this post was submitted on
779 points (61% like it)
2,030 up votes 1,251 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,114,585 readers

2,813 users here now

a community for

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 ›

all 108 comments

[–]OnlyChobo 98 points99 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Read that so many times to make sure I didn't miss subtle difference.

[–]JediApprentice 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh my god me too. I even got out a calculator for effect.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]fencerJP 24 points25 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So Polytheists can't have faith? Buddhists can't have faith? Is faith limited to your idea of God? Or is it abrahamic in nature?

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

[–]Fat-Elvis 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can't tell if trolling or actually insane...

[–]Drakonisch 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Known troll, don't feed it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

-3720 karma; pretty sure trolling...

[–]Fat-Elvis 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As an example of how blissfully ignorant I was, I didn't even notice this was /r/atheism.

-3720 is pretty impressive. Is there a record?

[–]thrillreefer -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What about the faith-based decision to believe in no God?

[–]opinionated_comment 44 points45 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't see a difference between the tw- ohhhhhhhh

[–]rathum2323 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

my sentiments exactly.

[–]Archaneus 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Anyone want to turn this into a well-designed background image? Google does not possess one, it seems.

[–]Markles 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Here you go. In the classic Reddit Quote style.

http://i.imgur.com/JfGJu.jpg

[–]abbiistabbii 25 points26 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]TheSeparateFirst 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Upvote for ponies.

[–]Joe_Kerr 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Taken from my favorite episode at that. Someone give that guy an internet.

[–]Archaneus 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I suppose I really should have expected that.

[–]ijoinedforthis 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm genuinely curious as to why you think you should have expected that.

Edit: How's this?

[–]Fat-Elvis 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Way to troll with the horrible line breaks, bro.

[–]drewbug 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I second this request.

[–]Vee_Vee 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Scumbag atheist: calls "logic," "uncanny."

[–]Cheeseducksg 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

noun : seeming to have a supernatural character or origin : eerie, mysterious

lol'd.

[–]ZeroError 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

A noun? Is it not an adjective? o.O

[–]pianobadger 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've got your 'uncanny' right here.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That's an uncanny.

[–]paolog 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe AndyTran was thinking of this.

[–]Fat-Elvis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It ain't uncanny unless it's got some crazy weather bitch with a mohawk and some dark phoenix shit going on.

[–]wayndom 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reminds me of an old Soviet joke:

Under capitalism, man exploits man.

Under communism, it's just the opposite.

[–]inikul 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

B-but he said the same thing

[–]DaPurpleCobra 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

my exact reaction

[–]BLiPstir 10 points11 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Except that faith doesn't necessitate incompatibility with evidence, so this point is moot. For example, I can have faith that the Packers will win their next football game, and it is probably going to happen. Faith only necessitates something that you cannot know 100%, not something contrary to the evidence. Downvote away!

Edit: spelling

[–]doom_blade 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can have faith that the Packers will win their next football game

This depends of on how you define faith. When I see your example, I see a hypothesis based on the fact that they so far have an undefeated season, just destroyed a team, scoring, I believe 31+ points in the first half and have one of the best offenses in the NFL. Not to mention, their next game is against the Chiefs, a 5-8 team. Therefore, your conclusion is based on fact and can then be referred to as a hypothesis. Edit: formatting

[–]Scaryclouds 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hey fuck you! The Chiefs are going to destroy the Packers! We are only lulling the Packers into a false since of confidence by showing a complete lack of competence against the Jets.

Palko is going to light some shit up against the Packers! If Clay Matthews tries to sack him, Palko is going Burt Reynolds that sorry ass Fabio wannabe.

[–]BLiPstir 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well put; I would tend to agree, but it gets very semantic. While calling it a hypothesis is definitely correct, you would hard pressed to say that it doesn't require an element of faith, as the outcome is truly unknown.

[–]Vibster 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Every outcome is truly unknown. I wouldn't say, 'I have faith in gravity to pull me towards the center of the Earth', because I can't be certain it will. I could fly off into space at any moment.

[–]Ixius 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you said, "I believe that the Packers will win, and there is no other possible outcome," I'd agree with you that you require the OP's quote's definition of faith. I'm going to guess that's not the position you'd hold, though.

Most Packers fans would probably phrase it like this: "I believe the Packers will win (because X, Y, and Z, if asked to explain), but it is possible they may not." We enter the realm of probability with some real factors, which (and I agree with doom_blade) makes your statement one of hypotheticals rather than a faith-based claim. When a statement is testable, it no longer relies solely on "faith".

[–]Ixius 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The difference is that you could argue that your faith in the upcoming success of the Packers is reasonably held: you could show how well they've been performing or training, for example, or point out that their opponents' star player has been put out of action. You still have no real way to know the outcome of the game, but you can use some form of reason or evidence to indicate your faith in them isn't irrational.

I guess the problem we run into is that nobody seems to be able to agree on the definition of "faith" - this quote addresses faith held by the religious in their religion, which by and large seems to make it accurate. We have no examples of genuine evidence or reason that they may be able to present to show that their faith is "reasonable faith", as you can for your faith in the Packers.

[–]Fat-Elvis 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, this was clearly about capital-F Faith.

[–]churmpy 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that example of faith is just weighted probabilities. something likely to happen based on past experience and only a finite number of outcomes that are clearly defined beforehand. there is no "unknowns" in that model. rubbish example.

most faiths have some nonsense in them that are contradictory to evidence. so yes it does necessitate it.

[–]kagayaki 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who seriously says "I have faith that x team is going to win the game" though?

You may say you hope X team wins (even this is not faith the same way religion requires faith), but normally the only time I hear someone say "I think/have faith that X is going to win" is because during the season they've had a better record than the team they're facing. This is different from having faith in a god which has no evidence beyond personal experience and anecdotal evidence, you have verifiable history to base your prediction on whether or not the team you're rooting for is going to win. Heck, even science works the same way -- theories predict what will happen even though no theory has true 100% accurate predictability.

Even if you do not know whether or not X is going to happen, you're still saying X is going to happen based on previous evidence. Not that different from saying that "based on finger prints on the weapon and blood under the defendant's finger nails that matches the victim's." We can't say for sure whether or not the defendant is guilty, but I imagine based on that evidence, most juries would convict the defendant.

tldr; saying you have faith in a deity has much different connotations than saying you have faith in anything else.

[–]capgras_delusion 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Completely right. Faith would be the belief that the Packers will win next week before the game happens. Insanity would be the belief the Colts have won all their games this year, despite watching ESPN, looking at the newspaper, and watching the games (actually, that might just be denial, 0-13 is pretty miserable).

[–]Keisaku 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sorry, I couldn't here you over the sanctimonious bullshit.

If you truly had faith you'd believe the Colts are going to win the Superbowl- Put all your money/house/car/wife into that bet and resign yourself to a monastery for the rest of your life regardless if they won or not. The thing is you used logic as the basis of your argument- Why else would you pick the Packers to begin your faithful trek?

Anyone can have faith in a white surfer dude with a beard and a robe- Try having faith in something unpopular.

That's faith- because in the end your faith stands and you live your life still betting on that team.

How did Jesus get so fucking white anyways?

[–]foot-long 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nythology.

[–]RedVillian 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I read it as πythology. For anyone with a font that looks as bad as mine "π" is supposed to be Pi

[–]GMLW 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Hey... wait a minute...

...

...

...

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

[–]monkyjojo234[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I would like to point out, for all of you that have asked about why it isn't "inside the lines", that it's not on paper. That is a wall.

[–]allensmoker 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

so was it the faith that made him not stay inside the margin of the paper?

[–]unicornsoccur 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, that appears to be a minor side effect of getting an art degree

[–]Archaneus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm fairly sure that's a wall with a crack in it, not paper.

[–]ronbreddit 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Complete with a perfectly cited source!

Bravo my friend.

[–]monkyjojo234[S] 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I paid well attention in english

[–]holy_holy_holy 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Great quote

[–]ceeeh 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

faith isn't necessarily 'incompatible with the evidence' given different perspectives on what is evident.

[–]kagayaki 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Probably would have been better to use "regardless of the evidence" instead of "incompatible with."

But it's saying that most sane people or people who don't have faith would abandon a belief if it was incompatible with reality, whereas insane/faithful people hold onto a belief regardless of the evidence.

[–]Atheistus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

TL:DR.

[–]jeblis 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Anyone else bothered by the poor line breaks of the writer?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

THOSE TWO ARE THE SAME DAMN THING!

[–]rahtin 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think that defintion also works for stupidity.

"All these people are smiling being nice to me, and they're all telling me that giving my money to the church is a good idea, so that must be the right decision to make!"

[–]ChangeTheBuket 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

...that is incompatible with evidence...

Not necessarily, no.

[–]Fat-Elvis 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Weird choice of word "ability."

I'd rewrite it as "the practice of" both times, because it's a choice, people.

[–]dc_bryan 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that my phriends is a conundrum. bum bum bum

[–]keeblur 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is that Mythology, because that M sure looks like an N.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you could have just typed it out if you thought it was important

[–]GhostGoku 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

May the great vengeful flying lizard who hath created all man punish you for your mockery of his faithful. If believing in a flying lizard that created man in 4 days 200 years ago is insanity then how do you explain all the good deeds in the world?? Something to think about....

[–]MrAbobu 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What happened to all of the cans?

[–]Odusei[!] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So what would you call the ability to hold firmly to a conclusion despite there being no evidence either way, or only inconclusive evidence? The belief in intelligent life on other planets, for example.

[–]RedVillian 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The real mystery of this image is what that weird brown is overlaying the white board (maybe wall?) and picture taped below the quote...

At first I thought the text was poorly shopped to look like it was on a white board, but now I'm just confused...

[–]platypusmusic 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The difference is insanity holds firmly to a conclusion that is imcompatible with the society.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i wish my handwriting looked like that, goddammiii...SCIENCE DAMMITTT

[–]cyrusmandrake 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I love it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

everyone has faith. in the end, we know nothing, and all knowledge is technically "insanity."

[–]stackered 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nah this is wrong... (religious) faith is a belief in a supreme being but I disagree with this definition of insanity. I have goals/aspirations in my life that may seem impossible when analyzing the evidence but with IMAGINATION (Spongebob voice) I make it a reality and keep myself driven.

[–]cypocryphy 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ctrl c/ Crtl v, has been thwarted, now i must type... damn.

[–]whiteknight521 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Everyone has the ability to believe something contrary to evidence, I think it should read "faith is the act..."

[–]Fascinatingnewthing 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was like "aha makes sense" ... 30 seconds later "wait a second!". ~Reads it again~ "I see what you did there."

[–]CharityTroll -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, insanity is denying God and sending yourself on a one way trip to hell.

[–]RedVillian 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I really hoped that link was to lemonparty

[–]wayndom -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Reminds me of an old joke from the Soviet Union:

Under capitalism, man exploits his fellow man.

Under communism, it's just the opposite.

[–]idma -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

fuck you christians

[–]BLiPstir 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

u mad bro?

[–]CharityTroll -4 points-3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, insanity is denying God and sending yourself on a one way trip to hell.

[–]giddyup21 -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh I see what you did here

[–]vanillaafro -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

without knowing how crazy or how much they believe in God...Who would you rather have watch your kids, a crazy atheist person or someone that believes in God?