this post was submitted on
1,244 points (61% like it)
3,404 up votes 2,160 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,213,339 readers

2,024 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
atheistvids atheismbot
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1243
1244

On the fine-tuning of the universe. (openparachute.files.wordpress.com)

submitted ago by Autodidact2

all 128 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]coopsauce 69 points70 points ago

the rest of the quote is awesome too...

Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points ago

To be fair, I'm pretty sure we can't do anything about the universe ending, and I don't think it's unreasonable to not worry about the sun blowing up just yet.

[–]Jisaw 20 points21 points ago

Whoa... a triple negative. A rare find, indeed.

[–]DeadOptimist 0 points1 point ago

and I don't think it's unreasonable to not worry about the sun blowing

"I do not think it is not reasonable to not worry about."

An interesting way indeed to say "I think it is reasonable to not worry about.."

[–]Hypertension123456 10 points11 points ago

Right now we have the most fossil fuels that we will have in the foreseeable future. Imagine if they run out and the future humans wonder why we didn't colonize space when we had to resources to do so successfully? Are we going to say that it was more important to blow our fellow humans up and make Transformers 2, then fund a reasonable space program. It is unreasonable not to try to colonize space as fast as humanly possible. Not only will the sun eventually blow up, there is always the possibility of a planet killing collision that could come at any time.

[–]rowuco 1 point2 points ago

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one with this fear.

[–]oldsapphire 0 points1 point ago

Welp, I know who I'm writing-in on my next local election ballot.

[–]coopsauce 1 point2 points ago

Right, we can't control the universe, nor can we control the sun. But I think the gist of what he's saying is that, while we can't control it, it's dangerous to assume that it's not going to affect us ("it" being the universe,earth, etc.).

also, as someone commented below, nice triple negative. My brain is fried from studying for finals, it took me a minute to wrap my head around it haha.

[–]TheHatman9 1 point2 points ago

we can't do anything about the universe ending... in our current form. but perhaps to escape our hole we as puddles need to change what it is to be a puddle, and perhaps become a cloud?

[–]LucidMetal 0 points1 point ago

What if I told you that inside every black hole is another universe with one less spatial dimension (one of those in existence is folded down like the other seven). Here the energies filter down with some initial conditions. Where did we come from? The white hole is on the other side of our black hole but we can't reach it from a lower dimension unless we survive through all the other black holes.

[–]ElectroSalt 2 points3 points ago

The video, i love this

[–]mearvk 2 points3 points ago

And we base the puddle's view of existence on our own? We imagine the puddle shirks death like we do. The truth may be that the puddle was happy in the knowledge that it was part of something bigger than itself and did not fear its own end.

Edit:

Original as follows:

And we base the puddle's view of existence on our own? We imagine the puddle shirks death like we do. The truth may be that the puddle lived its portion of existence happy in the knowledge that it was part of something bigger than itself.

[–]coopsauce 1 point2 points ago

is this the rest? ive only ever seen what i posted. i like this addition though, a lot

[–]mearvk 0 points1 point ago

This is just what I myself wanted to add. I'm very glad you liked it.

[–]aesu 6 points7 points ago*

This sums up why a religious mindset will be our species' downfall.

[–]x3tripleace3x 29 points30 points ago

Our species largest hurdle to overcome*

[–]TylerWyrick 17 points18 points ago

Because fuck cynicism!

[–]clbrs123 65 points66 points ago

Really good analogy. It wasn't made for us, we evolved around it.

[–]fox112 14 points15 points ago

I couldn't love this more.

[–]Abiding_Lebowski 2 points3 points ago

Worthy contribution.

[–]ky1e 23 points24 points ago

Beautiful way of depicting the Anthropic Principle.

[–]StezzerLolz -1 points0 points ago

Is it the Anthropic or Anthropomorphic? I forget.

[–]GregSK 13 points14 points ago

Never heard this analogy before, thanks for sharing! Another weapon added to my arsenal.

[–]aesu 9 points10 points ago

Read his books. He only wrote about twelve. He was a genius. A lazy genius. But hey, genius need its baths...

[–]EnglishMobster 3 points4 points ago*

Well, to be fair, he did a lot of other writing work in his earlier years.

He did some early work for Monty Python and contributed a little bit to the Holy Grail album. For a long time he couldn't find any writing work and was forced to take up some odd jobs. He kept writing, and sent the original draft of what would become the first episode of Hitchhiker's to the BBC for use in Doctor Who.

They sent it back, saying it didn't fit with the Doctor's image, but encouraged him to try different avenues within the BBC and asked if he could maybe write some other stories sometime.

After Hitchhiker's was a success he was hired as editor for Doctor Who. He wrote three episodes involving the Fourth Doctor, two of which aired ("The Pirate Planet" and "City of Death"). Fun fact: When Adams was the editor, he would sneak in Hitchhiker's Guide references everywhere.

While he was working on Doctor Who, he started novelizing Hitchhiker's Guide, and when that was successful all the sudden success meant he could afford to stop working so hard. Then he got lazy. :D

[–]Communist_Party 2 points3 points ago

It's very unfortunate that we lost him at such a young age.

[–]EnglishMobster 1 point2 points ago

Agreed, my friend.

[–]Aitioma 0 points1 point ago

It's posted almost every second day on r/atheism and every day at least once in the comments.

I myself posted it several times.

It's one of the most famous quotes by one of the most famous authors. I mean... really?

[–]jmjm123 11 points12 points ago

It wasnt made for us, we are made out of it.

[–]peacesmellsgood 1 point2 points ago

this is quite perfectly put

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]keyree 14 points15 points ago

If evolution was real, that puddle would be an airplane by now!

[–]aesu 0 points1 point ago

It neatly contours to my hand; God must have made it.

[–]trimeta 8 points9 points ago

This hole...! It was made for me!

(Note: Since that's a link to a short manga, make sure to read from right to left, to keep the panel order correct.)

[–]DoWhile 2 points3 points ago

DRR DRR DRR

[–]zipzopzoobitybop 1 point2 points ago

Fuckin' Junji Ito... Somebody posted a link yesterday to a full anthology by the same author. Goddamn spirals everywhere.

[–]Theon 0 points1 point ago

Link, please? I loved Enigma of the Amigara fault, so I'd really like to read the rest.

[–]zipzopzoobitybop 1 point2 points ago

http://read.mangashare.com/Uzumaki/chapter-001/page001.html

It doesn't include the Amigara fault story, but plenty of other ones. I only read the first two parts, that was enough for me..

[–]Proffsr 0 points1 point ago

I ctrl'f'd as soon as I saw this thread, you sir, have my Internets.

[–]NotlimTheGreat 6 points7 points ago

This quote comes from this speech. It is very much so worth the read, and there's also a recording of it on the left.

[–]Abiding_Lebowski 1 point2 points ago

Thanks!

[–]Tojso 1 point2 points ago

Probably my favorite line from the whole thing:

"The reason we had no idea how cats worked was because, since Newton, we had proceeded by the very simple principle that essentially, to see how things work, we took them apart. If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have in your hands is a non-working cat."

[–]NotlimTheGreat 1 point2 points ago

I had to write a long paper on this guy(actually I had to convince my teacher we was american enough to be considered for being written about, it was an assignment on american authors), and fell into this and listened to it like three times over. Every time he delivered that line it was chillingly awesome and so very true. I barely pulled off writing the measly 10 page paper on Adams because every time I sat down to do research I'd get lost in his writings or his speeches. I shoehorned the requirements to make it so I could include a lot of stuff in that speech even though I was supposed to report on his literary works. That paper was horrible for the sole reason of me wanting to write an entire book on the guy.

[–]falkensmaze 0 points1 point ago

An excellent and still very relevant talk! Thanks for this.

[–]NotlimTheGreat 1 point2 points ago

Just remember to link it off next Adams discussion you see! There are a few other talks of his around the internet but that one is far and above my favorite and I jump at the opportunity to spread it.

[–]Ywen 3 points4 points ago

This is the most profound metaphor I've ever heard on adaptation and evolution.

Really good.

[–]Gnippots 2 points3 points ago

And we don't even fit very well.

[–]Owlsrule12 4 points5 points ago

Reason and logic ftw.

[–]gboyle138 6 points7 points ago

I've always wondered why this argument is not more clearly refuted in some of the debates I've seen on youtube. The universal constants were not tuned so that we could live, our life is tuned to the universal constants.

[–]falkensmaze 0 points1 point ago

There's a little more to the fine-tuning argument. Certainly evolution is a natural phenomenon by which life, humanity, and thought itself has come to fill the valleys in the energy-landscape of their environment, but it is less apparent why life itself exists when small changes to universal constants would have resulted in a universe which collapses instantly, or one which is otherwise inhospitable to life. One solution to this is the philosophical argument that we wouldn't be asking the question if it was otherwise, and so it is hardly surprising that we find it to be so. And so, it would appear that everything does happen for a reason, and that reason is: "to get where we are today."

[–]gboyle138 1 point2 points ago

Not sure I agree with your arguments. Admittedly, I do not know that much about astrophysics (and maybe you do can can provide me with some evidence), but how do we know that a universe with slightly different constants would instantly collapse? Maybe those different constants would allow it to maintain itself in a manner which we can't comprehend using the constants we have? How do you know that different constants would lead to no life, instead of just different life?

[–]falkensmaze 0 points1 point ago

I confess to knowing very little of astrophysics. This is just the fine-tuning argument as I understand it, and you raise a valid point that different parameters could yield different life, even intelligent life, even conscious life, which is capable of asking the same existential question. But I think the main force of the argument is that if you change, say, the coupling constant that describes the strong nuclear force, there would be no such thing as hydrogen, which makes any sort of life unimaginable. Critics have called this the "argument from lack of imagination" for this reason. In my refutation of it, none of that matters. We exist because we exist, and it's absurd to think we could imagine any other scenario, namely, that of non-existence.

[–]appletart 1 point2 points ago

Most importantly, just because the sky is a shade of blue does not mean it's hyperintelligent.

[–]ElenaxFirebird 1 point2 points ago

Imagine a puddle waking up.

mind explodes

[–]Krystie 1 point2 points ago

I understand that the world wasn't made for us, and that living things just happened to evolve into what they are now given the circumstances to adapt to their environment.

But I don't really "get" the analogy. Is Douglas Adams trying to be humorous ? How is a pool analogous to an evolved life-form ?

[–]DrDew00 0 points1 point ago

The water's shape is dependent on its environment (the hole). An evolved life-form's shape (and other characteristics) are also dependent on its environment.

They both changed over time to fit their surroundings.

[–]Krystie 1 point2 points ago

dunno i just don't see the comparison; one is using normal fluid dynamics to fit a hole and the other is evolution which is an incredibly complex process.

I just don't see it as an excellent analogy. particularly not an analogy that you could use to present to a religious person

[–]DrDew00 0 points1 point ago

Isn't the whole point of an analogy to use something simple to help someone understand the basic idea behind something more complicated?

[–]Krystie 1 point2 points ago

I guess, i just thought it was a huge oversimplification and hence a bad analogy (reductive fallacy).

Religious people often use incredibly bad fallacious arguments and oversimplification is something they do a lot.

Given that Douglas Adams is a writer of quirky satire, I thought that perhaps this was intentional.

[–]DrDew00 0 points1 point ago

I don't know why you got down-voted but I tried to balance it out.

Given that Douglas Adams is a writer of quirky satire, I thought that perhaps this was intentional.

This is entirely possible.

[–]Krystie -1 points0 points ago

here's an example of what I mean.

[–]DrDew00 0 points1 point ago

This makes me...

[–]yellowstone10 0 points1 point ago

The point is that when you see two things that match, you should carefully consider which was made to match the other. Many religious people think the world was made to match us, which is silly in the same way that it would be silly to think that the hole was made to match the puddle it contains. The puddle changed shape to fit the hole, as we changed to fit the world.

[–]staggeringlywell 0 points1 point ago

I think the point of the analogy is that the puddle is taking an egocentric view by thinking the hole was made to fit its "body" perfectly rather than viewing the seeming perfection as a result of a scientific process in the analogy's case, fluid dynamics, and in ours evolution.

[–]faymao 0 points1 point ago

I agree with you. It doesn't actually make any sense.

[–]Krystie 0 points1 point ago

i wouldn't say it doesn't make *any* sense. It's just that it's a bad analogy.

[–]miscmantheman 0 points1 point ago

It's not about evolution, it's a rebuttal to the claim that the universe is adapted to life, and not life to the universe. The puddle "just happens" to fit the hole perfectly because in any instance where a puddle arises it will necessarily fit the hole... life "just happens" to be adapted to our environment because if the environment wasn't suitable, there wouldnt be any life there. It's a very, very good and simple analogy.

[–]aesu -2 points-1 points ago

Do you hear whooshing noises often?

[–]cervantes429 1 point2 points ago

I read the puddle's line in Wheatley's voice.

[–]IameAuhSomme 1 point2 points ago

"Oh dear", said God, "I hadn't thought of that" before promptly vanishing in a puff of logic.

[–]SDoyle 1 point2 points ago

"Oh no, not again"

[–]NNYPhillipJFry 1 point2 points ago

Not sure what this has to do with Atheism, but I am sure in about 5 minutes 23 of you will have flooded my inbox explaining it. Thanks in advance.

[–]yellowstone10 0 points1 point ago

It's an allegory for the anthropic principle. Some folks look at how well the world accommodates them and assume that some designer must have made it for them, when it's really that evolution shaped them to fit the available world.

[–]scottsiegel 3 points4 points ago

Religious people always say the world was made in accordance to us when in fact we evolved in accordance to it.

[–]greytrench 1 point2 points ago

The full quote pertains more to climate change than the "fine-tuning" argument, but I think he would've appreciated this use. (I think this in part because I don't know for certain what, exactly, he was trying to say with it.)

[–]NotlimTheGreat 0 points1 point ago

Its definitely on atheism, though its hard to tell without reading/hearing the before and after parts. If you have awhile I HIGHLY suggest reading along. Speech audio is on the left but if you can't concentrate on it reading helps: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

[–]aesu 0 points1 point ago

He's referencing how a religious outlook can blind us to our own fragility, with impending global warming, and our blissful ignorance as the key example.

[–]mitchmillertime 1 point2 points ago

Someone put a duck in that puddle!

[–]ElenaxFirebird 1 point2 points ago

Someone put a crocoduck in that puddle!

[–]aesu 0 points1 point ago

A goose.

[–]Tsury 0 points1 point ago

Anyone else hearing the glass shattering in his head?

[–]keyree 0 points1 point ago

I was thinking about this today. It's like if someone said "Look at how the Rio Grande fits perfectly in the shape of Texas! The Rio Grande must have been designed to fit the US-Mexico border!"

[–]highmynameis 0 points1 point ago

ah that's such a great quote

[–]mcfluffle 0 points1 point ago

So said the jellyfish.

[–]GodMadePigs4Bacon 0 points1 point ago

Then suddenly... bathtubs!

[–]Amryxx 0 points1 point ago

Well, if the puddle can't find any other puddles nearby, nor anything remotely resembling intelligent life even after scouring the entire.. um.. field (of puddles?), then who can fault said puddle? Maybe the world is made for the said body of water.

[–]isotretinon 0 points1 point ago

environment!

[–]Invictus_G 0 points1 point ago

You just happened to fall into it.

[–]IanMaestro 0 points1 point ago

The terminology here is interesting; cosmologists refer to the sensitivity of certain physical constants as "fine-tuning". They posit that if certain constants were different, the world would look much different. A good example is the cosmological constant; If it were slightly greater than it was now, we'd have crunched to death. Slightly less, and we would have flown apart! exactly 1, and we'd live in a static universe with nothing to worry about except heat death as opposed to spreading out forever. But we're somewhere inbetween exactly one and slightly greater than 1, and we live in this perfect universe we live in.

My point? If you read that graphic with this in mind instead of intelligent design; you would have thought, for a split second, that /r/atheism reversed it's entire position. That's the point.

TL; DR, Something about the universe. Also, [5].

[–]miscmantheman 0 points1 point ago

They posit that if certain constants were different, the world would look much different.

So, if things were different, they would be different?

[–]paisleygirl 0 points1 point ago

Ha! I found you! You needed your new username for this! Awesome quote, btw - thanks.

[–]ohreallyreallynoo 0 points1 point ago

Imagine a cup of water....

oh aren't I clever :)

[–]leif777 0 points1 point ago

yeah but what if that water is in a cup?

[–]mearvk 0 points1 point ago

And imagine if that puddle goes its whole life happy because of that knowledge.

[–]imagineapuddle 0 points1 point ago

Hello.

[–]distalled 0 points1 point ago

Adams, the one person in the world I would have died to meet, but no longer can. Imagine if Adams had been able to use twitter. There'd be a reason for everyone to use twitter.

That probably would have made twitter fail, huh.

[–]ramkahen 0 points1 point ago

Best summary of the anthropic principle I've ever heard.

Here is another one that's pretty good.

[–]panamaqj 0 points1 point ago

While I see the point this makes, and I agree that it makes sense, is logical, and definitely feasible, an analogy like this doesn't prove anything... What amazes me the most about this subreddit is it's ability to use reason, logic and intelligence to arrive at a dogmatic decision that is no less blind and ignorant than creationism.

Cue downvotes for a valid argument.

[–]BlakJasus14 0 points1 point ago

Upboat for Douglas Adams, the most brilliant, crazy drunkard to ever live.

[–]psychroclasm 0 points1 point ago

"Puddle woke up." LOGICAL FALLACY. ARGUMENT BROKEN.

[–]falkensmaze 0 points1 point ago

I find this analogy compelling for snappily doing away with two completely different theistic squabbles: the argument from design, and the fine-tuning argument. The water flows to fit the hole, in the same way evolution tailors life to its environment, which gives the appearance of design. And moreover, there would clearly be no puddle if there were no hole, and so no waking up and observing its situation... that is, if puddles could do that to begin with. The question of a being, "Why do I exist?" is as nonsensical as of a non-being asking, "Why don't I exist?"

[–]Quizpop54 0 points1 point ago

I hate philosophy.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago*

I don't entirely agree when this is used as an analogy for the entire universe

The puddle is part of a greater world, that's a fact. It isn't a fact yet that the universe is also part of a greater "Multiverse" that contains universes with other "random configurations"

It seems more accurate to use this analogy for an apparent finetuning of earths parameters since we already know that there are many other planets out there.

[–]clbrs123 4 points5 points ago

You made a pretty big jump going from puddles to multiverses. I think instead of thinking this world is perfect for us, you thought these laws of physics are perfect for us stemming from the idea that each multiverses have different laws physics.

This is how I interpreted it: The whole being our world and everything in it and the water being humans. Water take the shape of the whole, just as we evolved around the earth. We are the way we are because of the surroundings, the surrounding are not the way they are because of us, as religion might make you think.

[–]Poiven 2 points3 points ago

Not even just religion. Ever hear of anyone praising Earth for being the only planet (or only nearby planet) that can support life?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, this is also how i interpreted the quote. But the title seems to suggest to me that it applies classic "finetuning argument" of the universe. This is a very common theist argument so i thought it was worth pointing out that this might not be the best way to counter that one.

[–]clbrs123 0 points1 point ago

Oh lol. I didn't even see the title, you may have a very good point then. It's Hover Zoom's fault. Never have to click on anything. But I do think my interpretation makes the quote stronger.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

Yeah it does. Its like a desert lizard which evolved on a desert island saying to himself. "Jeez the only island there is and its made of sand, just the way i need it, there must be a lizard god out there"

[–]JOBAfunky -2 points-1 points ago

Amazing. I will now use my newly garnered authority as an Atheist minister to nominate Douglas Adams for Atheist Sainthood.

[–]nonsensepoem 1 point2 points ago

Please don't. Just... don't.

[–]shmortisborg -5 points-4 points ago

The analogy doesnt really fit. As I understand it, if some of the universal parameters were slightly tweaked, we wouldnt have any nice things, like matter or, you know, existence.

[–]aesu 1 point2 points ago

It's more in reference to the Goldilocks phenomenon, and out dismissal of global warming.

[–]studmuffffffin 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, things would be different. You're thinking about it from the wrong point of view. The numbers aren't perfect for us. We formed to fit those numbers.

[–]yellowstone10 0 points1 point ago

In which case we wouldn't be here. The hole wasn't made for the puddle; the puddle took the shape of the hole, and if there were no hole, there would be no puddle. Likewise, we have "taken the shape of" our particular universe, and if our particular universe wasn't here, neither would we be.

[–]shmortisborg 0 points1 point ago

Right, I understand that, and the paradox of only being able to debate this in universes with parameters that "work." But the analogy doesnt apply, in my opinion, because in the infinite possibilities of universe parameters the overwhelming majority of them collapse and theres no hole to even fit into.

[–]yellowstone10 0 points1 point ago

Well, yeah. That makes it even more presumptuous to assume the hole was made for you. There could just as easily have been no hole at all, but then you wouldn't be around to complain about it.

[–]Wormy_____McSquirmey -1 points0 points ago

I would not be the atheist I am today if I had not read The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy at an early age (15/16). "Sorry for all the fuck ups" is what sold me.

[–]SoThenISays -1 points0 points ago

But the hole that contains the puddle does in fact hold that particular amount of water very well. So one might argue that because of the fact that the puddle does exist at a certain time, holding that particular amount of water might in fact be one of several reasons for the hole to exist in the first place. One cannot prove nor disprove reasons for existence, be it a puddle or a human being. Maybe the puddle has a point.

[–]Hypertension123456 1 point2 points ago

It's a pot hole (see the picture). The reason it exists is because there was a defect in the pavement, which then expanded and eventually a section was removed and pulverized, leaving a hole behind. It was not created for the puddle, in any way. The puddle just happened to occur as a side effect of the pot hole. There is no rational way to reverse the cause and effect here.

[–]miscmantheman 0 points1 point ago

So one might argue that because of the fact that the puddle does exist at a certain time, holding that particular amount of water might in fact be one of several reasons for the hole to exist in the first place.

Maybe, if one happened to be mentally retarded.

[–]SoThenISays 0 points1 point ago

Does being condescending toward strangers make you feel good about yourself? I hope so, sad as it may be, so at least you're not wasting your time. I don't believe that making others who are probably not nearly as intelligent as you feel stupid is good for anyone, however.
Atheists argue that as long as we live our lives without harming one another, physically or mentally, all will be well. But you have accidentally provided evidence that atheists have no real reason to live by this code.
BTW, At least the first Redditor invalidated my ultimately irrational point while being only slightly dick-ish.

[–]miscmantheman 0 points1 point ago

Calm down man, you made a dumb point and got called out on it. That's it. Don't get your panties in a twist.

[–]deathnutz -1 points0 points ago

What? Someone had to make the hole, otherwise the puddle would just spread all over the place. This is a bad example. The hole is what makes that puddle unique. Without the hole "that" puddle could not be. Praise be the maker of the hole.

[–]aesu -2 points-1 points ago

Posting Douglas Adams quotes on reddit?

You lookin' for karma, cause you got it!

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 21246 on app-08 running 36b3b59.