When someone posts a picture of their baby to r/aww.

billiegoat · 2012-05-25T16:28:43.163894+00:00

I know I'm the third person to say this -- but it bears repeating because I'm sick of hearing it. This just isn't true. You don't think babies are cute. A lot of other people don't think babies are cute. That's okay.

But there sure as fuck are a ton of people who do.

Delta0ps0 · 1 day

I like babies, and not just my own. The anti-baby clamor that goes on is just strange to me. I mean I can get not liking babies, but the fervor about it... sheesh.

gphhawkins · 3 days

This is exactly what I think when I hear somebody making this argument in such strong terms, as if promoting safe choices and minimizing risk is equivalent to blaming the victim, and thus shouldn't be done at all.

Spooky_Electric · 8 days

I don't give even a fraction of a fuck about that twitter, but I wanted to give kudos on that user name.

qllie · 8 days

You can make a lot of things look like a "religion" if you collect only comments and content about that thing, and then pretend the dominance of that topic means that the people associated with it must have their lives just as dominated by the topic.

In other words: We don't live here.

Pistachio_handler · 8 days

Just referring you to this comment:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/tonig/who_do_you_dislike_that_reddit_loves_personally_i/c4oqsqf

cdemayo1 · 8 days

You think the venting that happens here is done to promote atheism? This isn't a PR project.

wilsonstelevision · 9 days

Where did everybody find this person to follow them? What was it that made them so public?

JDX3DS · 9 days

People get very stubbornly entrenched on this point no matter how many ways it is explained to them.

michaelretzlaff · 9 days

I'm sure I could quote mine it for a number of things I agree with. But that would be far, far outweighed by the things I don't.

GodlessStoner · 9 days

It's a knee-jerk thing. This quote actually has a lot of good things to discuss.

I try not to assume what anybody's motives might be, and too often people get pounced on based on assumed motives. I prefer to give benefit of the doubt, even when that doubt is small.

GodlessStoner · 9 days

Don't pay any mind to the hostility. If insults start coming out, it's because they are frustrated and don't feel like having the same debate or making the same points yet again, and again. They have no patience for people who don't read the FAQ, and come in repeating the same criticisms that have been posted numerous times a day, every day, for years.

All you did was post a quote -- but it's a quote that makes a point that at least 2 or 3 people a day (sometimes many more) try to shove in our faces. Why are all you atheists so certain? Shouldn't you be an agnostic? Isn't your position based on faith just like religious people? ... etc. etc.

We regularly get one of a couple of Sagan quotes on the subject posted, and usually it's with the tone of "Hey look! Your idol thinks you are wrong!"

We have a large handful of people here commenting on the new tab who have just run out of any patience for it and instead go into trolling/antagonizing mode. Personally, I don't think that's very constructive. But then again, they aren't doing it to be constructive.

GodlessStoner · 9 days

Nothing in there tells me that NukeThePope believes there is definitely no god. Actually, the quote seems to suggest otherwise?

GodlessStoner · 9 days

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I know what Sagan means by this, but I disagree with throwing this quote out so freely and without qualification. It's downright misleading.

The lack of evidence very often is evidence of absence. The lack of evidence of a cat in my house is evidence that I don't keep a cat in the house. It's not proof. It's evidence. The lack of evidence for a coffee mug sitting on the table in front of me is very clear evidence that there is no coffee mug sitting on the table in front of me.

When you are dealing with a proposition for which you should reasonably expect some sort of evidence the absence of that evidence is evidence against that proposition.

A claim such as "there are undiscovered species left in Australia" would be another matter.

You can debate whether or not god is the kind of thing for which we should find clear evidence. Sagan points out one scenario for which the lack of evidence for god might make sense. But that kind of rationalization is, for me, no reason to give the notion more credibility than it deserves. It's no reason to pretend that religious claims have some kind of equal merit to claims that are based on evidence rather than the lack of it.

So when Sagan says:

And so I have no problems with any of that

I think this might need qualification. I do have a problem with people who believe that there are natural pieces of evidence for the existence of gods, typically. I don't have a problem with them reaching their conclusion based on what they perceive to be evidence. That's fine. But I do usually have a problem with what they are calling evidence. Usually it's nothing of the sort! So that's a problem.

Carl Sagan has no problem with the idea of people believing they have natural pieces of evidence -- but I strongly suspect, based on his work, that he does have a problem with people taking things that aren't evidence, and claiming those things to actually be evidence.

GodlessStoner · 9 days

Um.. .. no? Can you quote it?

GodlessStoner · 9 days

I may make another comment on it, but that would be in its own thread.

GodlessStoner · 9 days

Almost everything anybody posts here is going to earn a few downvotes, usually almost immediately. It means nothing.

Edit: By the way can you show me where NukeThePope claimed that?

GodlessStoner · 9 days

No one said your thinking was wrong,

But people do, all the time. Did you see the words "Because agnostics usually come here..." at the start of that comment?

NukeThePope was trying to answer your question. That's why agnostics are often met with hostility. He never said you did it.

GodlessStoner · 9 days

Because people who come here claiming to be "agnostic" and posting pro-agnostic quotes are usually doing so with the subtext of "you atheists should be agnostics instead." More often than not these agnostics are considering a definition of atheism that isn't in line with what most atheists actually have to say when it comes to the question of god. Most atheists here agree with almost everything Carl Sagan has to say about god.

I actually disagree with some of the above quote -- but that's beside the point of this particular comment.

Pistachio_handler · 9 days

I'm not interested in completely rehashing this whole incident. It's been discussed to death. Regardless of whether or not Dawkins was right, that's the point he was making.

Longshot46 · 9 days

That's a good question. It's just strange.

autoerotichumliation · 9 days

You, also, are beating a dead horse.

ZombieGadaffi · 9 days

It's not about thinking in black and white ... you're missing a fundamental point about what it means to "not currently believe" as opposed to "currently believe there is not" in regards to the existence of god.

edit: Belief is a positive endorsement. If you do not currently accept the position that there is a god -- which you don't if you are only saying "maybe" or "I don't know" to the question -- then you do not currently belief, because that acceptance of the position, saying yes to the question, is what qualifies believe.

ZombieGadaffi · 9 days

"I don't know" would fall under the category of "do not currently believe" in this context.

ZombieGadaffi · 9 days

If you have reached no conclusion on the question then you do not currently believe. That means you could probably be described as an atheist. Perhaps a very "weak" atheist who might choose not to identify with the label, but still.

kencabbit

TROPHY CASE

kencabbit

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login