Quotes / Confirmation Bias

clappy humor: A style of humor in which actual humor content is irrelevant. Instead, the comedian makes cutting, witty remarks about a person, idea or movement to which both he and his audience are largely opposed, and the audience does not actually laugh, but instead applauds his wit. Clappy humor is only there to make a political point and to be clapped at; it is not supposed to be "funny" or joke-based, as mere jokes and laughter would be considered frivolous by both comedian and audience.

Whoever peruses this essay should know that it states only Runeberg's conclusions, not his dialectic or his proof. Someone may observe that no doubt the conclusion preceded the "proofs". For who gives himself up to looking for proofs of something he does not believe in or the predication of which he does not care about?
Jorge Luis Borges, Three Versions of Judas

There seems to be a ton of athiests commenting here... I could be wrong, that's just what it looks like. I'm pretty sure, though, that no matter what either side has to say, their argument is just going to make those who agree with them happy, and nothing else. Nobody is going to be convinced there is or isn't a God in the comments section.
Kaelbu on this Cracked photomanipulation

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
Sherlock Holmes, "A Scandal in Bohemia"

If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

"We read a news article that supports what we believe, and we add it to the 'I'm right about this' column. News articles that contradict what we believe are dismissed. We make up a reason -- maybe the source is part of the conspiracy from the other side or whatever it takes to make sure the 'I'm wrong about this' column remains empty.

"Researchers have done experiments where they hooked up people's brains to scanners and then made them read a story pointing out something stupid their favorite candidate said. The logical parts of the brain stayed quiet, while the emotional parts of the brain lit up. Their brains were weighing the story, not based on what it logically meant for their position, but on the emotional/social consequences of that position being wrong.

Then, once the brain had decided that this news story being right would mean pain and humiliation for the reader, it told the logical part, 'Figure out a way to use your "logic" stuff to make this pain go away.' The next day, you probably heard those test subjects at the coffee shop going on and on about how biased the press is against their guy."