Topic: Where else do you post?
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #28,034
> inb4 TC, SC, and DC
doctor superman md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later[^] [v] #416,143
twitter
BOANERS joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,144
niggerchan
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,145
Pretty much just here and reddit now (under lots of accounts).
hamfist !2E1ogQqRO. joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 29 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,146
twitter and /mu/
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,148
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 39 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,149
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,150
Regularly? /tg/. Also one other place.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 44 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,152
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,153
@previous (A)
Okay. Why reddit? There's many small (and not so small) interesting subreddits outside the defaults.
Okay. Why reddit? There's many small (and not so small) interesting subreddits outside the defaults.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,154
@previous (D)
I guess it's mostly me because smaller subreddits aren't as fast, and the site layout isn't all too great.
I guess it's mostly me because smaller subreddits aren't as fast, and the site layout isn't all too great.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,156
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 43 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,157
@416,154 (A)
Yeah I get that, but if you're subscribed to a fair few subs the front page isn't usually too slow, or at least not unbearably so.
Yeah I get that, but if you're subscribed to a fair few subs the front page isn't usually too slow, or at least not unbearably so.
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,161
@416,156 (F)Oh God do you remember "Faces of Atheism"? They all took pictures of their own faces and put a quote, of theirs, beside it. So fucking cringeworthy.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,162
Handel !JwkjmyyOPs joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,163
Here and Reddit.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 41 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,164
@416,161 (D)
@416,162 (D)
These are making me feel euphoric. Were they written by professional quote makers?
@416,162 (D)
These are making me feel euphoric. Were they written by professional quote makers?
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,165
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
They were not, in fact!
Are you feeling enlightened by your own intelligence?
They were not, in fact!
Are you feeling enlightened by your own intelligence?
Poststarnumberuno joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 42 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,167
Here, Facebooks, reddit, instagram, /x/, youtube.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 13 years ago, 13 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,168
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,174
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #416,179
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,216
@416,161 (D)
@416,162 (D)
@416,174 (D)
But I actually like the atheist subreddit. :(
@416,162 (D)
@416,174 (D)
But I actually like the atheist subreddit. :(
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,220
@previous (F)
In between the 13 year-olds posting the Facebook diatribes they made in response to someone saying "God bless", and the pictures of Dawkins' quotes with space backgrounds, there can be interesting discussion occasionally (especially when someone with a theological background joins in) but the place is so flooded with crap.
In between the 13 year-olds posting the Facebook diatribes they made in response to someone saying "God bless", and the pictures of Dawkins' quotes with space backgrounds, there can be interesting discussion occasionally (especially when someone with a theological background joins in) but the place is so flooded with crap.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,223
@previous (D)
As long as they do some good stuff, which they do with their helping of people who are questioning religion and so on. Ultimately, I'd say their existence is a positive thing.
As long as they do some good stuff, which they do with their helping of people who are questioning religion and so on. Ultimately, I'd say their existence is a positive thing.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,228
@previous (F)
True, but I think the subreddits specific to those thinking of leaving their religion (/r/exchristian, /r/exmuslim, and so on) better fulfil this purpose. IMO if /r/atheism dropped the attitude that being an atheist means you're more intelligent, or somehow gives you a better understanding of the world, it would be a more bearable place. Another thing they could do is ban Facebook screenshots and try to make it a more text-focused sub.
True, but I think the subreddits specific to those thinking of leaving their religion (/r/exchristian, /r/exmuslim, and so on) better fulfil this purpose. IMO if /r/atheism dropped the attitude that being an atheist means you're more intelligent, or somehow gives you a better understanding of the world, it would be a more bearable place. Another thing they could do is ban Facebook screenshots and try to make it a more text-focused sub.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,230
@previous (D)
> IMO if /r/atheism dropped the attitude that being an atheist means you're more intelligent, or somehow gives you a better understanding of the world, it would be a more bearable place.
Perhaps, but that's always going to be a natural consequence of the "us-them" mentality they have with religion (and vice-versa). It has to exist somewhere, and it will exist in some form in most atheist communities. And, in fairness, it's pretty difficult to argue that believing in things with no real evidence gives one a better understanding of the world.
Besides, I'm of the opinion that atheism could use a few obnoxious dicks anyway. If only to act as a counter agains those sorts of people on the religion side.
> IMO if /r/atheism dropped the attitude that being an atheist means you're more intelligent, or somehow gives you a better understanding of the world, it would be a more bearable place.
Perhaps, but that's always going to be a natural consequence of the "us-them" mentality they have with religion (and vice-versa). It has to exist somewhere, and it will exist in some form in most atheist communities. And, in fairness, it's pretty difficult to argue that believing in things with no real evidence gives one a better understanding of the world.
Besides, I'm of the opinion that atheism could use a few obnoxious dicks anyway. If only to act as a counter agains those sorts of people on the religion side.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,232
@previous (F)
> Perhaps, but that's always going to be a natural consequence of the "us-them" mentality they have with religion (and vice-versa). It has to exist somewhere, and it will exist in some form in most atheist communities.
It would be nice if there could be a place where religion could be discussed in a mutually respectful way. I know it's /r/atheism and not /r/debatereligion, but as atheism is pretty much a "non-topic" something has to be discussed.
> And, in fairness, it's pretty difficult to argue that believing in things with no real evidence gives one a better understanding of the world.
At the same time, as a question that we don't have an answer for, it can't really be argued it leaves an understanding that's any worse.
> Besides, I'm of the opinion that atheism could use a few obnoxious dicks anyway. If only to act as a counter agains those sorts of people on the religion side.
I think it's good be frank and outspoken, but not too forceful. Get your point across but be respectful--don't go out of your way to cause upset. I understand where you're coming from, but being too dickish will serve only to alienate those who are on the fence, and isn't the kind of welcoming environment people questioning their religion are likely to turn to.
> Perhaps, but that's always going to be a natural consequence of the "us-them" mentality they have with religion (and vice-versa). It has to exist somewhere, and it will exist in some form in most atheist communities.
It would be nice if there could be a place where religion could be discussed in a mutually respectful way. I know it's /r/atheism and not /r/debatereligion, but as atheism is pretty much a "non-topic" something has to be discussed.
> And, in fairness, it's pretty difficult to argue that believing in things with no real evidence gives one a better understanding of the world.
At the same time, as a question that we don't have an answer for, it can't really be argued it leaves an understanding that's any worse.
> Besides, I'm of the opinion that atheism could use a few obnoxious dicks anyway. If only to act as a counter agains those sorts of people on the religion side.
I think it's good be frank and outspoken, but not too forceful. Get your point across but be respectful--don't go out of your way to cause upset. I understand where you're coming from, but being too dickish will serve only to alienate those who are on the fence, and isn't the kind of welcoming environment people questioning their religion are likely to turn to.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,234
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
> It would be nice if there could be a place where religion could be discussed in a mutually respectful way. I know it's /r/atheism and not /r/debatereligion, but as atheism is pretty much a "non-topic" something has to be discussed.
There probably is. I would imagine that it's fairly heavily moderated, and full of older, mature people.
> At the same time, as a question that we don't have an answer for, it can't really be argued it leaves an understanding that's any worse.
I can see where you're coming from, but I just can't accept that logic. We don't know how the universe came about, so it's illogical to suddenly jump to the idea of a god without any real evidence. We have no more evidence for god than the invisible dragon flying through the sky, so it's illogical to give any religious creeds special consideration. Atheism generally only believes what has been scientifically tested and proven, while religion often has to try to reconcile new scientific discoveries with their own beliefs, and either change thier beleifs or disregard the discovery. I just can't accept it as a valid viewpoint over science.
> I think it's good be frank and outspoken, but not too forceful. Get your point across but be respectful--don't go out of your way to cause upset. I understand where you're coming from, but being too dickish is likely to just alienate those who are on the fence.
Sure, I can accept that. I just wouldn't want atheism to be full of overly-polite people who get shouted over by the loud religious people and their followers.
> It would be nice if there could be a place where religion could be discussed in a mutually respectful way. I know it's /r/atheism and not /r/debatereligion, but as atheism is pretty much a "non-topic" something has to be discussed.
There probably is. I would imagine that it's fairly heavily moderated, and full of older, mature people.
> At the same time, as a question that we don't have an answer for, it can't really be argued it leaves an understanding that's any worse.
I can see where you're coming from, but I just can't accept that logic. We don't know how the universe came about, so it's illogical to suddenly jump to the idea of a god without any real evidence. We have no more evidence for god than the invisible dragon flying through the sky, so it's illogical to give any religious creeds special consideration. Atheism generally only believes what has been scientifically tested and proven, while religion often has to try to reconcile new scientific discoveries with their own beliefs, and either change thier beleifs or disregard the discovery. I just can't accept it as a valid viewpoint over science.
> I think it's good be frank and outspoken, but not too forceful. Get your point across but be respectful--don't go out of your way to cause upset. I understand where you're coming from, but being too dickish is likely to just alienate those who are on the fence.
Sure, I can accept that. I just wouldn't want atheism to be full of overly-polite people who get shouted over by the loud religious people and their followers.
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,236
@previous (F)
> I can see where you're coming from, but I just can't accept that logic. We don't know how the universe came about, so it's illogical to suddenly jump to the idea of a god without any real evidence. We have no more evidence for god than the invisible dragon flying through the sky, so it's illogical to give any religious creeds special consideration. Atheism generally only believes what has been scientifically tested and proven, while religion often has to try to reconcile new scientific discoveries with their own beliefs, and either change thier beleifs or disregard the discovery. I just can't accept it as a valid viewpoint over science.
To call oneself an atheist doesn't necessarily involve a scientific position, or even general acceptance of science; there are atheists who embrace psuedoscience (homeopathy, holistic medicine, etc. etc.) just as their are devoutly religious people who contribute (or have contributed) more to science than most people ever will.
Neither an atheist or Christian can be said to have an understanding that is better or worse, until the very things these understandings differ on (existence of God and other magical claims) are settled scientifically. And as the core beliefs of Christians are supernatural, and therefore can't be tested or evaluated scientifically, I don't think either group can be said to truly have a better understanding, if that makes sense?
> Sure, I can accept that. I just wouldn't want atheism to be full of overly-polite people who get shouted over by the loud religious people and their followers.
Then yeah, I agree. I think it's a delicate balance between being respectful, and being heard.
> I can see where you're coming from, but I just can't accept that logic. We don't know how the universe came about, so it's illogical to suddenly jump to the idea of a god without any real evidence. We have no more evidence for god than the invisible dragon flying through the sky, so it's illogical to give any religious creeds special consideration. Atheism generally only believes what has been scientifically tested and proven, while religion often has to try to reconcile new scientific discoveries with their own beliefs, and either change thier beleifs or disregard the discovery. I just can't accept it as a valid viewpoint over science.
To call oneself an atheist doesn't necessarily involve a scientific position, or even general acceptance of science; there are atheists who embrace psuedoscience (homeopathy, holistic medicine, etc. etc.) just as their are devoutly religious people who contribute (or have contributed) more to science than most people ever will.
Neither an atheist or Christian can be said to have an understanding that is better or worse, until the very things these understandings differ on (existence of God and other magical claims) are settled scientifically. And as the core beliefs of Christians are supernatural, and therefore can't be tested or evaluated scientifically, I don't think either group can be said to truly have a better understanding, if that makes sense?
> Sure, I can accept that. I just wouldn't want atheism to be full of overly-polite people who get shouted over by the loud religious people and their followers.
Then yeah, I agree. I think it's a delicate balance between being respectful, and being heard.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 8 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,265
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
> To call oneself an atheist doesn't necessarily involve a scientific position, or even general acceptance of science; there are atheists who embrace psuedoscience (homeopathy, holistic medicine, etc. etc.) just as their are devoutly religious people who contribute (or have contributed) more to science than most people ever will.
Rationalists, then. But from what I've seen must atheists believe in science, so it's for the most part not an incorrect generalisation to make.
> And as the core beliefs of Christians are supernatural, and therefore can't be tested or evaluated scientifically, I don't think either group can be said to truly have a better understanding, if that makes sense?
No, I don't think that it does make sense. Not being able to disprove something does not make it valid. We cannot disprove that an invisible dragon created all of the ice-cream in the world, but you wouldn't say that the pro-dragonists and anti-dragonists have an equal insight.
Also, religion's "understanding" changes with the passing of time and the whims of men, while science will only change based on proven facts and tests. A Christian will need to try and reconcile their beliefs and inconvenient science. Their understanding has inherent flaws.
> To call oneself an atheist doesn't necessarily involve a scientific position, or even general acceptance of science; there are atheists who embrace psuedoscience (homeopathy, holistic medicine, etc. etc.) just as their are devoutly religious people who contribute (or have contributed) more to science than most people ever will.
Rationalists, then. But from what I've seen must atheists believe in science, so it's for the most part not an incorrect generalisation to make.
> And as the core beliefs of Christians are supernatural, and therefore can't be tested or evaluated scientifically, I don't think either group can be said to truly have a better understanding, if that makes sense?
No, I don't think that it does make sense. Not being able to disprove something does not make it valid. We cannot disprove that an invisible dragon created all of the ice-cream in the world, but you wouldn't say that the pro-dragonists and anti-dragonists have an equal insight.
Also, religion's "understanding" changes with the passing of time and the whims of men, while science will only change based on proven facts and tests. A Christian will need to try and reconcile their beliefs and inconvenient science. Their understanding has inherent flaws.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
The Truth !D786bwsdso joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,269
Facebook, like any other normal well adjusted upstanding citizen.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,271
@previous (The Truth !D786bwsdso)
> implying that Facebook is a prerequisite for normality
I don't think that you people understand how disturbing you are.
> implying that Facebook is a prerequisite for normality
I don't think that you people understand how disturbing you are.
The Truth !D786bwsdso replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,272
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,273
@previous (The Truth !D786bwsdso)
So you're saying that a social media website is a requirement for being normal, and that anybody who doesn't use it for any reason must be abnormal?
So you're saying that a social media website is a requirement for being normal, and that anybody who doesn't use it for any reason must be abnormal?
The Truth !D786bwsdso replied with this 13 years ago, 31 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,276
The Truth !D786bwsdso double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,277
Even Kenneth Waltz, 89 year old, the father of modern International Relations theory and one of the finest political analysts to ever exist, had and used Facebook regularly.
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,278
@416,276 (The Truth !D786bwsdso)
Are you retarded?
@previous (The Truth !D786bwsdso)
> one guy uses Facebook
> therefore it is a prerequisite for normality
lol
Are you retarded?
@previous (The Truth !D786bwsdso)
> one guy uses Facebook
> therefore it is a prerequisite for normality
lol
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,282
@416,265 (F)
> No, I don't think that it does make sense. Not being able to disprove something does not make it valid. We cannot disprove that an invisible dragon created all of the ice-cream in the world, but you wouldn't say that the pro-dragonists and anti-dragonists have an equal insight.
I don't believe that because it cannot be disproved it's valid, but I don't think it makes it invalid either. All I'm saying, is that because we don't know the answer to the question of God's existence, people who believe can't be said to have a worse understanding, because you can only say that with any certainty if you know whether God exists - which we presently don't.
For example, a creationist can be said to have a worse understanding than an evolutionist (hate that word, but eh) because we know evolution is valid science, and creationism is not. But on issues which aren't settled, saying one side's understanding is better or worse assumes knowledge we don't have.
If right now said you confessed your belief in a orbiting teapot, I would not share this belief but I wouldn't say I have a better understanding of the Universe based only on this belief. If you started rejecting or dismissing science to fit this belief, instead of adjusting your belief to fit the science, then I would say my understanding is better.
We might have to agree to disagree. :D
> No, I don't think that it does make sense. Not being able to disprove something does not make it valid. We cannot disprove that an invisible dragon created all of the ice-cream in the world, but you wouldn't say that the pro-dragonists and anti-dragonists have an equal insight.
I don't believe that because it cannot be disproved it's valid, but I don't think it makes it invalid either. All I'm saying, is that because we don't know the answer to the question of God's existence, people who believe can't be said to have a worse understanding, because you can only say that with any certainty if you know whether God exists - which we presently don't.
For example, a creationist can be said to have a worse understanding than an evolutionist (hate that word, but eh) because we know evolution is valid science, and creationism is not. But on issues which aren't settled, saying one side's understanding is better or worse assumes knowledge we don't have.
If right now said you confessed your belief in a orbiting teapot, I would not share this belief but I wouldn't say I have a better understanding of the Universe based only on this belief. If you started rejecting or dismissing science to fit this belief, instead of adjusting your belief to fit the science, then I would say my understanding is better.
We might have to agree to disagree. :D
Anonymous F replied with this 13 years ago, 37 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,286
@previous (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
There are, however, a literally infinite number of things which cannot be disproved and have no real supporting evidence. Yet we live our lives as if they do not exist, and do not consider them to be worthy of any serious consideration due to their utter lack of proof. I don't see who god shouldn't get the same treatment. I just see no reason to consider any of these belief systems over science.
But yeah, I think we've hit a fundamental disagreement here (things which cannot be disproven being considered valid) so I suppose we can respectfully end it here if you'd like.
There are, however, a literally infinite number of things which cannot be disproved and have no real supporting evidence. Yet we live our lives as if they do not exist, and do not consider them to be worthy of any serious consideration due to their utter lack of proof. I don't see who god shouldn't get the same treatment. I just see no reason to consider any of these belief systems over science.
But yeah, I think we've hit a fundamental disagreement here (things which cannot be disproven being considered valid) so I suppose we can respectfully end it here if you'd like.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 57 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #416,293
@previous (F)
Well I do think God should receive this treatment, and I'm an agnostic atheist, but it's just that I think one belief can only be called better by weighing differing views against one another, as a matter of science, and this can't be done with religions or belief systems that give themselves qualities that can't be measured scientifically.
Well I do think God should receive this treatment, and I'm an agnostic atheist, but it's just that I think one belief can only be called better by weighing differing views against one another, as a matter of science, and this can't be done with religions or belief systems that give themselves qualities that can't be measured scientifically.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #416,330
tc, sc, rarely duckychan, and bioshock official forum, unreality gaming, and a fetish site
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #416,374
why would i post somewhere? what would that accomplish?