Illogical: For Feeno!




My Christian friend who goes by the Blog handle of Feeno, asked me to do my best Spock impersonation:


"T Vick, Could you please, in your best Spock impersonation give me his answer to the question of "is there a God?"  Live long and prosper, feeno"


My pleasure:


"Captain, many primitive civilizations of your early Earth's history believed in some form of divine all powerful being, but I must say, there is no convincing evidence to endorse such a hypothesis. The idea of God is unsubstantiated. And so, to claim something exists without the proper evidence would be... (*raises eyebrow...) illogical."





By the way, Captain James T. Kirk was a true skeptic and an atheist also. Have a good weekend everyone.


Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 27, 2009 at 10:06 AM

    T Vick

    Dude, that was awesome, thanx, I'm laughing my arse off right now. Something told me when I asked you that I'd enjoy your answer.

    Peace, feeno

    ReplyDelete
  2. tinkbell13November 27, 2009 at 9:57 PM

    Yeah, that is really funny. Very good.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Jesus—not a mythicist
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t
Read more