe that Jesus' life predated the Osiris myth that was still popular in the Egypt that Jesus' parents reportedly lived in, though it was already old by then.

Just because your documents talk about faith in a way that doesn't benefit from, say, logical positivism's universally accurate distinctions between science and metaphysics, doesn't mean that they're talking about experience in a way that contradicts me. See, this is how actual arguments about reality, not about authority, work. I'm not talking about whether your documents describe faith differently. If you can show me how the existence of an omnipotent god is disprovable, therefore not a matter of "faith" as I described it, then you've got something. If all you've got is impressing me that a traditional story on paper, you don't have anything speaking about facts. You've got a story that could be a matter of belief, because its claims could be disproven if you were there in person. But until you talk about the actual subject I'm talking about, knowing that which cannot be disproven (however unreliable the knowledge), you're playing word games by calling something else faith that is so only in an archaism, a semantic trick.

Amazingly, the only way you know that there was anyone there at the time to actually have the direct experience that constitutes actual proof is that you read it in a book. A book produced by 2000 years of political power based on the book. Millennia of more or less absolute power by an emperor on Earth representing the heaven he needed the book to say he represented. So unless you've got a god's honest "miracle" like a 2000 year old apostle who can replace reduce faith (merely accepting something unprovable) with some belief (that they can't prove they experienced it 2000 years ago, but at least I'd be accepting it from someone who might have an actual experienced fact), then fact has nothing to do with what you can offer at this time.

Using your definition of factual knowledge and proof, I'd like you to prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was a real person. I accept that he was, because our ways of knowing facts require quite a great deal of acceptance of facts that could possibly be proven with enough technology (eg. I could have an extremely powerful telescope, and point it at a very shiny object 75 light years away, and actually see a tall US politician signing his name and making speeches, or never see him appear where Lincoln appeared, such as at the White House or Ford's Theatre), which makes his existence a matter of fact (however true or false), But even if I trained the scope on Jerusalem's reflection in a 1000 light year distant object, I still couldn't disprove an omnipotent god, because everything that allegedly happened could be produced by a trick I could expose, or some high (though ultimately limited) tech. Or even appear to happen "naturally", but still without possibly disproving an omnipotent god, who could be just powerful enough to arrange "natural" explanations of everything that allegedly happened.

All of which, as I said, misses the point of faith. The faith that I'm talking about. If your belief in god, along with the reported miracles, is defined by the purely mundane, non-supernatural nature of that entity and its physical manifestations, then y

Re:Mythical Bibles

[mav[LAG]]

No, you're just bound up in your book in the typically circular reasoning of people of "faith" who aren't so good as people of "proof", even in recognizing the limits of proof.

If I've used circular reasoning, by all means point it out. Otherwise you're just using standard arguments based on your flawed conception of what faith is - without bothering to read what I've written.

You have no more ability to prove that Osiris did not rise from the dead than you can prove that Jesus did.

Well, Osiris's followers never claimed he did so that would be news to them - not to mention offensive.

Unless you call "proof" the words written in records that survive today as hearsay.

You mean like Abraham Lincoln? We have four biographies of him too - all hearsay - plus all sorts of evidence in history for his life and works.

But the point is that Osiris' story predates Jesus', as do so many others prefiguring bible stories.

Can you give examples that would hold water for more than 30 seconds? Sceptics have been trying for hundreds of years. They'll flock to your door/website/whatever if you can. You'll be famous.

If anyone was a copycat, it was whoever retold Osiris' story with Jesus' name edited in.

For someone so concerned with the fact of facts, you're remarkably loose with them. Osiris and Jesus have almost nothing in common with their lives, deaths, teachings, claims or followers. But again - I encourage you to take your findings to your nearest sceptic. They'll welcome you with open arms. Hard nosed scientists who take decades to dig up the Middle East for a living won't be interested, but hey - they're more interested in, er, facts.

You're not going to convince me you're an expert in ancient evidence when you evidently believe that Jesus' life predated the Osiris myth that was still popular in the Egypt that Jesus' parents reportedly lived in, though it was already old by then.

Where did I say that Jesus' life predated the Osiris myth? Oh I see - if something is older it must be truer? Well the coming of Jesus is hinted at several times right at the beginning of the biblical account if that's any consolation. And if you have any evidence of your laughable theory about Egypt and his parents, rush to the nearest sceptic with it.

Just because your documents talk about faith in a way that doesn't benefit from, say, logical positivism's universally accurate distinctions between science and metaphysics, doesn't mean that they're talking about experience in a way that contradicts me.

It's much much simpler than that. The early christians who were mainly simple tradesmen were convinced that their master rose bodily from the dead. Is there any evidence for this? Yes, a staggering amount of eyewitness accounts, mentions by other sources and archaeological findings. Did those early followers wander around the ANE discussing the fine distinctions between science and metaphysics?

Besides, I thought logical positivism had serious problems with some scientific statements, most of quantum mechanics for example.

See, this is how actual arguments about reality, not about authority, work.

Really? Your knowledge of the facts of the lives of Jesus and Osiris seems remarkably ill-informed so far.

Using your definition of factual knowledge and proof, I'd like you to prove to me that Abraham Lincoln was a real person. I accept that he was, because our ways of knowing facts require quite a great deal of acceptance of facts that could possibly be proven with enough technology (eg. I could have an extremely powerful telescope, and point it at a very shiny object 75 light years away, and actually see a tall US politician signing his name and making speeches, or never see him appear where Lincoln appeared, such as at the White House or Ford's Theatre), which makes his existence a matter of fact (however true or false)

I'm sure historians everywhere will be ecstatic at th

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Osiris was believed to die and be reborn as Horus. Look it up.

Doc Ruby: The bible indeed has much in common with other myths, including various ones popular among early Christians but out of sight for the last 3/4 or more of their history, even if you're referring to just the New Testament. It's far from the only messiah myth, the only martyr myth. The Osiris cycle, well known throughout the region that first believed the Christian bible, is a blueprint for the mortal divine sacrificed to rise again and take the blessed followers along with him. The list goes on and on.

mav[LAG]: The bible incorporates no mythical elements and has no contents that could remotely be described as myth. Osiris was not sacrificed, did not rise again and did not take his blessed followers along with him. Maybe you should study more.

As for the long list of pagan copycat saviours, by all means post it so I can shred it.

That's where you claimed that the Osiris myth was a copy of the Jesus myth. Yet the Osiris myth predated the Jesus myth. Of course you'll disagree, with some semantics, or maybe just some more circular references where you cite today's bible to prove today's bible. You don't even seem to understand that in fact Lincoln's existence, while it can be readily accepted, cannot be proven the way that your existence can be proven, but could be proven in a way that god's existence cannot be proven.

You've been doing this "for decades". Yet your defense is the most trivially dismissed. You will perfectly obviously learn nothing from my further efforts in more detail of what's already made clear, and is pretty simple anyway. And I certainly cannot learn anything from more exposure to your kind of representations that pass for "scholarship", but ceased being convincing as such towards the late Middle Ages.

We're done here. Maybe we'll meet again - who knows?

Re:Mythical Bibles

[mav[LAG]]

Osiris was believed to die and be reborn as Horus. Look it up.

I have. Try here too.

That's where you claimed that the Osiris myth was a copy of the Jesus myth. Yet the Osiris myth predated the Jesus myth. Of course you'll disagree, with some semantics, or maybe just some more circular references where you cite today's bible to prove today's bible.

I didn't and I won't - still waiting for some circular references that I've used.

You don't even seem to understand that in fact Lincoln's existence, while it can be readily accepted, cannot be proven the way that your existence can be proven, but could be proven in a way that god's existence cannot be proven.

And this is a meaningful distinction how exactly? Especially when you're talking about a historical figure who claimed be God.

You've been doing this "for decades". Yet your defense is the most trivially dismissed

You can believe that if you like.

And I certainly cannot learn anything from more exposure to your kind of representations that pass for "scholarship", but ceased being convincing as such towards the late Middle Ages.

That's rich from someone who doesn't even know the basics about Jesus or Osiris or Horus. The scholarship I was referring to was modern stuff from people like William Ramsay who spent most of his life verifying that Luke was the most reliable historian who ever lived.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[m50d]

Occam's Razor is NOT a law. It's a belief. You can't PROVE Occam's Razor.

Of course you can, because it's empiricly testable by repeated observation.

history isn't necessarily fact. You can't actually prove that everything isn't happening instantaneously or that memories are made up, etc, etc, etc.

Au contraire, it is fact, in spite of the second part of your statement. Why would the term "fact" even exist if there was nothing to which it applied?

Your comment about Einstein's Law replacing Newton's, I'll just respond again with anecdotal evidence. You can't rule out the possibility something out there will just cause it to fall apart when applied to it.

But it's not just the one case of gravity, it's every scientific theory in history. Yes, there is that possibility, just as there is with any fact - but it's a vanishingly small one.

This universe is a subset of whatever else is out there (if anything). A subset can fall under the same governing rules as the entire set. However, the rules that govern the superset may not apply to all its subsets.

Uh, that's entirely false. A subset by its very nature remains a part of the larger set, and so everything that applies to the larger set applies to the smaller.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[PJ1216]

Occam's Razor is NOT a law. It's a belief. You can't PROVE Occam's Razor. Of course you can, because it's empiricly testable by repeated observation. For something to be shown false, a counterexample has to be shown. Do you really need me to show you counterexamples to Occam's Razor? Occam's Razor is a tool used to keep things practical. My beliefs are NOT practical. In all honesty, my believing in a higher power gives no benefit or disadvantage to my existence. My beliefs are just that. Yes, it very well may be true that we're all a part of somebody's dream, but it doesn't ultimately help us. It's better to try and keep things simple and arrive at practical conclusions that we can use to generalize and utilize various bits of knowledge.

Uh, that's entirely false. A subset by its very nature remains a part of the larger set, and so everything that applies to the larger set applies to the smaller. it's probably my fault for using the wrong terminology. I really shouldn't have used it like i did. Let me explain it another way in case you weren't able to get what i meant. Hypothetically, I can create a virtual reality machine with completely different physical rules inside it then outside it. It exists within our reality but OUR rules don't apply inside. Think the matrix sort of. that's what i really meant. i wasn't very clear with it and i apologize. if i want to keep the same analogy, i'd have to instead say that rules that apply in our subset don't necessarily apply in the superset (logic, reasoning, cause & effect, etc. don't have to exist outside our reality).

by the way, just for fun, i just NEED to do this:

Why would the term "fact" even exist if there was nothing to which it applied? why would the term "God" exist? I'm not saying God exists (I don't believe he does) but I'm trying to just show how that's definitely faulty reasoning. How about the (original) term "ether"? It was believed that there was this substance that covered all living things (or everything... i can't remember) and i don't really remember what it was for, but it was supposed to be an intangible material substance that made up the heavenly bodies (it was the fifth element). Now, most people these days would find it silly to believe in such a thing (i don't, though that doesn't mean its not there), but according to your logic, since we have a word for it, it must exist.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[pev]

Do you realise that your argument just validated Scientology?

~Pev

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

It's not the complete argument about faith. It's just a narrow explanation of faith's vulnerability to proof, which suggests that Scientology is a con, because it's talk about aliens is all testable, falsifiable. Scientology's very claims that it's not "supernatural" are precisely why it's not really a church, but just a science fiction fanclub (with tax exemptions and annoyingly cute nerds).

A more complete argument about faith points out that faith must always yield to proof. But proof has limits that leave faith the only way to know some knowledge that is not fact, but could still be very important. Scientology is a way of knowing that someone's a kook, or just willing to lie about their soul to get a tax break (and maybe spite their shrink).

You want "metaphysics" that validates Scientology? Now you're talking about Intelligent Design.

The Diamond Age

[Anonymous Coward]

'There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page...' If you've read The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, it's all laid out in there. Nano technology makes nearly everything possible, and at the same time makes nearly everything ubiquitous and therefore worthless. The only true things of value are those labor intensive things made by hand. You can already see the trend developing in our current world, despite being decades, possibly centuries away from the technology written about in the book. The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps. Analog is unique. Digital is common, unexceptional, vulgar. Film and real fiber prints will become prized possessions. The same future lies ahead for bound paper books.

Re:The Diamond Age

[michaelmalak]

The biggest contributors to real price inflation (in contrast to the BLS' cooked figures) are healthcare, education, and housing, all of which have been increasing at double-digit rates.

All three are labor-intensive. In addition to labor, housing is also dependent upon land values. Which brings up a saying by the people from India, "Buy gold and land because they're not making any more."

So there you have it. Everything is cheap now except for labor, gold, and land.

Re:The Diamond Age

[Dirtside]

The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps.

Er, I don't think more than a tiny, tiny fraction of people engage in those activities. That's not really an indicator that people as a whole are finding more value in analog than digital.

Film and real fiber prints will become prized possessions.

If that's the case, it'll only be because of their rarity, and only because for some reason there are people who will pay a lot for a rare item even if it has no functional or useful (or even particular aesthetic) value.

Nostalgia's all warm and fuzzy, sure, but eventually people who can't help clinging to the past get old and die, and the rest of us can move on.

Re:The Diamond Age

[Atario]

I know you! You're David Cross's character in this sketch!

Re:The Diamond Age

[joto]

While I agree with your argument (it's far from everybody who prefers vinyl to CDs or film to digital cameras), I must disagree with the proposition that it's only for nostalgic reasons. Film cameras are still objectively "better" than digital cameras, when you consider contrast and colour-balance and all that. And tube amps certainly have their uses, e.g. if you want the "warm analog" sound (which you can then easily record on to a CD). [By the way: It's not that the "warm analog" sound is a more accurate sound reproduction, it's only there when you abuse the electronics, but it's certainly more pleasant than the failure mode of digital electronics.]

The old saying "they don't make stuff like this today" is often true. Progress means the price goes down, and the product is thus available for more consumers, but still good enough for most. Some people however, are willing to pay extra, either in money or convenience, in order to get the "best", which often are what they made in the old days.

However, other things are better explained through fashion. People don't by vinyl because it's better. People buy vinyl for the same reason your grandfather always used a tie. It's the fashion.

Re:The Diamond Age

[cromar]

In THE FUTURE... gold and land will be worthless. Land will be worth what you gotta pay your malitia!

Re:The Diamond Age

[iminplaya]

"Buy gold and land because they're not making any more."

Obviously those people have never been to Hawai`i, or Iceland.

Re:The Diamond Age

[iminplaya]

If that's the case, it'll only be because of their rarity...

It should be because of their proven durability and low maintenance requirements. In its present state, digital doesn't even compare in that department. Clinging to the past may turn out to be very useful in this case.

Re:The Diamond Age

[remmelt]

>> The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps.

> Er, I don't think more than a tiny, tiny fraction of people engage in those activities.

I'm sure you are aware that pretty much any recorded electric guitar is played through a tube amp?

Re:The Diamond Age

[c6gunner]

Film cameras are still objectively "better" than digital cameras, when you consider contrast and colour-balance and all that.

Hardly. Modern SLR's are every bit as capable as any old film camera, and they're a thousand times more convenient, versatile, and forgiving. I can go out, snap 500 pictures, come back home, throw them on to the computer in RAW format, throw out the pics I don't want, adjust the colour balance on the ones I like without any quality loss, and have a dozen excellent quality snaps, all in an hour or two. And I guarantee that if we compared the pics between a film camera and a digital SLR, you either wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, or you'd pick the digital photos as being the better of the bunch. Anyone who's worked in photography will tell you that digital is the only way to go.

Ditto for tube amps. It's true that right now the majority of artists still use them, but the main reasons for it is that:

a) Most of them grew up with analog equipment
b) The majority of the brand-name amps are analog, and in the music biz image counts for as much as sound
c) Indie bands which are just starting out can't afford brand-new equipment, so they end up with stuff that's 15+ years old (hence, analog).

I guarantee you could get just as good a sound out of digital equipment as you can out of analog, but due to the nature of the music industry there isn't all that much demand for digital equipment. This is changing, of course, as more younger artists enter the business, and more and more technicians become comfortable working with digital equipment. I guarantee that in 30 years tube amps will be a rarity.

Re:The Diamond Age

[soupforare]

This is slashdot, so sweeping generalizations are to be expected, but that's just silly. Even when solid state amps were new they were used on records, and they've certainly come a long way since then. The Roland Jazz Chorus is one of the best amps ever made and it's not tube.
These days, a lot of people record with a small SS practice amp or just direct-in. Then apply effects in the box or re-amp the signal through different rigs to see what they can get. If it sounds good, it sounds good; it doesn't have to be, and sure as hell isn't required to be, tube.

Re:The Diamond Age

[Bill Dog]

"Paaaaper. Have you ever seen paper? Look at it. Smell it."

I guess I'd best be saving it, for a special trade.

Re:The Diamond Age

[MartinB]

Film cameras are still objectively "better" than digital cameras, when you consider contrast and colour-balance and all that.

I guarantee that if we compared the pics between a film camera and a digital SLR, you either wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, or you'd pick the digital photos as being the better of the bunch.

To enlarge (ouch, sorry) on this a bit: there is more quality sensitivity in the *optics* and the *output method* than in the image capture method.

I use Canon EOS film and digital bodies with a range of lenses, plus a point and shoot for take-to-the-pub/allow-children-to-use convenience.

Now, if I compare the film prints from a consumer lab with the digital output, I know I'll have a whole bunch more detail in the digital images, even in JPEG. However, when I compare large-ish format (10x8s and up) hand prints I've made with care from b/w negs I've developed, film *just* edges it. I've not compared RAW output, mind.

If I compare those same prints with digital images taken with duff lenses (read: any non-SLR digicam), then all the megapixels in the world won't make the difference. But consumer advertising can't package improved lens quality into a nice feature headline (other than Sony's "Carl Zeiss Lens" which doesn't tell me a *great* deal), so no-one cares.

Re:The Diamond Age

[remmelt]

Two points then.

Each and every time (both times) I bring up this point, someone tells me about the JC. Perhaps that was you as well, last time, but I think it's rather typical that the one amp that is really good and SS is the Jazz Chorus. Yes, there are other examples, and yes, it's a REALLY good amplifier, but you get my point.

Maybe I'm out of the recording loop, but all the bands I know (both large/global and small/local) record tube. And then there's the tube compressors, etc. It's not required, if you think it sounds good without the hassle (and there is hassle, I've built one so I know) by all means use SS/digital. I can't seem to get the dynamics just so with solid state, personal taste, etc.

Look at some of the setups of touring bands (for example on guitargeek.com) and see what I mean. Pretty much anyone uses tube amplifiers. Even if they can be finnicky, break down, need special transportation, etc.

Re:The Diamond Age

[TheRaven64]

Hardly. Modern SLR's are every bit as capable as any old film camera, and they're a thousand times more convenient, versatile, and forgiving Presumably you meant digital SLRs here. Anyway, this is only true at the high-end and is not true in a performance-per-dollar sense yet. You can get a really nice (film) SLR for a lot less than the price of an equivalent-quality digital camera. The costs look a lot closer when you factor in the price of film and developing, of course.

Re:The Diamond Age

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to do a movie using a digital camera. Then try doing it using film.

You will realize why film is not going anywhere soon.

Re:The Diamond Age

[c0d3g33k]

I think the OP may be referring to the practice of audiophiles listening to tube amps, not the tube amps that musicians use. The fact that nobody gets this underscores the assertion that "no more than a tiny, tiny fraction" does this.

An example of this behavior - a tube amplifier for the iPod: http://www.goldster-audio.com/concertino/product.en.html

Re:The Diamond Age

[David Gerard]

The reason for tube amps is because their characteristics are part of the instrument - the "instrument" isn't just the guitar, it's the guitar plus amp. You can simulate analogue distortion to whatever degree you can be bothered, but it's like putting guitar samples into a keyboard and claiming that's the natural replacement for the guitar.

Re:The Diamond Age

[bannerman]

The industry standard rock amp is still the Ampeg SVT (all tube) head. Over 60% of the bass players on the forums that I troll prefer that amp to any other. The bulk of the remaining 40% use a tube preamp with a solid state power amp. You really can't emulate tubes. They just feel that good.

Re:The Diamond Age

[poot_rootbeer]

Film cameras are still objectively "better" than digital cameras, when you consider contrast and colour-balance and all that.

Yes, but what's the point of using an objective measure in an area where subjective measurement is so important?

For a typical point 'n' shoot casual photographer, a consumer-grade digital camera will probably be "good enough" in quality.

A professional photographer working for a news organization might find that the better quality of film is cancelled out by the convenience of being able to upload digital files directly from the camera to the server, instead of having to go through a chemical development process.

Fine art photographers will tend to stick with film, and for good reason. The digital option generally does not meet their needs. But it certainly isn't a choice where one option is universally "better" than the other.

Re:The Diamond Age

[corbettw]

Nostalgia's all warm and fuzzy, sure, but eventually people who can't help clinging to the past get old and die, and the rest of us can move on. Not to quibble, but technically even the people who embrace everything new and shiny will get old and die, too.

Re:The Diamond Age

[AaxelB]

The old saying "they don't make stuff like this today" is often true. Progress means the price goes down, and the product is thus available for more consumers, but still good enough for most. Some people however, are willing to pay extra, either in money or convenience, in order to get the "best", which often are what they made in the old days. A fantastic example is the straight razor. Compared to any modern safety razor, the straight razor gives an inequivocally better, closer shave, but is less convenient and has more of a learning curve (not to mention that slight fear of slicing your throat if someone knocks on the door at the wrong time). Interestingly, I've heard (and am pretty sure) that over a lifetime, a straight razor will cost substantially less than using safety razors, what with the recurring cost of buying disposable razors.

Another good example is fountain pens, which I adore and use daily, but I can't claim any real advantage other than a more enjoyable writing experience and possibly better handwriting.

Re:The Diamond Age

[m50d]

And tube amps certainly have their uses, e.g. if you want the "warm analog" sound (which you can then easily record on to a CD).

Why not just simulate that digitally, a lot more easily? I'm surprised no-one's sold a CD player that does this. Oh wait, no I'm not, because the "warm analog" sound is actually just a worse sound.

Re:The Diamond Age

[Doctor Faustus]

Why not just simulate that digitally, a lot more easily? I'm surprised no-one's sold a CD player that does this. Oh wait, no I'm not, because the "warm analog" sound is actually just a worse sound.
Different kind of amp. You're talking about the amps people use to listen to recorded music. The grandparent was talking about amps musicians use. For guitar, most players do use analog tube equipment, although digital simulation of those sounds is indeed getting a lot more popular.

When I'm playing guitar, I prefer the sound of a solid state amp (tubes tend to smooth everything out, and I'd rather be careful to play smoothly in the first place), but there are plenty of players that I like where part of what I like is what they do with a tube amp.

Re:The Diamond Age

[ricosalomar]

I guarantee you could get just as good a sound out of digital equipment as you can out of analog

OK, I'll buy a top of the line 18 watt 'digital' amplifier (your choice), and you buy a top of the line 18 watt tube amp (get one of these), and we'll see which one sounds better with a telecaster plugged straight into it.

Since you've included a guarantee, if my amp sounds crappy, you'll refund my money and give me the 18 watt tube amp.

Deal?

Re:The Diamond Age

[c6gunner]

OK, I'll buy a top of the line 18 watt 'digital' amplifier (your choice), and you buy a top of the line 18 watt tube amp (get one of these), and we'll see which one sounds better with a telecaster plugged straight into it. Since you've included a guarantee, if my amp sounds crappy, you'll refund my money and give me the 18 watt tube amp. Deal?

Let me get this straight: you want me to invest several thousands dollars into testing out a proposition in which I have no prospect of gaining anything, but stand to lose a couple thousand dollars based solely on your subjective opinion of what "sounds better".

.....

You must be a guitarist :)

Re:The Diamond Age

[ricosalomar]

It's not a question of what I want; you clearly offered a guarantee, I'm simply asking you to honor it.

If you'd rather have the amps judged objectively, feel free to assemble a panel of audio experts. It's clear from your comments that you are an expert in both the audio and visual fields, so your sources and professional contacts must certainly include other highly-qualified, experienced experts.

Unless you are completely chanting out of your ass.

Re:The Diamond Age

[jafac]

Well, what you've really done here, is you've summed-up nicely how people "compare" things of value (on various criteria) - and how cost of production has crept in, as a criteria.

We'd all like to see the soulless spreadsheet-jockeys who give us featureless plastic car interiors burned in effigy; we need to consider the alternative: A hand-crafted leather and rainforest-wood interior that 99% of us can't afford to buy.

Can you objectively compare these two things?

Sure! But there are apples-and-oranges comparisons, and then there are "theoretically-equivalent" comparisons; and the FACT of the matter is, WE CAN'T ALL OWN an original OMR pressing of The Dark Side of the Moon, and a Rosewood turntable to play it on. Hell, we can't all even own a digital copy (a player, and sufficient leisure-time to sit back, roll a doobie, and enjoy it!) - so what is the point in even comparing the two on esoteric audiophile qualities that 99% of us don't even have the ear to discern (let alone the high-dollar audiophile equipment)? The point? is to have a "nyah nyah, my recording and musical tastes are better than yours - " pissing contest. That's what.

Real and artificial (and "real-but-effectively-artificial") value criteria will always be imprinted upon goods and services by clever marketeers, and those criteria used to justify elevated market prices. It's the game we humans play.

Re:The Diamond Age

[joto]

Hardly. Modern SLR's are every bit as capable as any old film camera, and they're a thousand times more convenient, versatile, and forgiving

In fact, modern digital SLRs are even more capable, convenient, versatile, and forgiving than the earlier generation of SLRs. The only trouble with modern SLRs is that they don't use film. Because film is still superior to the photosensitive sensor in digital cameras (assuming you stay within a budget that's at least theoretically possible for the average photographer, i.e. by mortgaging your house, as opposed to being a government and buying Hubble). And with film, you can still scan your film afterwards, so you get the benefits of digital as well. Of course, for most of us, the convenience of straight-to-digital far outweighs the benefits of film, as films benefits are rather small, but still there.

Ditto for tube amps. It's true that right now the majority of artists still use them, but the main reasons for it is [snip] I guarantee you could get just as good a sound out of digital equipment as you can out of analog, but due to the nature of the music industry there isn't all that much demand for digital equipment.

This is speaking from ignorance. Compare your statement to this this one about Stradivarius violins: "I guarantee you oculd get just as good a sound out of a violin made of plywood or even plastic, but due to the nature of the music industry there isn't all that much demand for plywood or plastic violins". While it's possible to simulate tube distortion pretty good, it's not the same, and every musician using tube amps knows just that. And yeah, I still agree tube amps will be a rarity in 30 years. In fact, they already are.

Re:The Diamond Age

[smellotron]

...And I guarantee that if we compared the pics between a film camera and a digital SLR, you either wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, or you'd pick the digital photos as being the better of the bunch. Anyone who's worked in photography will tell you that digital is the only way to go.

Ken Rockwell disagrees. There are certainly still cases where film cameras are superior. DSLRs may be strictly superior for any point-and-shoot use, but that doesn't mean they're "the only way to go".

Ditto for tube amps...

• The majority of the brand-name amps are analog, and in the music biz image counts for as much as sound
• Indie bands which are just starting out can't afford brand-new equipment, so they end up with stuff that's 15+ years old (hence, analog).

Have you done any guitar amp price-shopping...ever? Bottom-of-the-line tube amps are way more expensive than solid state amps. Assuming that starting bands will use the cheapest equipment available, that would indicate that they will all use solid-state, because it is cheaper.

I guarantee you could get just as good a sound out of digital equipment as you can out of analog, but due to the nature of the music industry there isn't all that much demand for digital equipment. This is changing, of course, as more younger artists enter the business, and more and more technicians become comfortable working with digital equipment.

Tube amps are very complex systems electronically, so they sound different than solid-state amps. They tend to be perceived as more pleasant or "warm" because they distort very nonlinearly without any hard clipping (no "infinite frequency" behavior seen in digital circuitry). From what I hear, Line6 seems to be one of the larger players for guitar amps that simulate analog circuitry with digital circuitry. It's hard to convincingly emulate the analog sound with digital circuitry.

Furthermore, technicians being used to digital equipment really has nothing to do with tube amps. A guitarist can play through a tube amp, and then a technician can record that on a digital mixer into Pro Tools on a computer hard drive. It's not an issue of "out with the old, in with the new". It's an issue of knowing your tools and choosing the one that's most appropriate.

PBF is fine in either format

[StefanJ]

Some comics work just fine on a screen. They might be made for the screen, or be print comics that happen to have the layout and lines and style that remain readable on a screen.

I read PBF online, but will probably buy multiple copies of the book to use as gifts.

Some comix I don't think cut it on screen. Some of Chris Ware's head-thumpers like the "Acme Novelty Company" really belong on a printed page.

Re:Totally Deserved!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Favourite Comics Probably Do Not Type All Their Dialogue In Camel Case, Which Makes Reading A Sentence Incredibly Annoying, IMO. IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeotalloutlikethis.

Newspaper comics

[mboverload]

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor? I haven't smiled at a comic in years. It's like the newspapers demand trash and get it.

I love PBF and other online comics. They can do or say anything they like without censorship. PBF wouldn't be the same if it couldn't use explicit material.

Re:Newspaper comics

[mboverload]

This isn't to say that PBF relies on solely adult material. Far from it.

However, some of his best stuff is for adults. Too bad the website crashed so I can't show you an example.

Epic:
"The Man with No Penis"

Re:Newspaper comics

[driftingwalrus]

The last funny newspaper comic stopped printing years ago. It's a wasteland now.

Re:Newspaper comics

[fmobus]

Moreover, PBF's author is a extremely capable, in terms of drawings. He has a good domain on a number of techniques and styles. Most online comics, on the other hand, create a single style and stick to it forever, increasing their quality in a more progressive manner.

Re:Newspaper comics

[pluther]

There are still comics in newspapers?

Re:Newspaper comics

[HandsOnFire]

There are still newspapers?

Re:Newspaper comics

[jamstar7]

Yeah, I miss Bloom County, too.

Re:Newspaper comics

[OzRoy]

There hasn't been a decent newspaper comic since The Farside.

I think PBF has a similar random dark humor.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Just Some Guy]

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

It's just you. Well, OK, they're pretty awful as a whole but there are still some decent ones:

• Pickles: Who knew crotchety old men could be funny?
• Heart of the City: Ditto 7 year old girls and their geeky friends.
• Non Sequitur: If Gary Larson chose to tell a story instead of a one-liner.
• Doonesbury: No, really. Not everyday, but most of the time.
• Zits: Almost always at least mildly amusing, occasionally laugh-out-loud funny.
• Baby Blues: For parents only, I think - a perfect reflection the middle class married with kids lifestyle.
• Peanuts: Yeah, I said it. Now that they're running Chuck's old stuff before he forgot that adults buy the newspaper.

Still not funny:

• Cathy: Irving, think Ike Turner. You know what to do.
• Gasoline Alley: Does anyone like this?

Re:Newspaper comics

[Just Some Guy]

There are still newspapers?

Yep, and I still subscribe to one. I just wish I could pay half-price for a trimmed down local-only version with comics and the crossword.

Re:Newspaper comics

[ResidntGeek]

There hasn't been a decent newspaper comic since The Farside.

Not a Calvin and Hobbes fan?

Re:Newspaper comics

[martinX]

>>Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

NO WAY. Take Garfield. There was this one time that Garfield tried to get a lasagna, and Jon tried to stop him, and then ODIE got involved. I'm crying here just remembering it. Man it was funny.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Reziac]

Gasoline Alley, Mary Worth, Rick O'Shay, etc. aren't =supposed= to be *funny*. They're essentially soap operas in graphics format.

Re:Newspaper comics

[claytonjr]

You must read Family Circus, a lot.

Re:Newspaper comics

[MBraynard]

It's still around. A weekly strip named Opus. Same great humor.

And I still dig Dilbert.

And we all miss Calvin and Hobbes.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Just Some Guy]

Gasoline Alley, Mary Worth, Rick O'Shay, etc. aren't =supposed= to be *funny*.

I recognize the difference between "unfunny" and "dramatic". Note that I didn't list Gil Thorp or Rex Morgan, MD or anything else like that. I think you're wrong about Gasoline Alley, though. Although it is basically a long-running serial, it tries to be funny quite often. For Better Or For Worse is in the same category except that its humor succeeds more often than not.

Re:Newspaper comics

[jamesh]

NO WAY. Take Garfield. There was this one time that Garfield tried to get a lasagna, and Jon tried to stop him, and then ODIE got involved. I'm crying here just remembering it. Man it was funny.

Oh yeah! I remember that one. Good times had by all. Reminds me of the one where Charlie Brown says 'Good Grief!'.

Re:Newspaper comics

[TempeTerra]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Calvin and Hobbes finished in 1995.

(Although according to Wikipedia The Far Side finished earlier the same year, for all you nitpickers out there)

Re:Newspaper comics

[FleaPlus]

I'd personally add Pearls Before Swine and FoxTrot to that list of good newspaper comics. Of course, I actually read those comics almost entirely online. ;)

Re:Newspaper comics

[Have Blue]

When a newspaper receives a complaint about an aspect of a comic, that aspect tends to be diminished. You can find someone to complain about just about anything. Most newspaper comics have been running for decades. Do the math.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Reality Master 101]

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

They mostly suck (and ALL online comics that I've seen suck), but one notable exception is Brewster Rockit -- Space Guy!, which is often hilarious. Another that is very funny is In The Bleachers.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Deltaspectre]

Reminds me of the one where he was all ready to kick that football, but it was pulled away!!! Oh boy that one never gets old

Re:Newspaper comics

[operagost]

No, Opus is far too left-wing now. Political humor is fine, but we don't need another Doonesbury.

Re:Newspaper comics

[joto]

You mean, like this one?

Re:Newspaper comics

[moosesocks]

Although it's really easy to make fun of Garfield, there have been a few interesting cases of Jim Davis breaking from the main storyline.

For instance, this story arc from 1989 is moderately disturbing, especially when you consider that it's is Garfield comic....

And while we're on the subject of Garfield: removing Garfield's thought bubbles removed can be quite humorous (and occasionally depressing), while randomized sets of 3 frames from the comic are about as funny and as coherent as the real thing.

And finally, although it's not garfield, The Family Circus can be easily made funny with a different set of captions.

Re:Newspaper comics

[techno-vampire]

Last Sunday's Nancy had Sluggo being kept late at football practice because he fumbled so much. He told Nancy that he wasn't the only one getting extra practice because their kicking team needed work. In the background, there's Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Ponzicar]

Newspaper comics are made for old ladies looking for some bland inoffensive humor, preferably involving children or pets, over their morning coffee. Often they look in strips that have been running since their own childhood, the only difference being that the original cartoonists have died long ago, and the strips are now being made a team of faceless corporate artists.

Re:Newspaper comics

[airencracken]

I miss Calvin and Hobbes. That comic shaped my life so much growing up. I can still quote it nearly verbatim. Bill Watterson was a genius.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Bazman]

Why is everyone referring to PBF as an 'online' comic? I first read it as a printed version in the UK Guardian newspaper.

Comics in The Guardian are always high quality. There's currently Steve Bell's 'If' strip and Doonesbury, plus PBF, and in the past they've re-run Krazy Kat.

Unlike US newspapers, UK papers don't generally have an eight page comic section to fill - perhaps that is the reason for the perceived decrease in quality.

Re:Newspaper comics

[DerekLyons]

Gasoline Alley isn't supposed to be funny, it's a drama, a soap opera. (Which used to appear in numbers almost equal to the funny strips. They are all but gone nowadays.)

Re:Newspaper comics

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

Frazz and Get Fuzzy, which I believe are newspaper comics but are thankfully online.

Otherwise, yeah what a wasteland.

It's never been all that great compared to online. I started reading in the 60s and lived near a library with bound collections going back to Herriman and McKay. There's been a few shining stars like Watterson and Breathed and early Trudeau, but generally it's been pretty flat for real laughs in newspapers, leading to the flatline of today. (Whups - must not forget Larson!)

Right now I've got 20 webcomics in my daily bookmarks. Twenty. There's never been been a density of great daily comics like that before. mboverload, just stop looking at newspapers to fill the need - whatever the deal is with newspapers, they were never the best host for comic talent, and now that there's an option it's fled.

Re:Newspaper comics

[TomHandy]

Not sure exactly how Opus is too "left-wing"; it's libertarian if anything (and Breathed's quote about himself probably sums it up: "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.").

I'd have a hard time figuring out what Opus strips have been too "left-wing"; do you have any examples? Or is anything that is critical of Bush/Cheney/etc. automatically left-wing (even though plenty of right-wing folks share those same sentiments)?

Re:Newspaper comics

[EsonLinji]

I have to say that I enjoyed The Nietzsche Family Circus.

Re:Newspaper comics

[VGPowerlord]

Two sundays ago, actually.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Teun]

-- My UID is prime... is yours? No, but it's right between two :)

Re:Newspaper comics

[VGPowerlord]

Three weeks ago, that is. Apparently I can't count.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Anonymous Meoward]

Ouch. I really wish you put the NSFW flag on The Other Family.

To be honest, the few captions I did see weren't all that funny, and certainly not as funny as the old "Dysfunctional Family Circus" of the '90s. IIRC, the DFC was just one guy moderating submissions from everyone who cared to submit a caption. I think Andy Ihnatko was a big contributor to it back then.

And the DFC was wildly NSFW. It eventually added its own cast of unsavory characters to the strip, like the unseen (Thank God!) Uncle Roy.

Sadly, the owner of the site won't even release an archive of the old captions, so all of the hilarity is gone forever (sob).

Re:Newspaper comics

[DurendalMac]

There was once a time where Garfield could be amusing. Sadly, that time passed a long time ago.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Just Some Guy]

This might be heresy, but I though Foxtrot was funnier as a daily. It's like Amend is trying to cram a week's worth of humor into a single strip. I still like it better than most other comics, but I think he's jumped the shark.

Re:Newspaper comics

[kalirion]

How about Dilbert? It regularly gets a smile (and sometimes a laugh) out of me.

Re:Newspaper comics

[ucblockhead]

Sometimes I remember the what the comics page was like in the mid-eighties, with Bloom County, The Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes all running and I just cry.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Reziac]

It's been a long time since I've seen Gasoline Alley (1960s, probably!) and it may have changed significantly since then. And yeah, sometimes it tried to be funny. So did lots of serials (better word for G.A., I agree) and soaps. I think whether it "succeeded" or not depends on whether you're of the mindset that likes G.A. and suchlike in the first place. I know people who thought Peyton Place was hilarious.

And maybe we're saying the same thing but using different terms, like the neverending debate over the line between SF and fantasy and speculative fiction and which ought to be called what... glah!

As it happens, Rex Morgan M.D. was the other one I was trying to think of!! Refused to come to mind when I was typing.

Re:Newspaper comics

[MBraynard]

Doonesbury is a front for Al-Qaeda. But Opus has a pretty mild political perspective as best I can tell.

Re:Newspaper comics

[KDR_11k]

Really? I read an archive of the first few years somewhere, had exactly one laugh.

Re:Newspaper comics

[ShatteredArm]

Pearls Before Swine is definitely a good strip.

I'd have to add Dilbert and F-Minus to the list.
And I also enjoy Lio for some wierd reason.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Anonymous Coward]

I find F minus is funny quite frequently.

Re:Newspaper comics

[usagibrian]

You're reading the wrong ones. Personally, I laugh at Sherman's Lagoon fairly frequently. Baby Blues is generally at least amusing. Lio isn't completely consitent yet, but he's getting his rhythm. And you have to have a heart made of stone not to laugh aloud reading Mary Worth.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Anonymous Coward]

The prerequisites for laughing at the first few years of Garfield are: 1) you have never seen Garfield before and 2) you are 11 years old.

Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a mirror.

Re:Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice picture of a mirror...

Re:Crappers!

[idiotwithastick]

You'd think that with $300k worth of sales his website can be hit harder than that.

Re:Totally Deserved!

[HandsOnFire]

I've been doing too much reading lately. I noticed that "IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeotalloutlikethis" had a typo within a split second. I think you mean IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeitalloutlikethis.

Re:Crappers!

[fmobus]

Well, at least he will have means to pay for his hosting bill in the near future. At least for some hours :)

Retarded.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Now go read a real comic like this one.

Re:Retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

You kind of suck at trolling.

Re:Retarded.

[ty421]

Of course, N.G. has said that Bill Watterson is a bit of an inspiration for him, so I suppose this is just a natural progression of "real" comics. On the other hand, Calvin & Hobbes is the greatest comic to have widespread newspaper publication, although I will accept evidence to the contrary.

Re:Retarded.

[OptimusPaul]

I actually like PBF, but Calvin & Hobbes is genius.

Re:Retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

You totaly suck at troll-trolling.

Re:Retarded.

[PoopDaddy]

Thank you for identifying yourself in your subject! As someone who grew up addicted to C&H and still loves it, I can also appreciate the Perry Bible Fellowship. There's more than just one comic strip in the funny pages for a reason. PBF is a different flavor of humor, so was the Far Side. Calvin and Hobbes will always be king. But in my opinion, PBF is hands-down the best currently running strip.

Re:Retarded.

[Nuroticat]

Sinfest is also quite worthy. It's a spiritual (lol) successor of strips like Calvin & Hobbes and Bloom County. I've enjoyed Sinfest more than any other web or newspaper comic for years.

Re:Retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wimp...;-)

REAL /.'s read the One and Only Truth at the following mystic nexus of the internet:

http://userfriendly.org/

There you will find the One...

And the One True Ring to Bind Them All,

And the number 42, etc., et cetera, ad infinitum...;-)

Re:Retarded.

[legLess]

IMHO Bloom County is better than Calvin & Hobbes. I think Bill Watterson is probably the best artist ever to see wide newspaper comic publication, but Bloom County had it where it matters: character and story. As wonderful as Calvin & Hobbes was (and I have every collection ever published), Bloom County gave us characters who changed and grew over time. The stories were varied, interesting, and sometimes lasted months. On top of that it was bloody hilarious.

I won't write a novel and try to convince you right away. Next time you're in a book store (or on Amazon :), pick up a Bloom County collection and see what you think.

Support the artist

[YodaYid]

I bought the book simply to support Nicholas Gurewitch - there was not much in there that I didn't already see before. But since his site doesn't have advertising, I was happy to support him directly (it's comparable to Radiohead's "pay what you like" model in that sense).

I do wish there were more "special features" in the book, but there are some interesting bits at the end where he includes comics that he has since taken out of the PBF canon, explaining why he made those decisions (for example, he eschews pop references in his comics, so those sort of comics are part of the "Lost Strips" series in the back of the book). Also, he has some of his extra-tasteless ones :-)

I like to think of PBF as the opposite of Penny Arcade, which is almost always topical, picking apart the latest headlines for laughs (not a bad thing, just different). PBF's humor will still be funny in fifty years, when people will have no clue what Penny Arcade (or South Park, or Family Guy for that matter) are talking about. It has that timeless element to it that makes me a fan.

And before I forget, congratulations to Nicholas Gurewitch on his success! It is well deserved.

Re:Support the artist

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to think of PBF as the opposite of Penny Arcade, which is almost always topical, picking apart the latest headlines for laughs (not a bad thing, just different).

Agreed. Every now and then, I see somebody proclaiming Penny Arcade as a great comic, so I go back and take another look, and I just totally don't get it. I guess I'm not into video games or RPGs or recent music or American news or whatever references they use.

But that's the great thing about webcomics: whatever you're into, there's almost certainly a webcomic about it! Comics are a great medium, but the *best* comic book store near me is still mostly just that superhero-in-tights crap.

Tip for comic book store owners: you want to know why you're a tiny struggling shop? It's because you only have superhero comics. Look at books, or music, or movies, or any other medium today, and see how common the superhero theme is. Not very, huh? What you need to do is go big. Open a store the size of Borders that's entirely comics, with a huge selection, with *all* genres represented. (Oh, and strike a deal with Starbucks or somebody for a cafe.) Franchise the fucker. Profit.

Re:Support the artist

[aussie_a]

Every now and then, I see somebody proclaiming Penny Arcade as a great comic, so I go back and take another look, and I just totally don't get it. Its been a great financial success which is why I use it to show that the digital comic medium definitely has merit.

Re:Support the artist

[The_reformant]

it's comparable to Radiohead's "pay what you like" model in that sense

br? Yeah and thank god I didn't have to pay for that tripe. I keep hoping they'll get their magic back but everything after OK computer has been utter rot. I cant beleive they dissappeared up their own collective ass quite so far as they did.

Re:Support the artist

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, half of the time, I have no time what the fuck Penny Arcade is talking about NOW. With the exception of some strips that are genuinely funny (Fruit Fucker, anyone?), it won't take fifty years for it all to be forgotten; 5 years will be enough.

Re:Support the artist

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because no one watches reruns of Saturday Night Live either! Are you a moron?

Re:Support the artist

[Zebedeu]

Same here. I bought the book because I wanted to support the guy and I thought this sort of humour would be something my girlfriend would like.

In the end, I found another gift for her so I decided to keep the book to myself, though I'm still contemplating offering her the book anyway (I've been reading it cautiously in order not to leave any marks).

PBF is certainly one of my favourite comics on the internet, and it's a good feeling to know that I contributed something back, which is something that I don't do often enough.

Re:Totally Deserved!

[Toandeaf]

You know, it is rather distracting when you capitalize every word. Is there a reason you did?

Well...

[Comatose51]

Well that's one advantage printed comics have over online ones: immune to Slashdotting.

Re:Well...

[ClamIAm]

Uh, no, printed comics can be subject to the Slashdot effect. For example, the Calvin & Hobbes books were almost always checked out of my elementary school's library. Demand outstripped supply, etc.

Re:Well...

[aussie_a]

You mean print comics never sell out? That's either amazing technology or simply shitty comics.

Re:Crappers!

[Dpaladin]

But if he spends anymore time on this "weeaboo," he'll be bankrupt by the end of the month!

Achewood

[goosman]

PBF is one of a very few good web comics (though I generally read it in a weekly dead tree) but the king is http://www.achewood.com/. Pure genius.

Re:Achewood

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

wow achewood... it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a ring around my eyes, but sadly thats not a good thing. Its as if someone wrote a program to take anything funny that has every been said, or written and remove the humor from it, leaving only a soulless, time wasting, empty shell of a cicada.

Re:Achewood

[josipa_lisac]

Achewood is actually really really really good, and has been made TIME's comic of the year (amongst both online and off comics) You're completely wrong

Re:Achewood

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Well, if TIME magazine likes it, then it *really* must suck.

Re:Totally Deserved!

[TempeTerra]

The brain is a strange thing. I spotted the typo too, but for some inexplicable reason my brain also thinks that the string contains the word 'kittens' somewhere after the apostrophe.

Re:Totally Deserved!

[aussie_a]

I noticed the typo because I was having trouble working out what he meant. Thanks for the correction.

Um.

[Anonymous Coward]

The interviewer in TFA is called "Lou Cabron." Let me rephrase that a bit: the interviewer in TFA is called "Lou Cabrón."

I feel so lucky in life now. Oh, wait, my last name means "outhouse" in some Philippine languages. Crap.

Re:FWIW

[Doc Ruby]

hahahahahaha

What does "proof" have to do with faith? If it was "real", it's one less example of the god the story is about. FWIW, some "paleontologists" have proven that Adam & Eve "walked with dinosaurs". There's even a museum to prove it, too. All of which, again, is just the destruction of ever more faith, the only thing the myth had going for it (except longevity).

But now...

[Foobar of Borg]

The first collection of Perry Bible Fellowship comics has racked up pre-sales of $300,000

Which are all now having to go to pay for the bandwidth fees due to the recent slashdotting of the site.

Re:But now...

[philpalm]

Yes their website was slow in uploading, probably due to the slash dot highlighting. Even if you had high speed dsl you still have to wait in line for their server to recognize you.

Re:But now...

[mboverload]

The server has always been really slow. Recently a change in design made it much more tolerable. Of course, still couldn't take a slashdot beating.

How to make Garfield funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way to read Garfield is to read it as if none of Garfield's thought balloons are really there.

The ironic thing...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

The ironic thing is that the Garfield animated cartoons are somehow funny. Hard to believe, but true.

Re:The ironic thing...

[TomHandy]

I think Lorenzo Music's voice contributed a lot to that.

Re:The ironic thing...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I think it contributed less than you think, because it's still funny when dubbed to Spanish.

Illogical

[Roger W Moore]

Nano technology makes nearly everything possible, and at the same time makes nearly everything ubiquitous and therefore worthless. The only true things of value are those labour intensive things made by hand.

I have not read the book but I fail to see the logic in that. If it makes nearly everything possible then surely it can create everything which is made by hand as well in such a manner that it is hard/impossible to distinguish between the two. In such a world I would have thought that new ideas are the one thing which has value.

Re:Illogical

[TheRaven64]

It's what Philip K. Dick described as 'historicity.' The object itself is only part of the value, the associations that go along with the object are a much larger part for most humans. Most people own at least one thing which has 'sentimental value;' a value that comes from their associations with the object rather than the object's creation cost. Handmade items are the same. The fact that a machine could make items of similar (or better) quality is irrelevant to most people. The final product itself only has some of the value; the fact that someone devoted care to its creation is a greater part.

In such a world I would have thought that new ideas are the one thing which has value. I'd agree there, but I think you'll find we are in a minority.

I would gladly by a T-shirt

[jordan314]

of almost any of his comics, but all he sells is the scub / anti-scub ones and the unicorn ones, none of which make any sense out of context.

Re:I would gladly by a T-shirt

[Hatta]

If it made sense out of context, it wouldn't be an in-joke.

Re:FWIW

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you're the one who requested a "shred of proof". A conjunction of the two brightest star-like objects in the night sky, followed by Jupiter moving over Bethlehem just seemed like an appropriate example. *shrug*

Electric Retard?

[Sigvatr]

I wonder if Electric Retard would get any success this way. Sure would be a strange coffee table book.

it's a trap

[Racemaniac]

he's probably just trying to trick everybody in going over all the comics searching for hidden messages (and it's working -_-)

On-line (rss!) comics recomendations?

[BlackCreek]

Hello,

Nice to hear PBF is making such a success. I read online comics through RSS quite a lot, mostly xkcd, Sinfest, Dinosaur comics, PBF, ELER, Penny Arcade, and this unofficial Dilbert rss.

Which other (online) comics would you fellow slashdotters recommend?

Cheers,

Re:On-line (rss!) comics recomendations?

[cyxxon]

My personal favorite webcomic would be The Order Of The Stick, a fantasy comic which is about a group of adventurers in a Dungeons and Dragons table top session, with the twist that you see the made-up characters, but the conversation is usually that between the human players, in a way, so it involves a lot of meta information and the like. Check it out at www.giantitp.com.

Re:On-line (rss!) comics recomendations?

[will_die]

userfriendly.org

Re:On-line (rss!) comics recomendations?

[Anonymous Coward]

userfriendly.org

Oh god no. Worst webcomic ever.

Re:On-line (rss!) comics recomendations?

[BlackCreek]

I know "user friendly" for a long time, and I can't say I like them. I've seen lots of their strips which I really liked, and being a heavy linux user, I think I am somehow in their target audience. But there is something in the art work perhaps that irritates me, and I can't say I find the average U.F. strip funny.

I really check them out every now and them, but most of the time their strips will just sit in the RSS reader unread. My personal taste I guess.

Re:On-line (rss!) comics recomendations?

[kantier]

note: I'm stealing descriptions from the wikipedia articles.

• Girl Genius [wp]- Girl Genius is a steampunk tale; "a gaslamp fantasy with adventure, romance and mad science", set in an alternate history "where the Industrial Revolution has become an all-out war" due to the appearance of "Sparks" -- highly charismatic mad scientists with supernormal abilities in one or more sciences.
• Gunnerkrigg Court [wp] - The comic details the strange events that surround protagonist Antimony Carver as she begins life at the foreboding, factory-like school complex of Gunnerkrigg Court.
• Lackadaisy [wp] - Lackadaisy (also known as Lackadaisy Cats) is a webcomic created by artist Tracy J. Butler, set in a Prohibition-era 1927 St. Louis inhabited by anthropomorphic cats. The plot chronicles the fortunes of the Lackadaisy Speakeasy after its founder is murdered.
• Dresden Codak [wp] - Described by the author as a "celebration of science, death and human folly," each comic generally focuses on a concept or theory from modern and postmodern philosophy, psychology, or science (particularly quantum physics)

ok, got tired of copy-pasting URL's and descriptions. just google theese, most of them have rss feed:

XKCD, Perry Bible Fellowship, Girl Genious, Gunnerkrigg Court, Templar, Arizona, Sinfest, Lackadaisy, The Broken Mirror, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, Dinosaur Comics, Copper, Alpha Shade, Dresden Codak, The Curious Adventures of Aldus Maycombe, Inverloch, VGCats, Ctrl-Alt-Del, Questionable Content, Shortpacked!, Penny Arcade, The Book of Biff, Bunny, Contemplating Reiko, No Rest for the Wicked, The Devil's Panties, Girly, Penny and Aggie, Cool Cat Studio, The Adventures of Dr. McNinja, Johnny Saturn, 8 bit theatre, Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life, Zap! (zap in space), Mad About U, Ozy & Millie, Jack, Chugworth Academy, Marilith, Slightly Damned, The Awakened, Vampirates, Aether, Pinky TA, Orneryboy, Reman Mythology, Count Your Sheep, Errant Story, PowerPuff Girls Doujinshi (the one by bleedman), Everafter, Grim Tales from Down Below, Sugar Bits, Demonology 101, Zombies Calling, Ice, Brat-halla, The Phoenix Requiem, Last Blood, Flipside, Marry Me, No Pink Ponies, Shadowgirls, Purgatory Tower, El Goonish Shive, Badass Muthas!, Exiern, Xylia, A Girl and Her Fed, The BMovie Comic, Gone With the Blastwave, Candi, Flaky Pastry, Sorcery 101, Minus, Looking for group, North World, Nothing Better, Striptease, Handrawn Zoo, Rob and Elliot, Marsh Rocket, General Protection Fault, Rip and Teri, Maxwell the demon, Paradigm Shift, Fantasy Realms, Edwitch, The Unstuffed, Wayfarer's Moon, Undertow, Poultry Arisen!, God Mode, Kung Fool, Kill Harry, Pup

I can't guarantee you'll like them all, but I've read them all (most of them in all their extension) and I can assure that none of them make the eyes bleed (most of them are really good, in fact).

Also, an interesting indication of quality is the WCCA.

in the Guardian

[ThirdPrize]

In the UK they print the Perry Bible Fellowship in the Guardian newspaper.

May fave webcomic is Diesel Sweeties.

Re:FWIW

[Doc Ruby]

No, I said "even the tiniest proof" that the bible isn't a myth is necessary if we were going to argue. But of course the tiniest proof is not sufficient. Proof that a star appeared as described in the bible (even though you offered proof of something unlike what's described as "a star") isn't even proof that the bible is not a myth. You could just as well point at the Earth, which is also mentioned in the bible, or the Egyptian pyramids, or Jerusalem as a whole, or even irrefutable records of a "Mary and Joseph of Egypt, with newborn Jesus of Bethlehem" etc, which obviously don't prove the mythical parts of the bible's story. You know, the miraculous parts (and I'm not talking about whether Jesus' DNA doesn't match Joseph's).

But all that, as I've been saying, is precisely opposite the point of the bible: faith. You fell for it by acting like proof of the myth is important compared to the faith it would destroy.

I can never get enough of faithy people hungering for scientific things like proof that someone rose from the dead, or was both merely human and infinitely divine, in trade for the more valuable faith that such proof would destroy. It's like someone revealed Santa was Dad carelessly to you way back when, and y'all still demand not just the presents, but also the suit and beard, and that he now actually come down the chimney, and not kiss Mommy.

I do not think that word means what you think

[noidentity]

Ironically, the 25-year-old cartoonist speculates people would rather read his arty comics in a book than on a computer screen, and warns that 'There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page...'

What's ironic about this?

Re:I do not think that word means what you think

[Critical Facilities]

You know, it's like a black fly in your Chardonnay, or a death row pardon 2 minutes too late.

Geez, some people really have to have it spelled out for them.

Re:I do not think that word means what you think

[clovis]

OK, now I'm wondering if it's ironic that you used quotes from a song that's famous for NOT having irony in it as examples of irony. It's making my head hurt.

Re:I do not think that word means what you think

[Critical Facilities]

**whoosh**

I guess it was a poor attempt at humor. I was agreeing with the GP that there was nothing Ironic about it at all and was trying to call attention to it by citing an ironically not ironic song. Geez, now my head hurts too. Maybe I have an iron deficiency, that would be ironic.....GAAHHHH!!

Re:I do not think that word means what you think

[clovis]

It was excellent, but oh, my head ...
getting dark, whimper,
thud

Re:Totally Deserved!

[Ajehals]

I'll second the kittens, even though its clearly not there.. which either means that great minds think alike, or we are both dyslexic.

WTF?

[cherokee158]

Am I the only one who finds this strip badly drawn and entirely unfunny? I promised myself that when I hit forty, I wouldn't lose touch, but I am beginning to feel a bit old: I appear to be the only person not carrying a bible who thinks the endless torrent(no pun intended) of graphic violence, profanity and scatalogical humor pouring from the web to be more boorish than humorous. Am I alone?

Re:WTF?

[BeanThere]

No; there is a clear cultural trend towards nihilism. It may be a(n over) reaction to a prior overly sanitised and politically correct era brought on in part by the Comics Code. The same undercurrents are present in most major media - movies, music, art etc. This 'race to the bottom' has been pretty much taken to its extremes now, so I look forward to the pendulum (hopefully) swinging the other way again soon. But given the way cynicism, boorishness and not caring are 'in', that people can't seem to tell the difference between cynicism and intelligence anymore, and that developing the intelligence to do so is not 'in', I'm not sure it will.

Re:WTF?

[elrous0]

I promised myself that when I hit forty, I wouldn't lose touch

Everyone makes that promise and everyone breaks it.

Re:WTF?

[Fantastic Lad]

Everyone makes that promise and everyone breaks it.

Not only did I not make that promise, but I didn't do it because I'd lost touch and knew it back when I was in my late twenties. Heck, I have a strong suspicion that I wasn't even in touch during high school. Had no idea what was in with regard to fashion, music, popular kids, etc. And somehow all through it and to this day I have managed to maintain deep and friendly ties with representatives of every age group, gender, and social class imaginable. I think being hopelessly out of touch (Facebook bores me to death) makes you less threatening and more successful in life somehow. Beats me. So when is this graduation dance thing? Last week? Oh.

-FL

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who finds this strip badly drawn and entirely unfunny? I promised myself that when I hit forty, I wouldn't lose touch, but I am beginning to feel a bit old: I appear to be the only person not carrying a bible who thinks the endless torrent(no pun intended) of graphic violence, profanity and scatalogical humor pouring from the web to be more boorish than humorous. Am I alone?

No, it has nothing to do with age.

I'm a lot younger than you (I'm assuming, based on your description), and I don't like PBF.

I actually used to be an avid reader--I had it bookmarked in my list of sites that I visited every day, and did, in fact, read it on a regular basis.

After awhile, though, I grew extremely tired of it. Its humor--if you want to call it that--gets old very quickly. Now when I read it, it seems sort of unimaginative and uninsightful at best, and offensive and naive at worst.

I do think PBF can be really witty, but those moments are far outnumbered by the majority of panels in which it's basically uninspired trash. If PBF stopped being immature and inexperienced, and actually attempted to say something intelligent and sophisticated on a regular basis, it could really be something. I think the author has the talent, he just needs to stop and ask himself what he actually is doing.

By the way, here's a list of other online comics that I have consistently enjoyed:

American Elf
Boy on a Stick and Slither
Rice Boy
Scary Go Round

Actually, at first I didn't like Rice Boy as much as I do now. You have to sort of go back and read the strip from the beginning to catch up. As I have read it, though, I've enjoyed it more and more. It's rather surreal, but epic in scope, and deals with "big questions" in a way that I haven't seen in any other strip. If you crossed the Wizard of Oz, Frog and Toad, and The Odyssey, it would come out like Rice Boy.

American Elf is probably one of my two favorite strips. It's a comic diary, where he draws himself and his friends as comic characters. It's positive but sincere and sophisticated.

Boy on a Stick and Slither sort of reminds me of PBF in some ways, in that it's cynical and sarcastic, but it never devolves into tastelessness. It's also different in that every strip contains the same two characters in different situations.

Along with American Elf, Scary Go Round is probably my other favorite comic. It's sort of like a modern version of Scooby Doo, where the monsters are real, and there are more characters and subplots.

Personal Favorites

[Symbolis]

PBF has been a favorite of mine for a while, now. Here's some others(wiki pages. Paper comic sites(read: syndicate sites) suck more often than not):

Zits
Get Fuzzy
Pearls Before Swine
Lio

Online comics:

Schlock Mercenary
Something Positive
Erfworld
Penny Arcade
Irregular Webcomic!
There's a few others, but that's most of them.

Off to check out Sinfest and ELER

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

I've been hooked on Something Positive for about 4 years now (gotta love a comic who's first punchline is home abortions), The Librarianist caught my eye about a year ago (I like it about as much as PBF, but it isn't in color), and The Bunny System doesn't update nearly enough to sate me. Honestly, though, if you check your favorite artist's Blog/BBS they'll link you to who they read.

Re:Off to check out Sinfest and ELER

[BlackCreek]

While I find both Sinfest and ELER great. Sinfest is something for the general audience.

While ELER:

1. Comes out once at every second full moon;
2. is about Free Software "news", so pretty uninteresting if you are not into "Linux" and FOSS in general
3. and somehow up to date with it

But then, you are a slashdot reader ;-)

Thanks for the recommendations, I'll check them out later today.

Knowledge is Half the Battle

[Anonymous Coward]

Not GP, but I've found that it is slightly less annoying than FULL CAPS LOCKS (cause no one likes a screamer), but still catches people's attention enough to make them read a sentence or two.

Housing bubble comics

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are some comics on the most hilarious thing going today, the real estate bubble (it's tragic, laugh)

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r165/hiredgoonadl/optimus_subprime.jpg
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r165/hiredgoonadl/missed_the_boat.jpg
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r165/hiredgoonadl/pantry_equity.jpg

Slide show: http://s144.photobucket.com/albums/r165/hiredgoonadl/?action=view&current=32bcf9a9.pbw

FWIW PBF is *not* just an online cartoon

[Anonymous Coward]

It's available in the UK paper "The Guardian".

Only on Slashdot

[LordSnooty]

THE site for in-depth tech discussion (and silly debates about whether the bible is real)

You have to buy the book...

[wwphx]

because his site navigation sucks! I love the guy's talent, but he doesn't have an easy way of navigating previous/next on his site. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to scroll down and try to remember what was the name of the last one that I read in order to move on to the next.

Someday I might set it up to read it off my blog, but otherwise I'm not interested. It's one thing to have a quirky web site, it's another thing to violate easy usability guidelines. There are too many other good web comics out there that are easy to navigate.

I'm glad he's successful, but I'm not reading his material until he gets his site working in a reasonable fashion.

Re:You have to buy the book...

[angelfish_25]

gee dumbass, do you really find it that difficult to understand the function of the older and newer buttons?

Re:You have to buy the book...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Mr. Manners, if the buttons don't appear on my browser screen, how could I use them?

Webcomics in hard format?

[Grimbleton]

This is news how? I've had my RealLife first year for a few years now, as well as the first two Inverloch books for about a year now, and that's not even a large fraction of webcomics who've released hard versions of the comic.

Re:Webcomics in hard format?

[revlayle]

AND made 300 grand in a couple months?

funny choice of words

[tacokill]

I've had many a religious discussion with my judeo-christian friends and I hear the same thing that you said, "They're either stupid, insane, or lying. None of which is a desirable quality."

...except they use Jesus as the example. As in: he was either a) a liar b) a lunatic or c) the real thing.

And they phrase it as if there are no other choices. I hear this argument come up a lot and usually I have to refrain from giving my opinion. They seem to forget that not only were there plenty of charlatans back then....but people were even stupider than they are now from a "we understand the world" standpoint.

Re:funny choice of words

[WNight]

I'm not surprised you've had this discussion. It's a pretty obvious issue. Jesus was either right, or wrong.

I've never seen any evidence for his side, except the bible in a circular fashion, so I'm going to go with wrong.

If he's wrong, he's either intentionally wrong, or unintentionally. If intentionally, we call it lying.

If unintentionally, he's either uninformed, or informed but of faulty judgement.

If he's uninformed we can call him ignorant instead of stupid, except in that it seems there'd be easy tests for self-godhood and it seems a bit stupid to not verify this sort of thing.

Which leaves him being wrong because he misinterprets the evidence. This again could be ignorance (statistical misunderstanding, etc), stupidity/retardation, or insanity.

One of the common symptoms of schizophrenia is delusions of godhood...

So right, or wrong. Wrong intentionally (lying), or unintentionally (crazy or ignorant). What other options are there?

I don't understand your last point. Is it that people were easier to dupe back then, or Jesus had less knowledge of schizophrenia and thus was less likely to consider that he wasn't god, or what? I totally agree about charlatans, then and now.

Slow down there, killer...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to make any claims about the general validity of deriding people for their various religious beliefs and/or practices. However, what you have written here contains some ill-informed arguments.

You can disprove any religious assertions made, because they aren't opinion. They're incorrect fact. Only those religious assertions which contradict known fact. Believe it or not, there are religions and spiritual movements that do not affirm the supernatural or, in some cases, have no creed at all. Furthermore, religions which invoke the supernatural do not necessarily do so for all assertions they make. For example, Buddhism has foundations in Hinduism and inherits the idea of a cycle of rebirth, but much of Buddhism is a prescriptive guide for living what Buddhists consider to be a better, fuller life. Can the latter be scientifically proved or disproved as an "incorrect fact."?

Ditto for 'My god lived, then died, then was reborn, for your right to eat shellfish which is no-longer bad!" Here we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the origins of Christianity and its currently mainstream forms. Most Biblical scholars agree that the Old Testament (i.e., Hebrew Bible, where that whole shellfish thing comes from) was mainly provided for historical context, recognizing Christianity as a reformed Judaism. Many purported "Biblical inconsistencies" arise from this, but it is only inconsistent if you fail to recognize one canon as a reformation of the other.

I'm not saying you have to accept what these religions say. I'm not even saying you necessarily have to be respectful to them. I'm merely saying that you should argue from a better-informed position.

Re:Slow down there, killer...

[WNight]

Sure, you can't disprove a statement that says nothing. Or really even one that states an opinion.

But if a religion does claim something such as Moses parting the sea, then it's in the realm of facts, even if only purportedly, and should be examined as a totally unsupported and counterfactual story (ie, wrong.)

What biblical scholars think is irrelevant. It's what the majority of believers believe that matters. And frankly, unless the OT was prefixed with 'this is just for reference - do not follow' I think it's fairly obvious that it was intended to apply.

Don't forget, the book is supposed to be divinely inspired by god himself. I find it doubtful that he'd be sloppy in this regard... Really any flaws in it at all disprove huge swathes of contemporary christian doctrine. It's taught as truth in church schools that the King James bible translation was guided by god, through the hands of monks who prayed over each word.

What some biblical scholar can weasel out of is far different than what the average believer is raised to believe.

Of course it's obvious from reading the books that both testaments are very different. One is, to borrow a phrase, fire and brimstone, and the other not. I do believe what you say, that scholars make these distinctions. And I even believe they're being truthful. But if it's divinely inspired there shouldn't be any mistakes. If you believe it's divinely inspired you shouldn't dare judge the value of it, that one book is more right than another.

dead tree DFC

[British]

I remember being first exposed to Dysfunctional Family Circuis in paper form in 1995. A manager had the comics, loosely printed, not in book form or anything. Not sure if it was connected to the official DFC website though.

"Weeaboo" is for weeaboos

[tepples]

Heh... do you remember which one it was that "made it"? Was it "weeaboo"? Wouldn't the "Weeaboo" strip be more at home in a manga/anime fan magazine?

Studio Foglio - highly recommended

[alispguru]

Phil and Kaja Foglio's stuff:

Girl Genius
Buck Godot

They have RSS feeds, though I've never used them.

I was there when Bill Keene killed DFC

[spun]

I made quite a few captions for the original DFC. I was known as 'spun' there, too. Many of them even made it into the 'green' category. I was there when DFC closed down. Bill Keene himself called the guy who ran the site and basically said, "The cartoon is about me and my family, and you guys are putting us into the most disgusting and degrading situations. What if my kids read this site? Please, would you stop?" So we all felt kinda bad, and we stopped, but that doesn't make DFC any less funny. You can still find all the captions archived in various places on the web if you look...

I can has cheezburger?

[tepples]

The brain is a strange thing. I spotted the typo too, but for some inexplicable reason my brain also thinks that the string contains the word 'kittens' somewhere after the apostrophe. Only if they can has cheezburger.

"Garfield" from Jon's point of view

[tepples]

The best way to read Garfield is to read it as if none of Garfield's thought balloons are really there.

In other words: How do I made Garfield funny?

But is this form of Garfield still funny to someone who has never seen the official version of Garfield, complete with thought balloons?

Online Comics

[ultranova]

Try Girl Genius. Gotta love a comic about a geek girl with glasses who can turn circus wagons into clockwork killer robots :).

Every slashdotters wet dream...

Gurewitch is a Mad Genius

[RedBear]

I discovered the Perry Bible Fellowship (PBF) 2-3 years ago. The artist is quite insane, but it's the kind of insanity the world needs, that simply comes from looking at things from a completely different perspective. He's also a genius, able to convey a lengthy story in a few frames of very simple, stylized images that often don't contain even a single word. Then he can turn right around and create an elaborately detailed and colored set of images that are basically the opposite of the other brilliantly simple stylized cartoony images. Throughout his work there is a very dry, acerbic, quirky and often highly observant type of wit and humor. This is carried over even into the name of the strip, which doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with... well, anything. It's certainly not what it sounds like.

Not every strip is a classic but the good ones are unbelievably funny, if you have a similar sense of humor. I already had to pause several times while writing this post just from recalling a few of my favorites, such as the "practical jokers on the moon" strip, the beach/beachball strip, and the transformers strip where one is a refrigerator and the other is a pickup truck. I think if I were to ever spend money on an original print of anything it might be a strip from PBF. There is nothing else quite like it.

Please do read through the online archives and support the artist by purchasing the book if you like the strip. He needs to be encouraged to continue creating new works. If you liked other strips like The Far Side, Calvin and Hobbes, or Bloom County, I think you'll enjoy it immensely.

"Refrigeron, assemble!"

Bravo!

[Besna]

Tag. I thought that kosher stuff wasn't explicitly removed in the fairy tale, but just isn't followed anymore by custom.

graphic violence, profanity and scatalogical humor

[ODiV]

are not new.

Ever read Macbeth?

Missing the point

[BeanThere]

Not being new has nothing to do with the GP's comment or the price of eggs. The complaint regards the contemporary emphasis on creations that are completely devoid of any redeeming meaningful value and rather consist only of trash: Pure trash as an aim and end goal in itself, purposely taking the stripping of value to its limits. This has nothing to do with Macbeth, as one would be pretty hard pressed to claim that such a play has no redeeming qualities and consists solely of violence, profanity and scatological humor. Furthermore, even the toilet humour in a Shakespeare play is generally executed in a comparatively witty and intellectual way (e.g. clever puns). If you can't tell the difference between the qualities of Macbeth and, say, a creation like Cyanide and Happiness, for example, then we may indeed be in deeper trouble as a civilisation than we realise.

Re:Missing the point

[ODiV]

How on earth did you get:

Pure trash as an aim and end goal in itself, purposely taking the stripping of value to its limits.

from:

Am I the only one who finds this strip badly drawn and entirely unfunny? I promised myself that when I hit forty, I wouldn't lose touch, but I am beginning to feel a bit old: I appear to be the only person not carrying a bible who thinks the endless torrent(no pun intended) of graphic violence, profanity and scatalogical humor pouring from the web to be more boorish than humorous. Am I alone?

I don't see any discussion of intent or the stripping of value anywhere in there. Maybe you're way better at catching inferences than I am though. The poster was complaining about the endless torrent of graphic violence, profanity and scatalogical humor. I didn't see him complaining about creations which contain graphic violence, profanity and scatalogical humor that are completely devoid of any redeeming meaningful value and consist only of trash.

Also, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to argue that PBF (or anything really, we're talking about art here), consists only of trash and is completely devoid of redeeming meaningful value. "Completely devoid of redeeming meaningful value" sounds almost useless as a phrase, come to think of it. Could we just say "unfunny" instead? Or if you wanted to use your words, "devoid of value"?

Could you give me some examples of the contemporary creations that have no redeeming meaningful value and no historical counterpart? I'm hard pressed to believe that webcomics have no precedent.

Re:Missing the point

[BeanThere]

If you didn't notice it was part of the discussion, go back and read what you were replying to.

Re:Missing the point

[ODiV]

...?

You mean the comment I quoted in the post you just replied to? I'm honestly wondering what I missed.

Regardless, the argument boils down to "Old art is better than new art." and is an old argument and is bunk. People have been saying that new art is profane and without value for ages (Rock and Roll anyone)?

Thank You

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

I didn't get to sleep till 10am, and for once it wasn't from catching up on /.

Actually, "science" is a "proven fact"...

[IBitOBear]

You had me till your third paragraph, whereupon you instantly got reclassified as an oratorical goon. (no offense. 8-)

"Science" is a "provable fact", and is even a "proven fact" because it is a _technique_ or _approach_, and so its existence and its practice is a fact. If you want to say "science has yet to ever be proven as a fact" you must be willing and ready to replace "science" with "reading" or "throwing a ball". That is you would have to be ready to say "reading has yet to ever be proven as fact" but you are reading and people do read, so reading is a fact.

Now not every person reads well, nor effectively, but the action of reading is factual.

Now not every person throws a ball well, nor effectively, but the action of throwing a ball is factual.

Now not every person [practices or performs] science well, nor effectively, but the action of [practicing or performing] science is factual. [ASIDE: read is to reading as science is to "sicencing"? In the absence of an active tense for the word "science" I prefaced practicing or performing. It is left as an exercise to the reader to assess whether this damages the symmetry of the argument. 8-)]

From there on you systematically demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, or at least a profound inability to express what you believe you understand about it.

The super-short super-simplified version is this: In Science you make observations, from those observations you make a guess (hypothesis), indeed the _best_ _guess_ you _can_, and you then construct a test or suit of tests that would invalidate that hypothesis. Then you contrive to execute that test, in the hopes that your test will fail to invalidate that hypothesis, and you observe the results. You use those observations to construct a better hypothesis and another set of tests. Lather Rinse Repeat. Once you have a hypothesis that you cannot refute, you promote your hypothesis to a thesis (in your mind, and a "candidate thesis to others) or in short "a theory", and present it to the world, along with your test methodology and results. Those others consider your thesis as a hypothesis of their own, and both act to verify your test results and also attempt to come up with their own test sets that would validate re-validate the hypothesis to themselves before accepting your thesis as their own.

Really consider the words.

"Hypo-" A prefix signifying a less quantity, or a low state or degree, of that denoted by the word with which it is joined, or position under or beneath.
"Thesis" A position or proposition which a person advances and offers to maintain, or which is actually maintained by argument.
"hypothesis" a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations.

In the technique we call "the scientific method" or just plain "science" nothing is _EVER_ proved, but many things are frequently _DISPROVED_.

The [egregious misnomer] "scientific proof" is messy, and largely meaningless.

It is odd, then, that religionists require proof and act like scientists normally offer such proof; while scientists only demand evidence that an "honest and insistent attempt to disprove" has failed to so disprove.

People who speak of proof, barely understand the ideas and ideals of science. Science is the art of disproof. The reason that scientists are often religious is not, therefore, difficult to understand. Only _disproof_ is a final condition in science.

I find it odd that you toss "stupidity" around while demonstrating your own lack of knowledge... (I can be one stupid sucker myself from time to time, but I try to never "correct" _and_ deride someone at the same time. It leads to irony 8-)

Re:Actually, "science" is a "proven fact"...

[PJ1216]

your correction amounts to semantics. some people refer to science as that body of knowledge that has been compiled over the (many) years. i feel like more people would use it as a noun as such as opposed to a verb (there's a reason you can't conjugate it... cause its not a verb). my whole point was that science doesn't LEAD to fact if you want to get technical about it. and anyway, the rest of your post kind of agreed with it. so i'd say half your post was being pedantic and the other half was providing an extra argument in favor of my position (which is that science can only guess *really* well at things, but it can never lead to certainties).

and if you really want to get technical, you really can't say its a proven fact because its practice is based upon cause and effect (hence the whole thing of needing to be able to REPEAT an experiment). saying something that relies solely on an assumption is fact? that doesn't seem very prudent. but that's getting VERY technical and under normal circumstances i won't go that far, but you seem like you enjoy trying to be technical.

Not to correct you...

[IBitOBear]

They bible is not a myth. The bible is a fact, in that I can go out and get one and possess it and demonstrate its factual reality by, say, reading it, or using it to prop up one corner of a tippy sofa...

The bible is not a myth, it _presents_ a _mythos_. That is, it presents a _set_ of many interlocking or interdependent myths.

Please use more correct English when deriding the belief systems of others, else you'll make all us technical realists look bad...

8-)

Your clue awaits... not that you will ever get it.

[IBitOBear]

Science isn't am entity, "it" cannot guess. It cannot "LEAD to" anything anywhere. Just because you feel comfortable anthropomorphizing the entire universe, doesn't make it so. Just because you feel that need to be lead by an all-powerful it, doesn't for the tiniest moment endow science with entity or purpose.

You really just dont' get it at all do you?

"People of faith" demand that science provide "proof" that they themselves cannot supply about their faith.

"People of science" would like "people of faith" to shut the fuck up, not in general, but specifically about their attempts to misuse the trappings of science to validate their positions of faith.

Science doesn't lead, and the pursuit of science can only go two ways. Honestly forward into what is, or horribly astray by what people demand to see. The pursuit of science, diligently and precisely exercised by persons of honest endeavor, does reveal fact. But it only does so only asymptotically. Ever closer, but never complete. And then, armed with the best available approximation of fact, we hope men of conscience will lead.

Be as faithful as you want to your choice of deities, but you won't win the scientifically minded over until you try to rigorously examine that faith with an eye to trying to disprove it. When you honestly assail that attempt at disproof, and fail to disprove it, then you will earn the right to call your position validated in a scientific sense.

Meanwhile, the classification of things scientific is _solely_ and _wholly_ dependent on the method of ascertainment. Asserting any atom of knowledge, even if you assert it to have been gained "scientifically", it isnt necessarily so unless the science behind it was sound.

You say "semantic" as if semantics are invalid. As if the lowest thing is semantic differences. But each distinction in all things is semantic before it is systematic. Reality is the infinite sum of the infinitesimal pieces. The distinction between "the best, most rigorous guess we can make" and something with the "ring of truthiness" (credit to mister Colbert for that word) is that the former is ground fine under the wheels of doubt and reason, while the later is simply pronounced with an air of certitude.

All of life is vocabulary, and all of understanding is semantics, at least all of the all that can be shared between people effectively. Even your faith, and your wars of faith, dance semantically with angels on pinheads.

I'll give you "science" not being a verb. I'll point you to the definitions of the noun "science" and the adjective "scientific" as its close antecedent. But then I must paste the annotation from that very noun:

Note: Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a
knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained,
accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes,
or laws. Pure science is the knowledge of these powers,
causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all
applications. Both these terms have a similar and
special signification when applied to the science of
quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact
science is knowledge so systematized that prediction
and verification, by measurement, experiment,
observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and
physical

wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[PJ1216]

Pure science is the knowledge of these powers,
causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all
applications.

sooo... "science" DOES refer to the collection of knowledge. and what was the ONLY thing i was trying to say? that the knowledge ISN'T fact. I didn't say that this PROVES religion or believing in a higher power. i also didn't say that this higher entity has to be a LEADER. I just said that neither science NOR religion offer any factual description of the universe. yes, how each is arrived at is vastly different (for the most part). I never asked for proof. I think you think i'm saying things I'm not. I don't actually see what it is you're going off on. You spend a LOT of text saying, for the most part, the same thing I said about science. All I tried to say is its not fact. Ask any scientist if he believes there's a chance that he's wrong about something, chances are, he'll say, yes there's a chance. It's close-minded to think otherwise. And just to point out, you defied your own semantical argument (where i said science is the collection of knowledge and you said it was like reading... but then you defined it as knowledge... sooo, i dunno). I never claimed to say that what I believe is any more than fact either. I reasoned out as much as I could through logic (a higher entity offers a lot more benefits than just explaining the creation of the universe, socially and scientifically). I never even went so far as to say the two cannot coexist. I believe in other posts that I said, for the most part, I find science sufficient enough to apply to everyday life. The original reason I brought this up is that someone said science is fact (which I responded with its not) and they said religion was disproven (which I said it was not). I'm not even able to find your point anymore. Also, I NEVER EVER said I followed the Bible in any way shape or form. Can you PLEASE stop making me out to be some sort of fundamentalist? All I said is I believe in a higher power (thats IT... seriously. I have no clue of the characteristics or attributes of said being). You're going off on some tangent as if I want to go on another Crusade. Goddamn. What are you smoking? I never said I had any truth. I said that, as it stands, science isn't dogma (obviously without the religious aspect). I also said that religion (at least the bigger principles of such) have not been disproven. Sure a lot of the small ish is off-point, because it was written by people with agendas a long time ago. However, that CANNOT be used to refute the entirety of it. I'm a HUGE supporter of science. I despise those that think creationism is a scientific alternative to evolution. I BELIEVE in evolution. I'm just one of those people who refuse to be close minded enough to think that there is no possibility of something above us. i'll never assume that we can ever know anything as fact. you're talking to a computer engineer with a minor in philosophy. i can't even prove you're nothing more than words on a screen. i can't prove that the person sitting across from me actually thinks. i can't even prove that i'm not the only person who CAN think. i'm fine with going all out on science. i'm disappointed when it gets cutbacks. i think we're falling behind others. i never, once, said that science is for naught. Not once did I EVER MENTION THE WORD GOD (until now of course). I can tell you're an intelligent individual, but I can also tell that you have a huge blind spot when someone says they believe in some higher power. Again, just like you've done with science, you apply all of these assumptions. However, in this case, THEY ARE ALL WRONG. I don't know anything about this higher entity. I just think that some force had to cause the creation of th

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[WNight]

I'm that original poster who said that religion is a joke. What I asserted is that while opinions cannot be disproved, religious claims aren't opinion, they're incorrect fact.

You can play semantic games with my word 'fact', but it's correct to say that I'm typing this message at a keyboard. I can't prove I'm not a brain in a jar in some universal simulator, but unless I am, this is a keyboard... Gravity is a theory, that things fall 'down' is fact. Down is the direction that things fall when dropped - by definition, that things fall when dropped is a fact despite that we have no final knowledge about the mechanism involved. This is what I'm calling a fact.

In this sense, facts can be proved. In fact, many are self-evident because they are a tautology. Things fall down. It's not possible to conclusively demonstrate a negative, such as the lack of white ravens, but that's not the issue here.

Religious claims talk about facts, but are incorrect. I can't disprove you saying 'the concept of god makes me feel fuzzy', it very well might. But if you say 'moses parted the sea, jesus rose from the dead, god created the universe' these are factual claims which can be disproved easily.

Consider that I can disprove your claim not only by showing it to be false, but by showing it to be based on incorrect or faulty reasoning and incapable of being right except by luck. At this point, god is as likely a the flying spaghetti monster.

I'm not saying that no god-like entity exists, just that you don't have the slightest bit of evidence. You're wrong about anything you claim without possible proof, regardless of (untestable) reality.

The nature of religion is to make implausible and untestable claims on the reasoning that they can't actually be proved wrong absolutely and thus that those ideas are as valid as ones made by people who actually understand the issue.

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[PJ1216]

i'll concede to saying that you *think* things fall down when you drop them as being fact. i will not concede to things fall down when you drop them as being absolute fact. *i* think things fall down when dropped and thats a fact as well. moses parting the sea has not actually been disproved (though many alternative theories have been proposed, such as it was a completely different sea, i forget the name, that during certain times, there's a land bridge straight through it. the idea being it was exaggerated how far behind the romans really were when following them and it was exaggerated how much it really parted). there's no proof jesus didn't rise from the dead, and there's DEFINITELY no proof that God did not create the universe. I personally don't ascribe to any of these beliefs. However, I won't say that the bible is 100% false because there's quite a possibility that they are all exaggerations of various stories back then (and who knows, maybe some of them were miracles, but i honestly doubt it). however, it can't be conclusively disproved. and to say they can be easily disproved is almost comical. did you go back in time and watch it not occur? plus, you can't disprove a claim based on saying its faulty reasoning. you can give doubt by destroying its reasoning, but it does not disprove the claim. if i say 2+2=4 because coca-cola tastes better than pepsi. the reasoning is by far very faulty, but i doubt people will say my claim is false. plus, you have yet to show any faulty reasoning behind believing anything. i personally don't believe in God, but i don't find faulty reasoning behind those that say he exists. Just because you don't agree with the reasoning does not actually make it invalid. Plus, lack of evidence DOES NOT imply a claim is incorrect. So, i'm not wrong about anything I claim without possible proof, regardless of how many times you say it. There are a lot of ideas in science that lack proof, but the idea just fits by certain standards (and there will be scientists who disagree... however, that doesn't mean one is definitely wrong or right). and that is not the nature of religion. thats a negative connotation you've attributed to it. there are plenty of people who believe in religion who believe in evolution (there are plenty of Christians who believe in evolution too). There are plenty of people who will accept whatever science you give them and most of the time it can be completely intertwined with religion. as many people have said in the past, religion and science may just be two sides of the same coin. they don't have to be mutually exclusive. many scientists (GREAT scientists) were religious. many of the theories you hold as fact were described by scientists who believed strongly in God.

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[WNight]

If down is the directions things fall when dropped, then anything dropped falls down. Can't be wrong, it's a tautology.

Your waffling about Moses is exactly what I mean. It could mean anything, and as such is opinion, or at least not a real theory.

Whenever a factual claim is made it can easily be examined and be shown to be incorrect.

Now, it sounds like you read about fallacies and got a little confused. I don't have to prove that your claim could NEVER be. Nope. I only have to show that the evidence you provide is unconvincing. At that it's at exactly the same level as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, etc. The burden of proof is with the person making the outrageous claim. The universe could have spontaneously happened, or god could have spontaneously happened and then created the universe. Your way requires an extra step, and one that doesn't help explain anything, and as such is an outrageous claim.

Nobody here is arguing that at one level we can't even "prove" that we exist. Yes, that is one meaning of the word. But I'm using it in the context where things can be proved. Those other dictionary definitions that only deal with a preponderance of evidence, not mathematical certainty.

I can prove that you are wrong by showing that even if 2+2=4, coca cola has nothing to do with it and you were merely right by coincidence. That's still proof that you and your claim are incorrect (that 2+2=4 is right, but that it does so BECAUSE of coke is not.) Similarly a homeopath might occasionally recommend the correct treatment (when the correct treatment is water) but not because of skill. You could prove that they were wrong in their treatment as long as they didn't perform correctly because of skill.

If you wish to be excrutiatingly pedantic and use only the scientific meaning of proof, then I can't prove you wrong, but only because you can't make any testable claims. You're just as 'right' as the FSM people, and scientologists, which is to say not at all.

So, I can show all of your claims to be wrong, and how you're incapable of making actual meaningful claims. You can call this whatever you want, but you're as likely to be eaten by the Loch Ness monster (while safe at home in your own bed) as to be meaningfully right.

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[PJ1216]

If down is the directions things fall when dropped, then anything dropped falls down. Can't be wrong, it's a tautology. what? let's reword that (without changing meaning) "If things fall down when dropped, then anything dropped falls down." You're stating a condition and then giving a conclusion. However, your conclusion IS your condition. Here's another tautology. "If the universe was created by some sort of higher entity, then a higher entity created the universe." It's a tautology. It's intellectually bankrupt because it says nothing. "If x, then x." Duh.
 
Prove to me how the universe started spontaneously. It's an outrageous claim. Something from nothing? Sounds outrageous to me. Breaks the law of conservation of energy. I want the hard evidence. It's upon your shoulders to prove it, is it not?
 
I'm not trying to say you're wrong or I'm right. I'm just trying to say it really can't be said with certainty that the origins, intent, and core principles of religion have no grounding in truth. It's just as ignorant to say that science has no grounding in truth either. I'm not trying to refute science. I firmly believe that science and religious beliefs can coincide in harmony(obviously not all... the religious beliefs that hold science is the devil's handiwork obviously wouldn't fit the bill, same with the science fanatics that refuse religion). I just think that there is so much that we don't know, that it's a little early to say that we know what's going on. So believe what you will, but just don't be like a religious zealot who refuses to believe in something no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. You have just as much evidence (re: none) about the beginning of the universe as any person in known existence does. So i fail to see how your theory should somehow be the winner.

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[WNight]

A tautology is an empty, yet true, statement. Yes.

Call 'happened spontaneously' whatever you will. You hypothesize the existence of two entities, the universe and its creator. Its creator then, in your scenario, must have appeared spontaneously, or you need a creator creator.

I'm not saying I know how the universe created. I'm saying that your claims appear less likely because they require the existence of an explicit creator and don't actually answer and chicken/egg questions.

The universe obviously exists. Barring that I can't "prove" that I exist, to myself, there is ample proof for the universe.

It's obviously here. We'd both agree, I think.

You claim to know details about its creation (that it required a creator) and as such, I think the burden of proof is on you to support this.

My theory wins, because my theory is that complex untestable theories with no explanatory power are wrong, by default. Invalid at any rate, and wrong by extension. My theory can be easily proved. Untestable theories aren't theories, neither are ones that fail to make any predictions. This is the tautology. What you're hypothesizing about universal creation isn't a theory, and is thus isn't a valid theory.

You're trying to claim knowledge of something, I'm merely trying to show that you aren't right by intent - you may by fluke be right, but it would be impossible for you to know this and thus, that your claims are "wrong".

If I flip a coin, look at it, and tell you it landed the other way, that's a lie. If I flip it, pretend to look, and tell you something random it's still a lie. It doesn't cease to be a lie when the coin is revealed and matches my words, because the lie was in making a statement which purported not just to coincidentally match fact, but that you verify it thusly. If you are unable to verify it you can't tell it as a truth.

Religious theories on the creation of the universe keep retreating, like Mose's exploits, until they could mean anything. 'God of the cracks.' They either claim nothing testable, or when proven false are claimed to have been metaphorical or exaggerated in translation.

The only ones that are testable have been proven wrong. Stars aren't dots on giant glass spheres, it's not turtles all the way down, the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc.

The instant you actually get nailed down on a specific, it's no longer religion. It's a simple matter of fact that can be checked and proven. This is why no serious believer will ever get nailed down making specific claims.

Religion is the unknowable, it can never masquerade as science. Science is about examining things, religion is about imagining things.

You have just as much evidence (re: none) about the beginning of the universe as any person in known existence does. So i fail to see how your theory should somehow be the winner. I'd be lying if I told you how the universe started, or even claimed to have a good idea. I have the same evidence you do. Thus you'd be lying if you claimed to know anything...

My theory is that anyone who claims to know the unknowable is wrong, where we mean wrong to apply despite there being a random chance of them actually being right.

Unknowable makes it a tautology. Anyone who claims to know it is proposing a paradox. They're lying.

Religious arguments are by definition over unknowable things, because if they made real testable predictive claims they'd be called science and supported or rejected based on evidence.

Religion = Unknowable = Impossible to be right about = Anyone claiming to be right is a liar or wrong

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[PJ1216]

here's my logic for a creator (i prefer higher power because i don't like to personify it): first, there was nothing. then there was something. now, i do believe in cause & effect and i know you do as well (and its the only practical system to try and determine an origin... otherwise, yes, you can just make up anything). now, you must assume that this effect had a cause. the only plausible solution i can come up with is the existence of an unknown intangible element that has the physical properties of nothingness, but metaphysical properties of something. look at it as two forms of physical nothing, just one has an extra property that metaphysically makes it something... but its still nothing (its paradoxical, i know, but so is believing the universe was created spontaneously from absolute nothing with no cause). i'm not going to apply any other properties to this element other than that it exists outside of our existence. i can only postulate its existence. this is my version of the creator. you see why i hate calling it a 'creator' because it personifies it and thats not part of my belief system. however, since i can't even prove it exists, i'm not going to bother with trying to decipher its origins. since it exists alongside our existence (though not in it), its completely possible that it doesn't need to have a cause. i'm just saying that if you don't believe in anything outside of our existence, you really can't break your own rules because that means your rules are flawed and brings everything into question (in that, yea, all your rules work *most* of the time, but they didn't work all the time). now if people want to come to their own conclusions on this higher entity and give them more attributes, that's there own prerogative. maybe it is possible that it is an intelligent entity, maybe it is possible that it has communicated with people in our history. i don't personally believe it, but i won't say its certainly false. i've given you my reason for thinking something caused creation. now you give me your reasoning for how something can come from nothing without any cause. you have a dormant nothing and then magically it decides to become something... an event had to occur to cause it or else it should have been dormant forever... UNLESS you believe in a different set of rules applying to this pre-existence, in which case, you're allowed to postulate anything and its just as valid as anything else)

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[WNight]

A something which isn't anything but has the metaphysical properties of something, can spontaneously appear, but some a something which isn't a nothing can't spontaneously appear... Heady stuff there.

As compelling as your argument is, it's lacking any testable predictions which keep it from being a theory.

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[PJ1216]

your argument of it spontaneously appearing from nothing with no cause also arguably lacks any testable predictions...

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[WNight]

But requires no extraordinary steps.

The universe is here, I think you'd agree. Well, there too.

That means it had to get here. That's pretty safe.

So you have to admit that it seems strange things could just appear, but that it seems less odd if less things appear, all else being equal.

You say that something spontaneously appeared and made everything else. That posits that something that still come from nothing, but instead of a bunch of matter, that first thing in a supreme being capable of creating a universe.

You're claiming that making rocks is too difficult for the universe to manage so it needed a creator, but that making the creator (much harder than a few rocks) was possible.

My claim is one step, requires a single deduction from current events, and has very little predictive power.

Your claim is two steps, requires deduction, and assumption about the type of things that can spontaneously appear, but still has little predictive power.

There are two ideas on the table, mine shorted, yours longer. They both attempt to describe the same current scenario. Neither offers and predictive power, so neither are theories. Further, yours relies on more assumptions about the nature of creators and universes that I don't think you have.

So, if you aren't claiming divine guidance (and I'd like to see it) you'll have to admit that the nature of a creator (who chooses to use its abilities to remain hidden, obviously) seems untestable.

At that the longer idea, with untestable assumptions, seems weaker.

And my claim is a bit tautological - we're here, that must have happened...

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[PJ1216]

But requires no extraordinary steps.

Yes it does. You offer no means to save 'cause & effect'. You're system requires you to ultimately believe that cause & effect CANNOT be universal constant. If it were constant, there cannot be any breaks, but unfortunately, you can't explain away the break of their being no cause for universe. I still can believe its a universal constant in my belief system. The 'supreme being' or 'creator' as you call it (i really dislike the term) acts as a go-between between a reality where cause & effect is a constant and a reality where cause & effect may or may not be a constant. I solely use this entity for this purpose. Its the only way i can resolve this contradiction in the belief of cause & effect. If you still believe it and you just don't understand how the cause&effect debacle resolved itself, then really, there IS an extraordinary step taking place, you're just refusing to give it a name or to describe it. i've at least theorized what i view to be the best-fitting one with the evidence (or lack thereof) that i can think of. no matter what conclusion anyone will come up with to save cause & effect, it will always be extraordinary. i mean, whatever it was, it presumably only happened once in all existence... thats extraordinary to me.

The universe is here, I think you'd agree. Well, there too.

Yes, I'll give you that.

That means it had to get here. That's pretty safe.

Also true.

So you have to admit that it seems strange things could just appear, but that it seems less odd if less things appear, all else being equal.

Ehh, one thing appearing is much more of a unique situation as opposed to the infinite many more possible. why does one claim have to be less odd than another? (i don't posit that only two things were there, only that at least two things were there, though i don't know if i made that clear or even if i made it sound otherwise, if i did, i apologize for the confusion)

You say that something spontaneously appeared and made everything else. That posits that something that still come from nothing, but instead of a bunch of matter, that first thing in a supreme being capable of creating a universe.

Not necessarily. You're making the assumption that in this pre-existence stage that something couldn't just have existed forever. the only reason we can't apply it to our universe is that it doesn't fit with our current thinking (scientific or otherwise).

You're claiming that making rocks is too difficult for the universe to manage so it needed a creator, but that making the creator (much harder than a few rocks) was possible.

I'm claiming it was too difficult for the universe to make itself, so something else made the universe.

My claim is one step, requires a single deduction from current events, and has very little predictive power.

But it ignores all the contradictions that still exist. You just write them off with an "ehh, whatever." I tried to give an explanation.

Your claim is two steps, requires deduction, and assumption about the type of things that can spontaneously appear, but still has little predictive power.

The assumption i made about the type of things that can spontaneously appear is based off believing in cause & effect (because i do). if i don't make that assumption, it becomes a lot harder to believe cause & effect is a universal constant.

There are two ideas on the table, mine shorted, yours longer. They both attempt to describe the same current scenario. Neither offers and predictive power, so neither are theories. Further, yours relies on more assumptions about the nature of creators and universes that I don't think you have.

Yours assumes logic didn't apply right away. That's a big break in logic for me. My theory allows logic to exist as part of the universe itself. Yours

Re:wow. somebody needs reading comprehension

[WNight]

I wasn't very clear. I'm not pushing the idea that the universe just spontaneously appeared, or not directly. I'm showing how it's functionally equivalent to your more-complex idea in that they both require some spontaneous creation (or perpetual existence) and thus it's fundamentally the same argument. As such, the longer one seems weaker.

This is because I don't see that it's stranger for the universe to create itself or have always existed than for a creator to create itself or have always existed and then create the universe. Your idea has a totally consistent universe (cause and effect) but only by positing a larger containing universe that does not have this property around our own. So ultimately cause and effect wouldn't be absolute in your example either.

Besides, you know you're far into philosophy here. That's really what I was getting at. That because of the lack of testability and predictive claims this wasn't any kind of theory, or is wrong. It's about the unknowable so it can't be a theory though it can be a fine idea.

I think that wild crazy question have great value. That uneducated people should feel free to ask what they want. I don't mind a religious person for asking questions, or having opinions. Asking if we'd ever go to the moon sounded like a stupid thing a hundred years ago. But there's a difference between innocent and uneducated attempts to learn, and thinking that just because a view is honestly held that it has any validity or deserves to be treated as a reasoned opinion from someone who has examined the evidence.